We are the drain the swamp people

Trump Senate defense team member Patrick Philbin Addresses the Real Question Facing   the Institution of the Senate   The point is excellent.  The House Democrats should not be allowed to control the Senate’s time or require it to do its work (nor the Senate Democrats in concert).  The House had the opportunity to subpoena John Bolton but declined to do so.

via Times magazine:

New Report Entirely Destroys The Basis For Schiff-Nadler Hearings

Then there is this challenge to Democrats:

Adam Schiff Refuses Whistleblower, IG Transcript — After Demanding Witnesses, Documents 

Plus some other articles of interest

https://www.libertybell.com/john-solomon-drops-bombshell-on-biden-crime-family-this-is-huge/

John Solomon Drops Bombshell On Biden Crime Family…This Is Huge

https://www.libertybell.com/guess-what-the-ukrainian-prosecutor-that-joe-biden-got-fired-just-did/

0

0

In summary –  Schiff is a liar,  a congenital liar, almost sociopathic, a jumpy nervous twerp (the latter our word choice).

Another key takeaway in the interview, a matter we have tried to emphasize (note the interview was before the Senate decided against witnesses) — Where is the transcript of the testimony of “Intelligence Community” Inspector General Michael Atkinson (the 18th witness the House impeachers called)  . . . America needs to know the story of how “he lied under oath to the Senate ” and how he worked in concert with Schiff et al to change the rules to allow the whistleblower a status he would not have otherwise rated.

Meme and referral to Daily Caller interview provided by HP

0

0

At the end of the second and final day of “cue card” questioning nothing new was learned about the case of impeachment proponents or the Constitution’s defenders.  Some things were reinforced such as the mendaciousness of Democrats. Much of the media heard yesterday and this morning  was about presiding judge John Roberts.  His refusal to read Senator Rand Paul’s legitimate question about leaks which did not name anyone as a whistleblower was a cowardly if not dimwitted if not crooked umpire call. It should have been read and should have served to open up a related line of questioning that might have been more seriously informative then the rest of the two days of questioning.

Yesterday  Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a question up that Roberts felt compelled to read.  It knocked his integrity.  Some conservative outlets portrayed his look as showing disgust or disdain, something of that nature. We did not interpret his look that way.  He looked soulful — with a resemblance to Kevin Bacon :

It now looks that McConnell has the votes to end the charade today. Although we think it could have been turned into a disaster for Democrats, witnesses are not necessary for justice on a constitutional matter and it looks like none will be called (more after the days developments).

Impeachment analogies can be problematic but we note that the House had many witnesses paraded before the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, the often heard number 17. But there were 18, the 18th’s testimony unreleased by the House managers. Strange. We also note that the Supreme Court does not hear witnesses on constitutional matters. The jurists hear arguments from opposing lawyers, but do not entertain “witnesses.” We also note the duplicity of Democrats on the matter:

Joe Biden Argued Against Impeachment Witnesses In 1999: ‘The Senate Need Not Hold A Full Blown Trial’ 

In a secret 1999 memo to Democrat senators, Biden argued that the Senate had no obligation to call witnesses or hear live testimony before rendering an impeachment verdict.

And so it goes.

0

0

The “questions phase” last night was largely Democrat Senators submitting to the House impeachment traducers and Republican Senators submitting to the Constitution’s defenders. We watched for a couple hours. The Democrat questions to House managers seemed particularly scripted as the responses were so ready and lengthy, designed to fill up the allotted response time. Questions from opposites to opposites for the most part seemed gotcha type, and answers seemed rehashes.  But some were useful to fill in gaps or point to key elements deserving of emphasis.

We hope some of the questions from Republicans served to put Democrats on notice. You want witnesses, if you push it you might get them and they will include the Biden crime family and the whistleblower and any others the Republican majority deems useful to make their case. Democrats must understand they are not in charge in that chamber.

At this point this writer is not concerned about testimony from John Bolton.  From what we know about his comments, logically, constitutionally, they are of no import.  Anybody listening to the Trump managers conversant with American History and the Constitution will be unfazed. Reasonable questions to him will expose him as petty and grubby.

