North Carolina republican Mark Meadows has been one of the key republican leaders who have remained in Washington DC during the recess break so that he can quickly attend the secret back-room hearings being held by Chairman Adam Schiff.  In this interview Mr. Meadows discusses the current status of the impeachment effort.
Additionally, Meadows discusses what he knows of the documents provided to Inspector General Horowitz for his pending release of the FISA investigation.   Meadows predicts the IG report will be a “scathing rebuke” of the FBI; however, Meadows also predicts the accountability aspect will only end with recommendations for FISA process changes.
[wpvideo DikGDx5w]
(more…)

Representative Doug Collins appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the specific strategy behind the Pelosi-Shiff and Lawfare ongoing impeachment effort.
Collins explains why Adam Schiff is holding hearings behind closed doors so they can selectively leak out information that supports the Democrat narrative of impeachment, while also hiding the evidence that refutes their construct.  Additionally, Rep Collins explains his expectations for the upcoming FISA review by Inspector General Horowitz.
[wpvideo vWqlCZkB]
Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process.  It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction.  {Go Deep} and {Go Deep} to understand why.
The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment inquiry, is not within the jurisdiction of the three committees. So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.
The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.
(more…)

Well, this was entirely predictable.  First the impeachment strategy needed the anonymous CIA gossiper to testify.  Then it leaked about how HPSCI Chairman Adam Shiff and his Lawfare staff actually created the “gossiper’s” silly third-hand complaint to an inspector general; who then changed ‘gossip’ rules to allow second and third-hand hearsay.
It was all becoming more brutally sketchy, and the impeachment jenga blocks were tenuous at best.  As a result, republicans were going to inquire about how the CIA gossiper constructed his complaint; and then the complaint attorney’s started saying the gossiper would not appear in person, but rather write more complaint letters instead of testifying.
The shift from sketchy testimony to “Dear Sir” letters was ridiculous in the extreme. So what happens next?  Well, this is predictable…. Chairman Adam Schiff now says there will likely be no gossiper testimony because now he doesn’t need it.  [@4:52 video]

[Transcript]  REP. SCHIFF: You know and I think initially, before the president started threatening the whistleblower, threatening others calling them traitors and spies and suggesting that you know we used to give the death penalty to traitors and spies and maybe we should think about that again. Yes we were interested in having the whistleblower come forward. Our primary–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Not anymore?

(more…)

Jonathan Turley asks a question today about why the media will not allow any discussion of Joe Biden’s obviously corrupt Achilles heel to be discussed.
Within his article Turley cites examples of CNN, NBC, MSNBC and a host of other mainstream news outlets that will not allow any discussion of Joe Biden’s transparently visible weakness.  He ponders ‘why’?

[…] When Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) raised the issue on CNN, host Erin Burnett cut him off: “There is no evidence of Joe Biden doing anything wrong, and this is something that has been looked into, and I think — I want to make a point here — I think what we need to talk about right now is what did the president right now do or not do.” Other CNN hosts have repeated the line of “no evidence of wrongdoing” like a virtual incantation.
[…] For news shows on MSNBC, CNN and other cable networks, nothing is more disgusting than the mention of what Hunter Biden actually was doing in Ukraine.

(more…)

There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.
Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.
Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]
With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.
Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.
(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

Two years of litigation, thousands of resistance hours used, millions spent on lawyers, and they don’t even get a T-Shirt.  Oh dear…  too funny.

(New York Times) If investigators are going to get their hands on President Trump’s tax returns, they will have to find them somewhere other than Deutsche Bank.

The German bank has told a federal appeals court that it does not have the president’s personal tax returns, the court said on Thursday. (read more)

Be Best !
(more…)

Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Sean Hannity to discuss the manipulated one party procedures within Pelosi’s impeachment program.

.
Speaker Pelosi cannot engage the courts for support against the Executive Branch because the House has not created their judicial authority.  As a result of their lack of a vote to initiate the House “impeachment inquiry” there is no penalty for non-compliance behind any committee subpoena.
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“.
(more…)

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…)