Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith resigns from Fox News effective immediately:
House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes discusses former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifying to her friends in congress during the Democrats’ “chaotic circus” of an impeachment inquiry.
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.
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…)
Against new information that U.S. Attorney John Durham has lengthened the time-frame for this investigative inquiry into the DOJ and FBI activity around the 2016 election, earlier today Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo revealed (and President Trump tweeted) the FISA report by Michael Horowitz will be released on Friday October 18th.
If that time-frame for the IG report is accurate, that means the classification review has been completed; any remaining classified information not specifically authorized in the inspector general report, a decision granted to AG Bill Barr, would be placed in a classified appendix that is not available to the public.
A publication date in/around October 18th would also mean the time allotted for principal review has expired. Generally the people whose conduct is under review are granted a preview of the report that covers their activity. The IG may or may not include any response from the principals outlined. If the IG permits inclusion of a principal response, the IG usually outlines additional information to rebut or support the principal position.
A final draft is assembled only after the OIG administrative referencer makes a final review of all statements of fact and provides citations therein. Then things get a little troublesome…
If Bartiromo is accurate as to the size of the IG report; this is where the ‘summary of IG findings‘ becomes critical. Generally speaking the IG writes the full body of the report, but may not author the ‘executive summary’. The executive summary can be written by administrative state career officials and their priority is institutional preservation. If they are motivated to shape public opinion of the report content, the executive summary may be written to dilute institutional damage outlined within the main body of the report.
(more…)
Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan appears on Fox News this morning to discuss the current democrat plan to impeach President Trump via an anonymous complaint. It seems ridiculous the democrats would advance such a proposition, yet here we are.
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) employee Henry Kyle Frese was arrested yesterday and charged with leaking multiple classified intelligence reports to media. (Full pdf below).
According to the indictment Mr. Frese was caught leaking classified intelligence information to two journalists, one of which he was romantically involved.
Mr. Kyle Frese has a twitter account HERE. Cross-referencing information from within the indictment, research by Matthew Keys has indicated journalist #1 is Courtney Kube from NBC, and journalist #2 is Amanda Macias from CNBC. The intelligence leaked by Mr. Frese to Ms. Macias likely revolves around North Korean defense systems. [DOJ Announcement Here]
WASHINGTON – A U.S. counterterrorism analyst was arrested at the Defense Intelligence Agency where he worked on charges related to alleged leaks of information to two journalists, the Justice Department said.
One aspect heavily monitored by CTH surrounds frequent redactions to ongoing DOJ releases that touch upon former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. An additionally annoying thorn would be the continued holding-back of Rosenstein’s expanded scope memos authorizing the expansion of Mueller’s special investigation. [They remain hidden]
The reason Rosenstein’s behavior remains a high-priority is simply because without his ongoing participation and authorization in 2017 and 2018 the Weissmann/Mueller probe would not have been able to continue.
Rosenstein is a central character to all events, and at the end of the Mueller investigation -through today- the DOJ continued to black out any information that evidenced Rosenstein’s duplicitous activity.
As a result, CTH has viewed the transparent DOJ redactions as a purposeful effort to protect Rosenstein. However, recent activity and media reports outline the possibility of another motive. Perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence of Rosenstein’s activities has been withheld because Rosenstein is a subject of the Durham investigation. First watch this:
There is a lot to unpack in a decision today by the Director of National Intelligence to declassify (with redactions) a 2018 FISA court ruling about ongoing unauthorized database search queries by FBI agents/”contractors” in the period covering 2017/2018.
BACKGROUND: In April 2017 the DNI released a FISA report written by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collery that showed massive abuse, via unauthorized searches of the NSA database, in the period of November 2015 through May 2016. Judge Collyer’s report specifically identified search query increases tied to the 2016 presidential primary. Two years of research identified this process as the DOJ/FBI and IC using the NSA database to query information related to political candidates, specifically Donald Trump.
Now we fast-forward to Judge Boasberg in a similar review (full pdf below), looking at the time-period of 2017 through March 2018.
The timing here is an important aspect.
It is within this time-period where ongoing DOJ and FBI activity transfers from the Obama administration (Collyer report) into the Trump administration (Boasberg report).
It cannot be overemphasized as you read the Boasberg opinion, or any reporting on the Boasberg opinion, that officials within DOJ and FBI are/were on a continuum. Meaning the “small group” activity didn’t stop after the election but rather continued with the Mueller and Weissmann impeachment agenda.
Remember, the 2016 ‘insurance policy’ was to hand Mueller the 2016 FBI investigation so they could turn it into the 2017 special counsel investigation. Mueller, Weissmann and the group then used the ‘Steele Dossier’ as the cornerstone for the special counsel review. The goal of the Mueller investigation was to construct impeachment via obstruction. The same players transferred from “crossfire hurricane” into the Mueller ‘obstruction‘ plan.
(more…)