Even with dominant media presentations in the tank for Democrats (they are absolutely despicable as biased journalists), we believe Democrats have more to lose in this game from witnesses that Republicans can call. Nor are we concerned about further delays IF the Senate majority limits the witness part to no more than say four days. I would throw in a day for summations from the Trump defense only, as the prosecutors have already had ample time.

That said, we also appreciate that “Bolton” can be fixed by allowing a subpoena of relevant passages of his book to the Senate.  Combined with the record of his saying nothing at the time of the  Trump / Ukraine conversations in question, that would serve to expose him as well as any testimony.

0

0

• President’s team – last day of opening statements to the Senate
• 58.33% of the time should be enough

More substance to these articles than what Nancies in the House produced

The defense of the concept of a constitutional republic ended opening statements yesterday. The defense team either determined that the attention span of the senators was at its end or their case was sufficiently simple and strong, history and implications beckoning, to forgo ten hours of the allotted twenty-four in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. The trial of the nation now proceeds to a period of written questioning from the Senators and the possibility of witness testimony and subpoenas, now likely to some extent.  Here are some excerpts from informative reports about the day.

Jay Sekulow Asks Senators to ‘Put Themselves in the President’s Shoes’     via Townhall

Washington, D.C. – “Danger, danger, danger.” That was the theme of Jay Sekulow’s presentation on the last day of opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. At issue, he noted, is whether or not the president abused his power by ignoring the advice of some of his staff on his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. The White House defense team says he unequivocally did not and that there was no apparent quid pro quo when Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens’ Burisma scandal.

“To lower the bar of impeachment would impact the functioning of our republic,” Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice, argued on Tuesday.

So he urged the jurors to “put themselves in the president’s shoes.” Sekulow helped them do that by recapping a few of the abuses Trump has experienced the past few years, even before he became president. Such as Crossfire Hurricane. In 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and members of his campaign were the subjects of surveillance thanks to a FISA warrant that had been obtained on the basis of an unverified and salacious dossier. A scathing Inspector General report released in December detailed just how much the FISA court had been abused.

. . .  The FISA court, Sekulow explained, features no cross examination.

“It was a court based on trust,” Sekulow said. “That trust was violated.”

The abuse didn’t stop there. Former FBI Director James Comey decided to leak a conversation he had with the president, which Sekulow said was done in order to obtain the appointment of a special counsel. The FBI lawyer who committed fraud was then appointed to the Robert Mueller case.

Does any of this, Sekulow asked his audience, “bother your sense of justice?”

“Then we ask why the president is concerned about the advice he’s being given?” he added.

Sekulow asked the senators to put themselves in Trump’s shoes one more time, this time in regards to his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. As others have jocosely noted, Trump was on that call with about “3,000 of his closest friends.”

“He knew what he was saying,” Sekulow argued.

Trump’s team wrapped up their closing arguments quickly on Tuesday. The Senate will reconvene on Wednesday to submit questions on each side.

Here is How Questioning From Senators Will Be Handled During the Impeachment Trial Today   (via Townhall) (excerpt)

Like in the Clinton trial, Republicans and Democrats will alternate questions. The questions will only be directed toward Democrat House managers and attorneys representing President Trump. Senators are not allowed to ask each other questions and cannot directly challenge answers once they were given. Questions will not be asked by Senators directly, but instead will be submitted in writing to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will then read them out loud. The questions cannot be asked anonymously and must be signed by the Senators submitting the question. Questions can also be submitted as a group and around a dozen questions will be allowed before Majority Leader Mitch McConnell calls for a break. Democrat managers and attorneys for the President can take as much time as they’d like to answer submitted question. There is no time limit on their response.

Like previous days, the Senate will convene at 1 pm et to begin.

Sixteen hours have been allotted for questioning. When the questioning period is over, the Senate will vote on whether to call new witnesses not previously interviewed during the House inquiry. As of Tuesday night, McConnell reportedly does not have enough votes to block additional and new witnesses from being called or subpoenaed.

Pat Cipollone Wraps Up Trump Defense With Brilliant Ending, Using Dems’ Words Against Themselves  (Via RedStae) (Excerpt)

The Trump defense team wrapped up their case today.

One of the things that made their presentation light years better than that of the House Democratic managers and the bloviating of folks like House Intel Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) was the simple, straight forward way they made their presentation, appealing to facts, logic and the Constitution.

