President Trump attorney, Jay Sekulow, outlines the closing statement from the impeachment defense team.   Mr. Sekulow warns about the construction of the partisan impeachment and how the House process has run afoul of the constitution itself.
Mr. Sekulow walks through the history of a U.S. Government that has targeted Donald J Trump since before he even took office (DOJ/FBI Crossfire Hurricane); then continued that targeting after he took office (DOJ/FBI Mueller Special Counsel); and now ultimately a sitting president finds himself remaining a target with this impeachment effort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As3WLG9tuaM&w=640&h=380]
(more…)

In an effort to improve page load-time we are breaking up the trial discussion threads.
There will be 24 hours of presentation by House Impeachment Managers (over 3 days); 24 hours of presentation by Defense team (over 3 days); 16 hours of Senate questioning; 4 hours of closing arguments, equally divided; and then a Senate debate/vote on further motions to include witnesses. If there are going to be witnesses, they will first be deposed prior to testimony. No witness testimony will be permitted without first being deposed.
The Senate Trial continues today on day six at 6:45pm ET with the evening session of the second day for the President Trump defense.
Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream – Alternate GST Livestream Link

(more…)

The “House Bolton Maneuver” was a pre-planned operation to use a timed NSC ‘resistance’ leak to frame a new demand for testimony in the Senate. From the beginning the House intentionally constructed an impeachment process to avoid the judicial branch because the construction of the articles was dependent on an unconstitutional creation: impeachment by decree of the Speaker.
As a result of their approach, the House fully intended to usurp their lack of judicial subpoena authority by placing political pressure on the Senate to call the trial witnesses they knew were unattainable due to separation of powers within the constitutional process.  By design the House plan puts the burden of compulsory witness testimony upon the Senate because the House refused to create their own authority with a vote to initiate the impeachment process.
The House effort was, and is, an end-run around the constitutional outline for impeachment.  This was not a flaw; it was a feature of the House creation.

(more…)

The timing, purpose and narrative engineering here are transparent in the extreme.
Tonight the New York Times (Schmidt and Haberman) write an article claiming to have exclusively gained portions of a transcript of a John Bolton book manuscript that was given to the White House National Security Council for pre-publication review.

Of course The Times attempts to frame the narrative around the need for John Bolton to testify in the Senate Impeachment Trial… all too transparent in motive. Timed to work around the House fraud; impeachment article construction without Judicial review for subpoenas; and timed to bolster House managers’ unconstitutional demand for Bolton as a Senate witness.  ADD: POTUS Responds:

However, setting aside the nothing-burger details of the book as leaked, the leak itself might now reconcile an earlier event.
Remember the issue a little more than a week ago when the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is said to be under a security-related investigation?
(more…)

Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the fraudulent construct of the House impeachment articles.  Ratcliffe highlights how the ‘whistle-blower’ (CIA Eric Ciaramella) and the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, have conflicting testimony in the House and that’s why Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff will not release those transcripts.  WATCH:

(more…)

Several days ago we anticipated a potentially important point we hoped would start the impeachment defense for President Donald Trump.   Today, attorney Patrick Philbin delivered.  The issue is a critical constitutional component that needed emphasis, and it is good to see pundits finally starting to realize the significance.
White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explains why House subpoenas were illegitimate: the subpoena power was never authorized; the initiating subpoena power was never voted on.

.
Additionally, and specifically by design, absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no constitutional pathway or process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. Make no mistake, this was a pre-planned purposeful trick within the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare road-map.
The House motive here, the forethought within their design, is very important now because it explains why they are vociferously demanding witnesses in the Senate.  The House plan was to work around the ability of the executive branch to go to court. The managers are now attempting to execute that plan, along with a manufactured political talking point, in the Senate trial.
The House intended for this to unfold exactly as it is happening.
(more…)

As 21 different state attorneys general noted earlier today, there are several reasons why the impeachment effort is unconstitutional.  These are not process arguments; they are factual arguments central to the constitutional framework of our government.
The failure of a full House vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to pursue evidence -via enforceable subpoenas- was a defect by design of Nancy Pelosi’s decision to initiate an impeachment inquiry by her decree, not an authorizing vote.  White House lawyer Patrick Philbin explains the legal issue; this could be the lead argument in the defense case when it starts.  [Video prompted to 03:20]

.
CTH noted this structural issue last August, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings. None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.
(more…)

President Trump’s co-lead counsel, Jay Sekulow, discusses his perspective on the opening arguments for the House impeachment case.   As Sekulow notes, so far the House appears to be attempting to leverage impeachment for a difference in foreign policy outlooks:

(more…)

It is not a process argument, but rather a matter of constitutional preservation.
Twenty-one State Attorneys’ General submit a brief to the Senate (full pdf below) in support of complete rejection for the House articles of impeachment.

…”If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers’ design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers”…

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson along with twenty additional State AG’s, submit a 14-page briefing (download here) to the United States Senate warning of the danger of not rejecting a purely partisan political impeachment effort. The Attorneys’ General note the current impeachment proceedings are “fundamentally flawed as a matter of constitutional law.” Their concerns are echo points starting to be realized by Senators.
During a press conference in front of the U.S. Capitol Wednesday, South Carolina AG Alan Wilson said the group was urging the Senate to “reject these articles” as a matter of constitutional law. WATCH:

(more…)

Texas Senator Ted Cruz appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo for a lengthy discussion of the upcoming senate impeachment trial.  Senator Cruz does not currently support subpoenas for witnesses; however, if the full senate votes to call prosecution witnesses Cruz would support reciprocal witnesses for President Trump.
Senator Cruz walks through the anticipated process including the “scheduling order” or senate rules within the impeachment process.  Twelve hours of prosecution, twelve hours of defense, sixteen hours of senator questioning, and then possibly a vote.

(more…)