In the past several days; and in anticipation of an inspector general report/release tasked to look into the FISA processes of the prior administration; I have been assembling a file, a series of reminder questions, that peer into the heart of the 2015/2016 FISA surveillance.  Today, is another reminder…  [*ahem* Sidney Powell, please note]

Left to right: Kathryn H. Ruemmler, President Obama, Lisa Monaco and Susan Rice.

Knowing what we know now, consider this long forgotten letter from Susan Rice’s lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler.  Ms. Ruemmler is currently the global co-chairman of the Latham & Watkins white collar criminal defense practice; she formerly served as White House Counsel to President Obama.  Ask yourself: how do these paragraphs reconcile?

[Feb 23, 2018] The memorandum to file drafted by Ambassador Rice memorialized an important national security discussion between President Obama and the FBI Director and the Deputy Attorney General. President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
[…] While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent public testimony.
Ambassador Rice was not informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation, and she only learned of them from press reports after leaving office. (link)

How could Ms. Rice be aware of a “national security compromise”, “particularly surrounding Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn” after a “briefing by the FBI”, if she was not briefed on the existence of an FBI investigation”?
See the problem?
(more…)

During his short-lived media appearances former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne claims he had spoken to the DOJ April 5th, 2019, and again April 30th, 2019. Mr. Byrne stated he told the DOJ all of the information he was aware of during those two interviews covering approximately seven hours of questioning from officials in the Department of Justice.

During interviews Mr. Byrne highlighted the May 13th DOJ appointment of John Durham to look into the origination of the Russia investigation events. Byrne surmised this was likely, at least in part, a direct result of his two DOJ sessions April 5th and 30th, 2019.
Ms. Maria Butina, a young Russian idealist, was caught up in the 2016 vast Russian conspiracy agenda and had strong connections to high powered Russian oligarchs.
Originally the purpose of Butina coming to the U.S. in 2015, as explained by Patrick Byrne, was for her to engage with influential Americans for political contacts that could provide geopolitical value to the oligarchs.
Former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was seen as important to Ms. Butina due to his connections to the emerging financial structures of crypto-currency and block-chain. Mr. Byrne is a libertarian who believes in small government, and is somewhat of a disruptor in the business world. Ms. Butina wanted to introduce Byrne to her friends in Russia.
(more…)

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.

Something is shaping up in the political background around the USMCA.

Yesterday Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) sent a second letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging USMCA ratification.  Team Trump and Team AMLO are working together against Team Pelosi & AFL-CIO Richard Trumka.
Essentially AMLO has been saying the labor provisions within the USMCA trade pact are already being put in place by Mexico, and Pelosi should quit trying to hide behind labor concerns to avoid ratification.

Tomorrow, on the eve of Thanksgiving at the request of the Trump administration, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Mexican Foreign Minister Jesus Seade and Canadian Deputy Minister Chrystia Freeland are holding a meeting to discuss the  AFL-CIO/Pelosi issues within the USMCA labor provisions.
FM Chrystia Freeland is irrelevant to the meeting; she’s a potted-plant rubber stamp for whatever scheme Pelosi is cooking. It is House Speaker Pelosi who is using her pressure over labor unions to hide behind AFL-CIO Richard Trumka and claim U.S. labor unions have issues with the USMCA labor provisions. It ain’t about labor; it is all political cover.
However, it is interesting that USTR Lighthizer, a man with the patience of Job, called Jesus Seade and Freeland to DC:

WASHINGTON – The three trade ministers from the United States, Canada and Mexico are set to meet in Washington on Wednesday to discuss the deal to replace NAFTA, seven people familiar with the plans told POLITICO.
The meeting involving U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Deputy Canadian Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mexican Undersecretary for North America Jesús Seade comes as the Trump administration is nearing a compromise with House Democrats to make changes to the USMCA.

(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.

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…)