The act that President Trump signed today is a law that requires the U.S. to review all of the democracy issues within Hong Kong to assess whether any Chinese violations to Hong Kong autonomy are happening.  If so, the U.S. can take remedial steps to punish China.

The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would require the State Department annually re-certify Hong Kong’s autonomous nature, in order for the so-called “special treatment” the U.S. affords Hong Kong to continue. (more)

Keep in mind a dual purpose to this latest move:  Hong Kong holds a special trade status with the U.S. and is exempt from tariffs placed on China.  Part of the punitive action President Trump could take against China involves tariffs against Hong Kong.

Today, I have signed into law S. 1838, the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019” (the “Act”). The Act reaffirms and amends the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, specifies United States policy towards Hong Kong, and directs assessment of the political developments in Hong Kong.
Certain provisions of the Act would interfere with the exercise of the President’s constitutional authority to state the foreign policy of the United States. My Administration will treat each of the provisions of the Act consistently with the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations.
~  President Donald J Trump

Again, back to the big picture, is this an action that would indicate President Trump is actually looking for a U.S-China trade agreement?   Of course not.  So why now, what changed?…  The USMCA!   It’s all connected folks.

Following the IG report draft review by the principals within the DOJ/FBI small group under investigation more leaks are submitted to the New York Times in an effort to get out ahead of the scheduled publication of the final report on December 9th.

One note before content review:  The highly structured obfuscation within how these leaks are being released, in combination with the lawyers representing the principals, explains why there was such a lengthy delay after the principal review phase.
Each principal can provide feedback for inclusion in the report; however, all feedback added to the report generates an IG rebuttal.  Keep this in mind because these leaks are the “feedback” and the leakers have no idea what the IG “rebuttal” will be.  The more the principals’ obfuscate and justify conduct to the IG in their feedback, the stronger the rebuttal to that feedback will be in the final report.
The New York Times latest narrative effort is intentionally obtuse with the word “spy”:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

(more…)

Well, well, well….  FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo announced this morning that her sources are saying a USMCA vote is possible next week.   This DC source reporting would align with our CTH spidey senses from the visible DC trade twitches.

(more…)

A curiously interesting development in the DOJ case against Michael Flynn.  Judge Emmet Sullivan is weighing the merits of the Flynn defense Motion to Compel (MTC), which requests a significant amount of information on DOJ/FBI conduct in the lead-up to Flynn’s prosecution. A decision and court briefing was anticipated soon.
However, today the DOJ files a joint motion with the defense asking Judge Sullivan to suspend scheduled briefing dates and sentencing deadlines until after the DOJ inspector general report is published on December 9th.   The implication is that some of the “Brady” material at issue; or tangential issues that touch upon the material; may be outlined in the upcoming IG report.

The joint motion asks for a delay to the briefing schedules, and a delay in the subsequent sentencing therein.  The full motion is below:
(more…)

House Judiciary Committee (HJC) Chairman Jerry Nadler, together with Lawfare contracted impeachment agents Barry Berke and Norm Eisen (pictured below), are attempting to reframe a collapsing impeachment and pull-in White House participation.
Chairman Nadler has announced a December 4th hearing with a panel of democrat selected constitutional lawyers and legal ‘experts’, to discuss the procedural framework of an impeachment process. As Nadler states: “Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct”. So the HJC initial objective to build their narrative is to explain what the impeachment process is about.
This is transparently an attempt by Nadler/Lawfare to give legitimacy to an illegitimate political exercise. The hearing purpose is framed as a trap to pull the White House in, and thereby create the optics of constitutional legitimacy.  Strong caution is advised and I would not be surprised to see the White House refuse to participate.  Here’s why:
With the House investigative portion of resolution 660 complete, per Adam Schiff and a yet invisible report from the HPSCI committee submitted, either the House Judiciary should follow their own process or not.  The White House and the minority have not even seen the one-sided report mandated by the House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.
My advice to the White House would be to respond to Nadler’s letter by informing him the House “Impeachment Report” authorized by resolution 660 has not yet been delivered; therefore, without a basis for the HJC to consider the validity of the first phase, it would be presumptuous to engage in a second phase framework exercise without the origination material described by the House Democrats’ own procedure.
The HJC is putting the proverbial illegitimate cart before the invisible horse.  Hammer them with this ! How can the HJC construct a hearing on the framework of impeachment without the results from the impeachment inquiry report?
(more…)

Previously Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann attempted to prosecute President Trump, the fictitious horse-thief, for attempting to obstruct his hanging; now Adam Schiff is inferring guilt because President Trump didn’t present alibis for his whereabouts when the fictitious horse wasn’t stolen.
Earlier today President Trump responded:

An interesting use of the word “wolves” considering the recent attempts by the DC Coup-group to metastasize the impeachment effort into the military. Subtle like a brick through a window.

Former Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill appears on Fox News to discuss the political corruption in amid the Flag officers within the military.   WATCH:

.
O’Neill rightly points out how DC bureaucrats are confusing the purpose of warfighters and President Trump is focused on the common sense approach. Former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer embarrassed himself by violating the chain-of-command and then criticizing President Trump over a lack of “order and discipline” within that same command structure. Ridiculous.

(more…)

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling maintaining the block against House Democrats receiving President Trump’s tax returns.  The one paragraph order [pdf here] essentially maintains the stay and requests the Trump administration to file a formal request for review by the court, a “writ of certiorari”, by December 5th (noon).

It seems likely, almost certain, the House Democrat leadership was expecting this outcome; hence their earlier request for the Supreme Court to delay this predictable ruling for ten days.
The administration will almost certainly file the formal request for review by the court; and if the request is granted (very likely considering the wording of the order), the Supreme Court will hear the arguments in the spring of 2020 with a ruling sometime around June 2020 to settle the issue once and for all.
The underlying House case has several defects.
(more…)

If you have liberal family members around for this weeks Thanksgiving feast and celebration it would be wise to understand the scale of their disappointment, even if they have yet to recognize it.  Perhaps the best course will be just smiling.

…”I want to discuss this with my constituents and colleagues before I make a final judgment on this,” Schiff said.

Amid diminishing public support for the impeachment fiasco; and with more Americans starting to realize the past two months were an abject lesson in political narrative building and legislative manipulation; HPSCI impeachment committee chairman Adam Schiff transmits a letter today to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler.
If Schiff were in the MMA venue this letter, describing the HPSCI report to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC), would be a double tap to the mat:

Well, there’s a slightly less than strong impeachment position: Impeachment by “inference”.. he says.  Previously Mueller and Weissmann attempted to prosecute President Trump, the fictitious horse-thief, for attempting to obstruct his hanging; now Schiff is inferring guilt because President Trump didn’t present alibis for his whereabouts when the fictitious horse wasn’t stolen…. Yup, it’s looking like a fail.
(more…)

This decision (full pdf below) was easily predicted for the past several weeks.  The HJC -vs- White House case for McGahn testimony will be appealed and join the HJC -vs- White House case surrounding grand jury information in the DC appellate court.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson [pictured right] said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House impeachment authorization vote to try and overcome the current obstacles they are facing.  The authority for the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the main issue; but there are other structural/legal issues that also exist.
(more…)