Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham appears on SMF with Maria Bartiromo to discuss House Speaker Nancy Pelosi withholding articles of impeachment from the Senate.
Senator Graham does a good job explaining the fraudulent visible reasons, purposes and strategy for establishing the House obstruction article; however, Graham completely overlooks the hidden motive for withholding it/them.
Moving to “spygate” Bartiromo points out Special Counsel Mueller never investigated the “dossier”; however, Bartiromo misses that Rosensteins’ second scope memo in August 2017 specifically empowered the research of (ie. use of) the dossier for his probe.
*POINT: In my opinion, this is the reason why the DOJ (AG Bill Barr) will not release the scope memos…. Barr is protecting DAG Rosenstein and his good friend Robert Mueller.

.
Lindsey Graham goes on to discuss the background surveillance on the Trump campaign; and outlines questions he has and potential witnesses before his committee.  Pause for a moment in this part of Graham’s interview, and notice how the answer to every question is within the declassification documents we have discussed. We know where the answers are.
Amid the twists and turns many people have forgotten about the material congress asked President Trump to declassify a year-and-a-half ago.  Additionally there has been some material cited that just seemingly slipped away without follow-up.  Consider:
(more…)

Within the small group conducting the 2016 FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, the Steele Dossier was called “Crown Material“.  A name relating to Christopher Steele’s British intelligence position. [James Comey testimony to congress]

The “Crown Material” has become more interesting recently against the backdrop of U.S. Attorney John Durham seeking the documents and communication from former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey [SEE HERE] where John Brennan wanted the Crown Material (Steele Dossier) included the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
However, there’s a coded email from Lisa Page, on January 10th, 2017, that might prove to be even more valuable for Mr. Durham as he investigates a possible conspiracy therein:

[SOURCE: Page 365 of massive document dump FBI pdf]

Note the highlighted box text in the email from Peter Strzok to members of the small group.

“CNN update – Per Rich, CNN to publish C material today betweeen 4 and 5″

The “C material” is a reference to “Crown Material”, and when put into context of the date and email participants this tells a remarkably explosive story.
(more…)

The DOJ-NatSec Division and FBI reported issues of fraud upon the FISA court in October and November prior to the IG FISA report release.  Specifically the DOJ notified the FISC that OGC Kevin Clinesmith had manipulated and falsified evidence. On December 5th, Judge Coller responded to that series of notifications with an order.
On December 9th, when the IG FISA report was made public, the FISC was given a declassified version of the report and was able to review for the first time. It was from that IG review that Collyer was able to establish the full context of the fraud upon the court. The court was given no advanced notification as to the totality of fraud upon the FISC other than a preliminary ‘head’s up’ on the OGC Clinesmith compromise.
As a result of the IG report, Collyer told the DOJ to declassify her response of December 5th, because she was going to make it public. Today Collyer released that order.
(more…)

As expected the House of Representatives has passed the USMCA trade agreement with an overwhelming 385 to 41 vote.  Pelosi’s political objective was to use USMCA to water down the toxic political environment created by her impeachment fiasco:

Also as expected, after passing the USMCA the House went into immediate recess for the Christmas holiday without any movement on the fraudulent impeachment articles.
In the time-frame between today and the return to the next congressional session in January, House lawyers will attempt to use the passage of the articles to support their background court cases: (1) McGahn forced deposition; (2) access to Mueller 6(e) grand jury information; and (3) possible access to Trump family financial records.
[PREDICTION for bookmark: Upon return in January Speaker Pelosi will refuse to allow impeached President Trump to deliver a State of the Union address in the House.]
(more…)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to questions and concerns about the construct of a heavily partisan impeachment process and her refusal to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Highlighting the tenuous nature of the position now held by her party, a barely coherent Speaker Pelosi attempts to explain. As reporters ask questions, Pelosi becomes frustrated and tells the compliant media no more questions on impeachment will be entertained.
A day after impeaching the President, the Speaker of the House refuses to answer questions.   [Video prompted to presser portion at 11:50 – watch until 14:00]

.
As noted by Jay Sekulow, the House portion of the impeachment effort is finished.  The constitution does not outline rules, managers, and delivery methods. Once the House votes to impeach, they are finished.  The Senate has full control now.
The Senate can begin their trial phase at any time and call for presentation of articles by the House.  If no-one shows up, case dismissed.  Pelosi/House has no role in next phase.
(more…)

It does not seem accidental the hastily defined two articles of impeachment mirror the  arguments needed in two lower court cases brought by the House Judiciary Committee.

