House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins explains to Maria Bartiromo that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has subverted the formal impeachment initiation process in favor of a decree that blocks his republican minority from participating.
Thankfully word is getting out; people are starting to recognize the construct behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s highly political impeachment plan. [CTH will have more on the plan details soon because key democrats are leaving distinct fingerprints.]
In the first four minutes of this interview Mark Levin outlines how Speaker Pelosi is throwing out customs, traditions, processes and protocols within the House impeachment scheme. This is not a flaw of their plan, this is a key feature. As CTH has outlined, a concerted group of like-minded ideologues – that also consists of Lawfare allies, are following a plan developed soon after, if not before, the 2018 mid-term election.
Additionally, Mr. Levin accurately calls-out Fox reporter Ed Henry for promoting the false narrative, containing Democrat talking points, about the Trump-Ukraine phone call. President Trump also tweeted this full broadcast from this morning. Quite a segment:
.
Levin notes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should refuse to accept the articles of impeachment when delivered by the House Impeachment Managers, unless a bipartisan process is followed. However, Speaker Pelosi (via Lawfare) already has a plan for that angle…. more to follow. (more…)
The reason why Nancy Pelosi didn’t hold a Full House vote to initiate an ‘Articles of Impeachment’ inquiry is simple: if she did follow the formal process, the minority party (republicans) would have rights in the process; so too would the executive branch.
By subverting the process, and just arbitrarily decreeing the opening of “an official impeachment inquiry”, Pelosi allows the committees to proceed without any representation by the minority in the investigative process. This approach, in combination with the 2018 rule changes, is a feature of the impeachment plan – not a flaw.
Against that backdrop, this set of tweets by President Trump have much more meaning:
The House of Representatives cannot construct articles of impeachment through the utilization of anonymous accusations (ie. ‘whistleblower), and hearsay. These tweets are not just POTUS lashing out; these tweets have a very material purpose… MORE HERE and more to follow.
Carl Bernstein is an insufferable propagandist for the political left; but sometimes you can get a sense of where things stand by listening to his partisan protestations. Additionally, Bernstein was at the center of the media effort to engineer the Russia narrative by pushing disinformation from the intelligence apparatus in January 2017.
(L-R) Jake Tapper, Jim Sciutto, Evan Perez and Carl Bernstein.
Bernstein was one of the key media figures constructing and pushing the vast Russian election interference narrative. He also worked closely with Jake Tapper, Jim Sciutto, and Evan Perez to promote the Steele Dossier as a valid intelligence product. In essence Bernstein is a part of the ‘resistance’ agenda writ large; he travels DC circles accordingly.
In a recent CNN interview, highlighted by the Washington Examiner, Bernstein outlined how his sources are telling him Attorney General William Barr is preparing to deliver “evidence of a deep state conspiracy.” Accepting the general premise, and culling the accompanying political spin from it, the comments by Bernstein would seem to indicate Bill Barr is indeed investigating the background of the ‘soft-coup’.
Obviously Bernstein is a creature of the DC cocktail circuit; as a result perhaps those who operate in/around the same circles of the administrative state are recognizing their activity in 2016 and 2017 is about to be exposed. Perhaps this explains the apoplectic responses and sense of urgency from the far-left political class over the past week. (more…)
Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {Go Deep} With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment.
A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.
Speaker Pelosi and Douglas Letter
Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letterto be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about the official full house impeachment vote. The Lawfare group and DNC far-left activists were ecstatic at the selection. Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the institution of the DOJ who worked diligently to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations.
Speaker Pelosi has authorized the House committees to work together under the umbrella of an “official impeachment inquiry.” The House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together leading this process.
From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles. Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a corruption angle; Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an obstruction angle. (more…)
President Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow reacts to the “whistleblower” complaint and explains the impact this fraudulent construct is having on the U.S. government.
Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the whistleblower process. Fleitz says the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing it.
Republican National Lawyers Association vice president and 2020 Trump advisory council member Harmeet Dhillon discusses the ongoing impeachment talks with Lou Dobbs.
Predictable in the extreme. Now that the Lawfare Alliance has successfully advanced the new legal authority of claims “heard from others”, they shift into phase #2. Revisit prior claims that now have additional legislative usefulness amid constructed IC leaks.
It’s the transparency trap. Here comes the next demand for HPSCI investigative material:
(Lawfare via Washington Post) President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.
