Last week the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, testified behind closed doors to congress. Atkinson testified about his role in bringing the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint forward.  The details of that testimony are now starting to surface and thankfully congress is taking a closer look at the sketchy background of Michael Atkinson.

Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson

There are numerous aspects to the whistle-blower (likely CIA operative Michael Barry), and the complaint, that just don’t add up. One of the areas of focus is the backdating of changes made to the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint form.  As Sean Davis notes:

(Via Federalist) […] Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August.

(more…)

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appeared on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the severely political nature of Speaker Pelosi’s impeachment agenda.
Within the interview McCarthy highlights that House rules and processes have been usurped to construct a one-party political impeachment operation.  Additionally, McCarthy notes the larger objective of House democrats to stall the USMCA trade ratification in order to undermine President Trump and support China.

(more…)

Lots of people, lots of analysis, lots of obfuscation, and lots of pundits stuck deep in the forest losing perspective…..  This interview with Senator Lindsey Graham doesn’t help.  If you are cynical of politicians, avoid the confirmation bias and don’t watch this interview.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can impeach a president for just about anything, because impeachment is a political process.  The offenses are supposed to entail “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” However, ultimately a majority House vote is all that’s needed for a technical impeachment. If Speaker Pelosi wants an impeachment vote against President Trump because he’s OrangeManBad, she can do that.  All she technically needs for any impeachment vote is a majority agreement.
Technically, Speaker Pelosi can tear the country apart, and destroy her political party with a brutally obvious political ploy to defend life in the swamp.   As a result Speaker Pelosi can also hold an impeachment vote framing an impeachment resolution, based on manufactured ‘articles of impeachment’, created by hearsay, rumors, gossip and innuendo.
However, a President should not be “removed from office” because some anonymous complaint makes an accusation.  The removal from office is another kettle-o-fish entirely…. Unless, well, unless the Senate concurs with Speaker Pelosi.
Anyone who thinks Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get his hands dirty amid this highly partisan political process is very much mistaken. Watch Graham hoping the entire impeachment operation collapses before it reaches a UniParty Senate… Wait for Barr…. Wait for Durham…. Wait for Horowitz…. Wait, Wait, Wait, bottom line, for 2020:
[wpvideo yRHVmjNS]
(more…)

Good grief it’s taking the republicans f.o.r.e.v.e.r to explain to the American electorate what is going on behind the thoroughly corrupted political impeachment process.  In this interview John Ratcliffe finally explains why the “official impeachment inquiry” is not being run by the House Judiciary Committee that holds impeachment jurisdiction.
Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process.  It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction.  {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} to understand why.
The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment, is not within the jurisdiction of either committee.  So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.  WATCH:
[wpvideo CXPRpWpN]
(more…)

Representative Chris Stewart (R-Utah) of the House Intelligence Committee debates the insufferable Chris Wallace over the issues of corruption in the swamp.
Obviously the tradition of politicians selling their office for financial gain political hits a nerve with Wallace who must defend the practice in order to defend the swamp.  The level of pearl-clutching pretzel logic by Wallace is off-the-charts…. In essence, all corruption must be accepted while politicians are running for office.

(more…)

Several years ago the architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, admitted on camera the Democrats who were assembling healthcare legislation were “relying upon the stupidity of the American voter”….  Fast forward to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019 and her “official impeachment inquiry” by decree; she’s doing the exact same thing.
Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn’t exist.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.
In the last week you’ve probably heard the media sell a narrative that Speaker Pelosi’s House Committee teams are sending out subpoenas to the State Department and White House.  However, has anyone actually looked for those “subpoenas”, or read the language of the written communication from those committees’?
Using the House Oversight Committee as the example (because that’s the one most cited and all of the letters are formatted identically), take a careful look at how they frame their undertaking.
As you read this, remember: these carefully chosen words come from the Lawfare Alliance:
(more…)

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief yesterday (full pdf below) highlighting why the Judiciary Committee should be blocked from receiving grand jury material against the backdrop of an impeachment effort without support from the House of Representatives.

(more…)

President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani appears for a discussion with Lou Dobbs to outline how Adam Schiff was working in concert with left-wing political allies to create the CIA whistle-blower complaint as evidence for their impeachment agenda:

.
Some of the information provided by the State Department IG to congress included the investigative notes of Rudy Giuliani in conversations with Ukraine officials. Additionally, Giuliani appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity to expand the discussion.
(more…)

Through a FOIA request Judicial Watch has received Rod Rosenstein’s email communication around the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller [See Here]. The content further confirms when Rosenstein took Mueller to the White House on May 16th, 2017, the purpose was for Mueller to preview his target, President Trump.
Many are focused on May 12, 2017, where Rosenstein sent an email to Robert Mueller, Subject: “I assume you realize”… “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions”; however, that date is being misconstrued.
Rosenstein took Mueller to visit Jeff Sessions on May 13th, the specifics of that email likely concern keeping prior private conversations out of the discussion with Sessions.

(Source pdf)

If we insert the Rosenstein email conversation into our timeline the picture is clear.
Perhaps the most important aspect is how DAG Rosenstein took Robert Mueller to the White House on May 16th, to interview President Trump.  The decision to appoint Mueller as special counsel was pre-determined prior to the White House visit:
(more…)

More evidence is surfacing showing how the CIA ‘whistle-blower’ complaint was a purposefully constructed political hit-job. Yes, Muh-Ukraine is much like Muh-Russia.
The New York Times reports today the CIA operative approached the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) prior to filling out a ‘whistle-blower’ complaint form.  The CIA gossiper contacted staff of HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff.

According to the report (written to defend the interests of Schiff et al), the CIA gossiper contacted the HPSCI after the top lawyer for the CIA would not advance his cause. We still suspect the ‘whistle-blower” is Michael Barry. Obviously the Times puts the customary spin on the information:

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

(more…)