As expected the House of Representatives has passed the USMCA trade agreement with an overwhelming 385 to 41 vote.  Pelosi’s political objective was to use USMCA to water down the toxic political environment created by her impeachment fiasco:

Also as expected, after passing the USMCA the House went into immediate recess for the Christmas holiday without any movement on the fraudulent impeachment articles.
In the time-frame between today and the return to the next congressional session in January, House lawyers will attempt to use the passage of the articles to support their background court cases: (1) McGahn forced deposition; (2) access to Mueller 6(e) grand jury information; and (3) possible access to Trump family financial records.
[PREDICTION for bookmark: Upon return in January Speaker Pelosi will refuse to allow impeached President Trump to deliver a State of the Union address in the House.]
(more…)

After the House of Representatives passed two partisan articles of impeachment, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rises to deliver a speech from the upper chamber of congress.

Last night, House Democrats passed the thinnest, weakest presidential impeachment in American history. Now they’re suggesting they are too afraid to even submit their accusations to the Senate and go to trial. The prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country.  ~ Mitch McConnell

.
[Transcript] – Last night House Democrats finally did what they decided to do long ago: They voted to impeach President Trump.
‘Over the last 12 weeks, House Democrats have conducted the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.
(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…)

Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the ‘rules of impeachment’ they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.
Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.
A cunning Lawfare ploy.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place.  By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.  The absence of judicial authority is now working its way through the courts in various cases.
It appears the absence of appointing House impeachment managers; and the decision to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate; is now a specific design.
As the process appears to be unfolding, the Lawfare contracted lawyers representing the House: chief legal counsel Douglas Letter, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Daniel Goldman will now argue before the courts that all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for a pending judicial proceeding, a trial in the Senate.
(more…)

On the cusp of an impeachment vote in the House, Senate Judiciary Chairman states today: “I’m going to tell the president, ‘no,’ to his witnesses request” when the articles of impeachment reach the Senate.
Senator Graham wants a quick presentation of the articles of impeachment by the House managers; a quick defense against the charges by President Trump’s lawyers; and then an immediate vote on the articles without hearing from witnesses.

WASHINGTON –  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said he will not support calling any witnesses in the upcoming impeachment trial against President Trump, including witnesses Trump wants to summon.
“I’m going to tell the president, ‘no,’ to his witnesses request because I think what is best for the country is to get this behind us as soon as possible,” Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Wednesday.

(more…)

Senator James Lankford (R-OK) had an important round of questions for inspector general Michael Horowitz today.  Lankford notes the consequences to the FISA process writ large, and the FISA court specifically, as an outcome of the intentional abuses by FBI and DOJ officials.
Senator Lankford also draws attention to some very specific parts of the IG report surrounding the 2016 involvement of the State Department and the activity of Bruce Ohr.
Additionally, Senator Lankford focuses on page #188 where activity of Christopher Steele after the election is outlined; this is very important.  If Chris Steele wrote the dossier based on information from his Russian “sub-source”, then why is Christopher Steele trying to get that same sub-source to validate his dossier *after* the election when it has already been used by the DOJ/FBI to gain a FISA warrant?

(more…)

During a stunning interview last Sunday Devin Nunes called for the FISA court to be deconstructed.  In my opinion it was that statement, not the IG report, that spurred FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to make a public order today.
Today, hours after Judge Collyer released her order, Devin Nunes responded to the review of the FISC by stating, accurately, Judge Collyer doth protest too much.
In this interview Devin Nunes outlines his February 2018 notification to the FISC about the specific fraud upon the court; and as a result of that (and a follow-up) notification, Nunes again takes the FISC to task for saying they were not aware.  Collyer was aware because Nunes told her.
Accepting the totality of the FISC obfuscation, HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes again calls for the dismantling of the FISA court process. WATCH:

.
Despite the media ignoring the scale of Nunes prior statements, this is not some just some arbitrary representatives’ opinion.  Nunes was Chairman of the HPSCI when he informed the court of the abuse; and he is currently the ranking member of the same committee.
It is not a signal flare from the ranking member of the HPSCI to call for a structural removal of FISC authority.  This is a nuclear blast from the primary person who previously guided the FISA re-authorization that permits the court’s existence.
(more…)

To fully understand today’s response order (pdf here) from FISA Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to the DOJ/FBI, a little background context is needed.
As we noted, last weekend HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes dropped the gloves and essentially stated the DOJ/FBI were conspiring against U.S. citizens with the wilful participation of the FISA court.  This was a stunning, albeit unreported, development.
Nunes change in posture is important because he outlined that without severe corrective action the FISC should be dismantled.  Additionally, on the specific issues of fraudulent applications to the FISC, in February  2018 Devin Nunes and former Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte had prior communication to Judge Collyer with warnings.  Very strongly worded warnings and concerns.  So there’s a history on this exact issue.
In their prior communication Judge Collyer, representing the judicial branch, downplayed the warning of the legislative branch, and told Nunes and Goodlatte to work it out with the executive branch.   The developments over the FISA fraud now stand against that context.
Today, Judge Rosemary Collyer responds to the DOJ and FBI about the inspector general investigation and subsequent findings. [pdf here – and full embed below] Having read her writings, and understanding that everything FISC is classified, it is possible to see between the lines she writes.
Collyer outlines in her order how the DOJ-NSD and FBI reported issues to the FISC in October and November prior to the IG report release.  Essentially, Collyer implies the DOJ informed the court that additional FISA applications should now be considered unreliable as a result of the FBI Office of General Counsel compromise (Kevin Clinesmith):
(more…)

Decide for yourself why this was needed.  On the eve of Trump’s impeachment the Trusty Planners join with the Tick Tockers on Fox News.  We know Bill Barr will appear on Fox tomorrow to justify his lack of action.   CTH has a pretty good grasp of what’s going on.  Millions of battered conservatives still don’t see it.  Codependent no more.
At a key point in the interview Ms. Bartiromo says:

…”the lies are real, people will be prosecuted, and you are looking at crimes; not only against Carter Page, but against a sitting president”…

.
How incredibly tragic is it with all the documents and communications that Barr & Durham can see today, that they have not taken action BEFORE the House can brand President Trump with the words “Impeached President” for the rest of eternity.
Amid all the shameful conduct from Washington DC over decades, the purposeful inaction by a lying U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr will forever cement his place in history.
(more…)

Regardless of whether you would support or not support the vigorous defense of Michael Flynn, I would hope we would all agree a fulsome discovery of all relevant background material is a cornerstone of justice appropriately applied.
With that in mind it is concerning how Attorney General Bill Barr would prefer to keep DOJ conduct against Flynn hidden from public review.  Consider…
♦Would it be valuable for Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan to know the FBI was discussing how to “lock in” charges against [Flynn] in a “formal chargeable way”?

(text message link)

♦Would it be valuable for Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan to consider how Special Counsel Robert Mueller requested DAG Rod Rosenstein to provide leverage against [Mike Flynn Jr] to coerce a plea against Michael Flynn in the second scope memo?
(more…)