[Go DEEP HERE]

It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.
Because the full House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.  The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas.
The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority. Additionally downstream consequences from that original flaw have surfaced in cases working through courts.
There is an argument to be made the rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.
(more…)

The entire House effort to impeach President Donald Trump has been a one-sided partisan effort; built upon a foundation of manipulation of process and dismissal of the minority rights throughout.
After the House voted along party lines, and in an act of stunning hubris, Speaker Pelosi now declares she will withhold the articles of impeachment until the Senate makes rules that she determines will be “fair” to the prosecution.  [Video at 09:00 prompted]

.

(more…)

Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the ‘rules of impeachment’ they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.
Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.
A cunning Lawfare ploy.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place.  By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.  The absence of judicial authority is now working its way through the courts in various cases.
It appears the absence of appointing House impeachment managers; and the decision to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate; is now a specific design.
As the process appears to be unfolding, the Lawfare contracted lawyers representing the House: chief legal counsel Douglas Letter, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Daniel Goldman will now argue before the courts that all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for a pending judicial proceeding, a trial in the Senate.
(more…)

During a stunning interview last Sunday Devin Nunes called for the FISA court to be deconstructed.  In my opinion it was that statement, not the IG report, that spurred FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to make a public order today.
Today, hours after Judge Collyer released her order, Devin Nunes responded to the review of the FISC by stating, accurately, Judge Collyer doth protest too much.
In this interview Devin Nunes outlines his February 2018 notification to the FISC about the specific fraud upon the court; and as a result of that (and a follow-up) notification, Nunes again takes the FISC to task for saying they were not aware.  Collyer was aware because Nunes told her.
Accepting the totality of the FISC obfuscation, HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes again calls for the dismantling of the FISA court process. WATCH:

.
Despite the media ignoring the scale of Nunes prior statements, this is not some just some arbitrary representatives’ opinion.  Nunes was Chairman of the HPSCI when he informed the court of the abuse; and he is currently the ranking member of the same committee.
It is not a signal flare from the ranking member of the HPSCI to call for a structural removal of FISC authority.  This is a nuclear blast from the primary person who previously guided the FISA re-authorization that permits the court’s existence.
(more…)

To fully understand today’s response order (pdf here) from FISA Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to the DOJ/FBI, a little background context is needed.
As we noted, last weekend HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes dropped the gloves and essentially stated the DOJ/FBI were conspiring against U.S. citizens with the wilful participation of the FISA court.  This was a stunning, albeit unreported, development.
Nunes change in posture is important because he outlined that without severe corrective action the FISC should be dismantled.  Additionally, on the specific issues of fraudulent applications to the FISC, in February  2018 Devin Nunes and former Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte had prior communication to Judge Collyer with warnings.  Very strongly worded warnings and concerns.  So there’s a history on this exact issue.
In their prior communication Judge Collyer, representing the judicial branch, downplayed the warning of the legislative branch, and told Nunes and Goodlatte to work it out with the executive branch.   The developments over the FISA fraud now stand against that context.
Today, Judge Rosemary Collyer responds to the DOJ and FBI about the inspector general investigation and subsequent findings. [pdf here – and full embed below] Having read her writings, and understanding that everything FISC is classified, it is possible to see between the lines she writes.
Collyer outlines in her order how the DOJ-NSD and FBI reported issues to the FISC in October and November prior to the IG report release.  Essentially, Collyer implies the DOJ informed the court that additional FISA applications should now be considered unreliable as a result of the FBI Office of General Counsel compromise (Kevin Clinesmith):
(more…)