This makes sense on many levels.  As a member of the Obama National Security Council, the CIA “whistle-blower” would have held a working relationship with Vice-President Biden who was given the primary authority to oversee Ukraine effort within the Obama administration.

(Via Washington Examiner)  The 2020 Democratic candidate with whom the CIA whistleblower had a “professional” tie is Joe Biden, according to intelligence officers and former White House officials.
Lawyers for the whistleblower said he had worked only “in the executive branch.” The Washington Examiner has established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the National Security Council at the White House and has since left. On Sept. 26, the New York Times reported that he was a CIA officer. On Oct. 4, the newspaper added that he “was detailed to the National Security Council at one point.”

(more…)

The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.
There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.
It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight.  However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8.  The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose. 
There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.
(more…)

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the media pushing her narrative the impeachment effort would have already failed.    In this interview Judiciary committee ranking member Doug Collins states the un-American inquiry is likely to backfire.

(more…)

Earlier today President Trump held a White House event to sign an executive order on Transparency in Federal Guidance and Enforcement. [Details Here and Here]
In addition, President Trump took numerous questions from the media during a lengthy press conference [Video and Transcript below].

.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. I’ll start by saying I just spoke with Boris Johnson, and we had a good talk about a number of subjects, and we’ll maybe talk about it a little bit later. But we had an extended conversation and some pretty good ideas, I think. They want to see if we can do a couple of things, and they’ll be doing certain things for us.
(more…)

The initial reports came last night indicating that former South Carolina republican congressman Trey Gowdy has joined President Trump’s legal team. Reporting today confirms that Trey Gowdy is no longer a Fox News contributor.
Specifically it appears Mr. Gowdy has joined the team as a proactive measure before a House impeachment vote which then leads to a trial in the Senate.
Given Gowdy’s specific legal skillset, and considering he is well known amid Senate chambers, I would surmise Gowdy would be the primary defense orator during a senate trial.
In that regard this is a good pick.
We do not yet know who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will select to be the House “Impeachment Managers”, for all intents and purposes the House impeachment prosecutors.  However, given recent court positioning it seems possible Lawfare member Douglas Letter -current House counsel- will be one of the two impeachment managers.
Mr. Gowdy has a rather mixed past in the political sphere. Heck, to be direct, his history of purple ties and political fence-positioning has been more than a little annoying. However, the 55-year-old former prosecutor is a strong litigator known for skilled oration and quick thinking in verbal arguments.
A smart chap with a disarming southern drawl is an asset in court. Considering the public spectacle of a Senate trial, this strength outweighs his prior shortcomings.
(more…)

Against new information that U.S. Attorney John Durham has lengthened the time-frame for this investigative inquiry into the DOJ and FBI activity around the 2016 election, earlier today Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo revealed (and President Trump tweeted) the FISA report by Michael Horowitz will be released on Friday October 18th.
If that time-frame for the IG report is accurate, that means the classification review has been completed; any remaining classified information not specifically authorized in the inspector general report, a decision granted to AG Bill Barr, would be placed in a classified appendix that is not available to the public.

A publication date in/around October 18th would also mean the time allotted for principal review has expired.  Generally the people whose conduct is under review are granted a preview of the report that covers their activity.  The IG may or may not include any response from the principals outlined.  If the IG permits inclusion of a principal response, the IG usually outlines additional information to rebut or support the principal position.
A final draft is assembled only after the OIG administrative referencer makes a final review of all statements of fact and provides citations therein.  Then things get a little troublesome…
If Bartiromo is accurate as to the size of the IG report; this is where the ‘summary of IG findings‘ becomes critical.  Generally speaking the IG writes the full body of the report, but may not author the ‘executive summary’.  The executive summary can be written by administrative state career officials and their priority is institutional preservation.  If they are motivated to shape public opinion of the report content, the executive summary may be written to dilute institutional damage outlined within the main body of the report.
(more…)

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan appears on Fox News this morning to discuss the current democrat plan to impeach President Trump via an anonymous complaint.   It seems ridiculous the democrats would advance such a proposition, yet here we are.

(more…)

Journalist John Solomon appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity last night to drop a considerably important revelation. According to Solomon’s reporting the White House has open-sourced evidence that Ukraine re-opened their investigation into Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden in February 2019; several months before President Trump spoke to President Zelenskyy.

(more…)

One aspect heavily monitored by CTH surrounds frequent redactions to ongoing DOJ releases that touch upon former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. An additionally annoying thorn would be the continued holding-back of Rosenstein’s expanded scope memos authorizing the expansion of Mueller’s special investigation. [They remain hidden]
The reason Rosenstein’s behavior remains a high-priority is simply because without his ongoing participation and authorization in 2017 and 2018 the Weissmann/Mueller probe would not have been able to continue.
Rosenstein is a central character to all events, and at the end of the Mueller investigation -through today- the DOJ continued to black out any information that evidenced Rosenstein’s duplicitous activity.
As a result, CTH has viewed the transparent DOJ redactions as a purposeful effort to protect Rosenstein.  However, recent activity and media reports outline the possibility of another motive.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence of Rosenstein’s activities has been withheld because Rosenstein is a subject of the Durham investigation.  First watch this:

.
Setting aside the common mistake in part of that report by John Roberts, the fact that Durham is looking into the Mueller phase of the coup (early 2017); in combination with White House officials now sharing documents surrounding the Mueller-Rosenstein White House visit; and accepting the ongoing redactions by the DOJ on material that touches Rosenstein; there is a moderate possibility Rosenstein is now a Durham target.
(more…)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies can change House rules (they did). Pelosi and Lawfare can also change House impeachment rules (they did). Pelosi/Lawfare can change committee rules (they did); and in doing so they can remove House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did.  However, what Lawfare and Pelosi cannot change is The U.S. Constitution, which they are desperate to confront.
Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ cannot supersede the constitutional separation of powers.
Nancy Pelosi cannot decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

~ Speaker Pelosi and House Attorney Douglas Letter ~

All of that said, there is a distinct difference between a congressional subpoena intended to compel generic testimony, and a congressional subpoena intended to compel impeachment testimony.
Attempting to compel testimony that crosses through the separation of powers; and goes even further in an attempt to penetrate the firewall around executive privilege; requires the House -or a committee therein- to carry “Judicial Authority“.
“Judicial Authority” is not absolute authority, but rather a legal reference and framework that forms the basis for an impeachment ‘compulsion demand‘ (or subpoena) by the House.  Judicial Authority is the House saying they have a legal basis to make a demand.
The reason judicial authority is necessary, is because creating Judicial authority, via the Legislative Branch full chamber vote, gives the Executive Branch access to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).
(more…)