White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller appears with Jesse Watters to discuss the ongoing impeachment efforts and the political agenda of those within the administrative state who are opposed to President Trump.
A report from the Wall Street Journal outlines a request by lawyers for the fake CIA ‘whistleblower’ that ultimately spells doom for the entire phony construct of the impeachment construction by anonymous complaint.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting the anonymous gossipers’ lawyers are now requesting official impeachment testimony by letters not an in-person appearance. If this is accurate such a request speaks directly to the abject stupidity of the claim:
WASHINGTON—Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person, according to people familiar with the matter.
The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. The intelligence committees haven’t yet responded to the inquiry about potential written testimony, the people said.
Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]
Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.
There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.
It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.
There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.
(more…)
If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the media pushing her narrative the impeachment effort would have already failed. In this interview Judiciary committee ranking member Doug Collins states the un-American inquiry is likely to backfire.
Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Sean Hannity to discuss the manipulated one party procedures within Pelosi’s impeachment program.
The initial reports came last night indicating that former South Carolina republican congressman Trey Gowdy has joined President Trump’s legal team. Reporting today confirms that Trey Gowdy is no longer a Fox News contributor.
Specifically it appears Mr. Gowdy has joined the team as a proactive measure before a House impeachment vote which then leads to a trial in the Senate.
Given Gowdy’s specific legal skillset, and considering he is well known amid Senate chambers, I would surmise Gowdy would be the primary defense orator during a senate trial.
In that regard this is a good pick.
We do not yet know who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will select to be the House “Impeachment Managers”, for all intents and purposes the House impeachment prosecutors. However, given recent court positioning it seems possible Lawfare member Douglas Letter -current House counsel- will be one of the two impeachment managers.
Mr. Gowdy has a rather mixed past in the political sphere. Heck, to be direct, his history of purple ties and political fence-positioning has been more than a little annoying. However, the 55-year-old former prosecutor is a strong litigator known for skilled oration and quick thinking in verbal arguments.
A smart chap with a disarming southern drawl is an asset in court. Considering the public spectacle of a Senate trial, this strength outweighs his prior shortcomings.
(more…)
President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani and former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova appeared together on Fox News to discuss the ongoing impeachment effort by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House democrats.
Earlier today the White House held a background Q&A with reporters to discuss the letter they sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. [You can find additional CTH information HERE]
[Transcript] – MR. GIDLEY: Thank you so much everyone. We appreciate you joining the call. This is a background briefing regarding the letter to the House Representatives. Keep in mind that this call is attributable to a senior administration official, so on background only. It is also embargoed until the conclusion of the call.
With that, I’m going to turn it over to [a senior administration official] to give you a brief overview of the letter. And then I have [senior administration officials] to answer questions after the presentation.
So, with that, I’m going to turn it over to [senior administration official].
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies can change House rules (they did). Pelosi and Lawfare can also change House impeachment rules (they did). Pelosi/Lawfare can change committee rules (they did); and in doing so they can remove House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did. However, what Lawfare and Pelosi cannot change is The U.S. Constitution, which they are desperate to confront.
Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ cannot supersede the constitutional separation of powers.
Nancy Pelosi cannot decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.
~ Speaker Pelosi and House Attorney Douglas Letter ~
All of that said, there is a distinct difference between a congressional subpoena intended to compel generic testimony, and a congressional subpoena intended to compel impeachment testimony.
Attempting to compel testimony that crosses through the separation of powers; and goes even further in an attempt to penetrate the firewall around executive privilege; requires the House -or a committee therein- to carry “Judicial Authority“.
“Judicial Authority” is not absolute authority, but rather a legal reference and framework that forms the basis for an impeachment ‘compulsion demand‘ (or subpoena) by the House. Judicial Authority is the House saying they have a legal basis to make a demand.
The reason judicial authority is necessary, is because creating Judicial authority, via the Legislative Branch full chamber vote, gives the Executive Branch access to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).
(more…)
Sometimes dates are just data-points. However, sometimes data-points help structure information timelines showing a connection between two seemingly disparate events. When this happens, dates start to tell a story.
The CIA operative “whistle-blower” letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and Senate Intel Chair Richard Burr, was on August 12th (link). Now here’s Speaker Pelosi’s modified House rules for impeachment [116th Congress]:
[scribd id=429229553 key=key-qOLCD0TRon8wgt3IPfoQ mode=scroll]
.
Quite a coincidence?
(more…)