Pat Cipollone exemplified that again today as he closed in a brilliant way. He noted the basic fact that Democrats sought to obscure – that the case and the articles of impeachment they’ve put forth don’t meet the constitutional standard for impeachment. That the Democratic articles are dangerous, because they are not what the Framers intended impeachment to be. Cipollone said that if you looked to the words of the past that they were true then and they’re true now. He then played the words of Democrats including present impeachment managers inveighing against partisan impeachment in 1998.

Bolton’s sour grapes should not extend impeachment  ( via  Americans for Limited Government)

“Yesterday’s presentation by the President’s team proves conclusively that not only are the Articles of Impeachment constitutionally invalid, but the President’s actions in his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were completely justified given former Vice President Joe Biden’s deep and obvious conflict of interests due to his son’s board membership of the corrupt natural gas firm, Burisma. There is simply no excuse for anyone to vote to hear additional witnesses as no one will be able to change the facts. The Ukrainians did not know that any military assistance was being withheld until it was reported publicly, and the monies were released well in advance of the end of the fiscal year. In fact, it was released on the same day John Bolton was fired for his ongoing attempts to get America embroiled in wars around the world. It is a shame Bolton has allowed his hurt ego and his desire to score book sales to drive this naked attempt to harm the President of the United States. This is particularly true since he cannot say anything that will change the facts of the case that demand acquittal.”

If Bolton says Trump ‘wanted’ to freeze $391 million of military aid to Ukraine until investigations were announced, why was it never communicated to Ukraine?   (via Americans for Limited Government – Robert Romaro) (excerpts)

“President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.”

That was the New York Times’ preview of potential testimony by former National Security Advisor John Bolton at the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, where the President allegedly told Bolton “he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.”

That, we are led to believe, if and when he ever testifies, will be Bolton’s description of the President’s intent with regards to the aid, which was ultimately released on Sept. 11, the same day Bolton was fired.

“Wanted.”

“Preferred.”

And yet, neither the White House nor the State Department never directly conveyed any such conditions to Ukraine, despite the aid being frozen in July, until after Politico broke the story of the aid being frozen on Aug. 28, undercutting the key part of the House’s prosecution — that military assistance to Ukraine was threatened unless investigations were announced.

Even then, the only official who conveyed such conditions, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, said in House testimony he was simply presuming the aid was being conditioned: “No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.”    . . .

But even if it had been conditioned, those are all things the President has the power to do constitutionally under Article II and legally under laws passed by Congress. That is, reviewing military assistance to a non-treaty partner to see if it serves U.S. interests, or whether Ukraine is simply too corrupt to deal with.

In this case, the question is on military assistance to Ukraine, which is not in NATO but is embroiled in a civil war with pro-Russian forces, that could lead to a wider regional war in Europe or a global one involving the U.S. and Russia, risking a nuclear exchange, raising national security concerns. Of course the President should be reviewing such a hotspot to ensure it doesn’t lead to a wider war. That’s his job to keep us out of wars.

The funds were initially frozen in July by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the agencies authority under 31 U.S.C. 1512 to conduct apportionments while the President considered whether or not to request a rescission of the funding under the Impoundment Control Act.

The Office of Management and Budget says it did nothing wrong, with OMB communications director Rachel Semmel issuing a statement saying, “As has been well documented, we fully complied with the law and decades of precedent with respect to these funds. Congress is notified if the administration intends to rescind, defer, reprogram or transfer funding, but in this case none of those things occurred and the funding was obligated as planned.”     . . .

So, a good question would be why Bolton thinks presidents can unilaterally terminate treaties that require Senate ratification with military allies to keep us out of an unintentional war, but not pause appropriated military assistance to a non-treaty partner when it could drag us into one.

Either way, this boils down to a policy disagreement between Bolton and Trump, not a high crime or misdemeanor, and certainly not an act of bribery or treason. If this is all the House has, the President’s acquittal is all but certain.

