It’s not just what was being said, and how it was being said, but it’s also the chyron to accompany the statements that stands out in this brief panel segment about the goals and objectives of the House impeachment agenda.
Notice “lawyers for House dems suggest”, which is the framework for the broadcast.  This is a key point; an absolutely vital point; that we have discussed here at great length but almost no-one is correctly considering.   The Lawfare crowd is controlling the political activity, not the moonbat politicians.  WATCH:

.
There is a legal network behind all of the political activity; the same network which was behind the weaponization of the DOJ and DOJ-NSD.  The same “beach friend” network of corrupt lawyers who initiated and controlled the Mueller investigation.  The same legal network who designed and are carrying out the operational objectives of the various House impeachment committees.  In totality, this is one big legal continuum of corrupt lawyers.
Names like Douglas Letter, Chief House Counsel.  Committee legal contractors like: Barry Berke, Norm Eisen, Daniel Goldman and even former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord are all in this background “House lawyers” network.
(more…)

Oral arguments in the DC Court of Appeals for the House Judiciary Committee to obtain Mueller’s grand jury information, are scheduled for January 3rd, 2020.  The HJC is leveraging the Senate impeachment trial in their arguments to gain access to the Mueller material. This approach is by design.
With that in mind it seems likely any House impeachment articles will not be delivered to the Senate until after the DC court arguments, and likely not before the ruling:

[HJC -vs- DOJ full brief link here]

In addition to the Mueller evidence, the HJC is seeking judicial enforcement authority to force the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn.  Both HJC appeals court arguments are using the Senate trial to bolster their case.
The rushed House articles were/are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.
(more…)

Logical thought is antithetical to the interests of the coup-plotters.  Nuance and obfuscation are their shields; that’s why they, writ large, will not release the classified documents. A common sense American Thinker article cuts through the chaff and countermeasures for many interests:
[…] The implications of intercepting the communications of a U.S. citizen who is associated with the political campaign of a candidate seeking the presidency rings nearly every “bell” in the FBIs and Attorney General’s Guidelines for sensitive investigations. As discussed in the IG report, by regulation, these cases cannot be initiated without the written approval of the Director and the Attorney General. 

In addition to the approval obviously granted by the Director and AG, the IGs report identified the following additional high level officials who reviewed and approved the Page FISA affidavit:  “NSD’s Acting Assistant Attorney General, NSD’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight over 01, 01’s Operations Section Chief and Deputy Section Chief, the DAG, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Deputy Attorney General responsible for ODAG’s national security portfolio.”
The suggestion that somehow, seventeen significant errors, omissions of fact, falsehoods, or deliberate misrepresentations made their way into a FISA affidavit/s (accidentally, at the hand of an anonymous case agent) and then were not immediately noted and corrected throughout the course of this exceptional review process is simply not believable. ~ Continue Reading

Holy cow, what an abject lesson in media-created nuttery this is.  Eric Wemple writes a column in the Washington Post skewering Rachel Maddow for selling her gullible audience on the credibility of the Steele Dossier for almost three years.  However, judging by the reaction to Wemple’s tweet, the left-wingnuts still believe the Dossier is viable and accurate despite the only source, Steele’s primary sub-source, saying the Dossier material was completely bunk; “mostly innuendo”, “bar-talk”, and “internet rumor/gossip”.
Then there’s this:

There’s a cognitive pathology that clings to denial as a survival mechanism at this level.  It’s called cognitive dissonance, or what David Mamet referred to as an inherent need for the collective left to pretend not to know things in order to retain their views.
Let there be no doubt the U.S. media created this.  It might seem odd in hindsight, but CTH wrote about where we would be today, two years ago.
(more…)

CTH was always curious why one specific member of the Trump campaign and transition team was abruptly departed (Nov 15, 2016) immediately after the visit by NSA Director Mike Rogers was scheduled, and two-days prior to their meeting.  It’s a weedy question, likely only considered by those who were watching closely at the time…
However, perhaps Inspector General Michael Horowitz has provided some background on the move. [Page 336, 337, fn #474]

Based on the arc of the post-election timeline described in the segment of the report that touches upon “non-tasked” Confidential Human Sources (CHSs), beginning page 336; and based on other information in/around the specific CHS described; there’s a very strong likelihood we can identify this one.
(more…)

Joe diGenova radio interview discussing his perspective on revelations that former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers has been working with U.S. Attorney John Durham:

.
BACKGROUND – With research files on the ’15, ’16 and ’17 political surveillance program; including information from the Mueller report and information from the IG Horowitz report; in combination with the Obama-era DOJ “secret research project” (their words, not mine); we are able to overlay the Obama-era domestic IC operations and gain a full understanding of how political surveillance was conducted over a period of approximately four to six years.
Working with a timeline, but also referencing origination material in 2015/2016 – CTH hopes to show how the program(s) interacted and operated. A full review explains an evolution from The IRS Files in 2010 to the FISA Files in 2016.
(more…)

The New York Times has a curious article posited today surrounding U.S. Attorney John Durham who is doing the deep investigation into DOJ, FBI, CIA and intelligence community political espionage in the 2016 election and early Trump presidency.
CTH readers are very familiar with the granular details of what’s commonly referred to as “spygate”; the unofficial weaponization of the intelligence apparatus against candidate Donald Trump, president-elect Trump, and later President Trump.
The Times posts their article about Durham’s investigation against the backdrop of the completed inspector general report on DOJ/FBI misconduct in their FISA exploits.
While the majority of the narrative engineering is oddly irrelevant; and it doesn’t take a long review to notice the Times scribes have a motive to frame Durham’s eventual outcome as adverse to their own political interests; there is one particular paragraph that seems exceptionally curious:

[…] The inspector general’s report makes no substantive reference to Mr. Durham’s investigation. But before the report’s release, Mr. Durham got into a sharp dispute with Mr. Horowitz’s team over a footnote in a draft of the report that seemed to imply that Mr. Durham agreed with all of Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions, which he did not, according to people familiar with the matter. The footnote did not appear in the final version of the report. (link)

(more…)

This is just a short article on a singular footnote within the Mueller Report that looks completely different in hindsight.
Kevin Clinesmith was the lead FBI lawyer during the counterintelligence operation called Crossfire Hurricane; origination date July 31st 2016.  When Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel (May ’17) he took over the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, adding additional DOJ lawyers to staff but retaining the FBI team which included Peter Strzok and Kevin Clinesmith.
When Kevin Clinesmith manipulated the CIA email to gain the third renewal for the Carter Page FISA (June 29, 2017) he was working on behalf of the Mueller investigation.
Clinesmith was removed from the special counsel team in February 2018 after his biased texts were identified by the inspector general.  Clinesmith resigned in/around September 2019 “after the inspector general’s team interviewed him.” (link)  Not coincidentally that Sept ’19 exit timeline aligns with the first notification to FISC Judge Coller.  (link)
Obviously, special counsel Robert Mueller would know the issues regarding Clinesmith prior to removing him in February 2018; and well in advance of his report published in March 2019.
Now… take a look at footnote #1, of page 13 from Muellers report:
(more…)

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News after a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office.   Senator Graham states President Trump is “mad as hell” and “demanding his day in court” in the Senate.

(more…)

It does not seem accidental the hastily defined two articles of impeachment mirror the  arguments needed in two lower court cases brought by the House Judiciary Committee.

[Go DEEP HERE]

It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.
Because the full House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.  The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas.
The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority. Additionally downstream consequences from that original flaw have surfaced in cases working through courts.
There is an argument to be made the rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.
(more…)