0

0

HP sent a link to a Dan Bongino website/podcast where he takes on John Bolton and along the way makes three points that destroy the Democrat impeachment charges revolving around the allegation that President  Trump demanded quid-pro-quo of Ukraine in the form of an announcement into an investigation of the Biden crime family before aid would be released.  That would be beside the fact that no quid-pro-quo was demanded as stated by principals  in the Ukraine government involved with Trump, and that they never made an announcement of investigating the Bidens.  HP also posted the meme at right.

1)  Aid was delivered in advance even though Trump got “caught” scrutinizing a country with notorious levels of corruption. The aid to Ukraine was delivered by September 12th which was ahead of the September 30th time frame set by Congress.

2) There is no crime and no victim in the accusations. The House never articulated a crime, high or misdemeanor, treason or bribery.  (The charge “abuse of power” is not a criminal matter and too vague to be justiciable.  It is subject to electoral discretion as a political issue. The matter of “obstruction of Congress” as between branches of government, is likewise not a crime, no criminal statures apply. One is not required to submit to the other if it is not constitutionally required.  Ukraine got the aid and made no announcement of an investigation into Biden

3) Democrat corruption exists in Ukraine part of which was implicated in Politico’s investigations. Also note Pam Bondi’s presentation to the Senate yesterday (see embedded YouTube video).

We think Alan Dershowitz did a great job yesterday establishing the baseless constitutionality for impeachment on the vague notions of abuse of power (a political determination) and obstruction of congress (Trump denied the House nothing they were constitutionally entitled to or adjudicated to receive).  It was nice to see Dershowitz, a liberal, give so much credence to founder intent,  the history and language of the Constitution. See his one-hour presentation embedded below. We previously posted the contribution of the 21 Republican Attorneys General which covers much of the same territory. Dershowitz also excoriates the House impeachment articles and their defenders for allowing removal for thought crimes — thought crimes that the prosecutors impute.

We appreciated that Dershowitz drove home that the vagueness of the House impeachment articles would make the presidency a creature of the legislative branch subject to its political majority, beholden to it not unlike the parliamentary system in  England where votes of “no confidence” cause the removal of the Prime Minister. Allowing these concepts to take hold would be Constitutionally “cataclysmic” (our words)

Here is what we are up against in the reporting in the dominant media.  This from the AP last night and this morning which is where most daily newspapers in the US get their copy. It was posted after the conclusion of last night’s statements from the Trump legal team as part of summarizing/characterizing the days events:

Former national security adviser John Bolton writes in a manuscript that Trump wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until it committed to helping with investigations into Democratic rival Joe Biden. That assertion matters because Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly insisted that he never tied the suspension of security aid to political investigations.

They wanted to talk about what are rumors of Bolton’s accusations without mentioning Dershowitz  incorporating a response in his testimony, debunking that it is of constitutional significance even if true.  In summarizing the Trump case, they never mention that Ukraine never committed to helping with investigations into his Democratic rival Joe Biden. No evidence has been presented anywhere to that effect. They never mention that the Biden involvement in Ukraine is legitimately suspicious (see Politico article and the presentation by Bondi detailing it embedded below). Nor do they mention that Trump delivered all aid in the time-frame congress set (see Bongino above).

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz presentation (entirety)

Pam Bondi (former AG of Florida) (entirety)

Related reading:

Ted Cruz —

“The legal issue before this Senate is whether a president has the authority to investigate corruption,” he explained. “The House Managers built their entire case on the proposition that investigating Burisma corruption, that investigating the Bidens for corruption was baseless and a sham. … That proposition is absurd.”

Cruz cited Trump’s defense attorney Pam Bondi’s presentation about Hunter Biden and Burisma as evidence that proves the Democrats’ assertion to be false.

“At a minimum, we’ve seen two hours of evidence that, at a minimum, it was not only reasonable and justified, but the president, I think, had an obligation to investigate corruption that extended to the highest levels of government,” he said.

Regarding Bolton:

John Bolton is running the exact same revenge playbook against Trump that James Comey used. He’s even using the same agent and leaking to the same reporters. All because he’s mad Trump fired him for leaking and trying to start new wars. It’s so boring and predictable.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 27, 2020

0

0

• Regarding John Bolton’s book — Washington is that type of place – anything for a buck
• Will reporting on leaks from Bolton’s book cause Republican managers to accede to witnesses?
• Are the leaks accurate and in context?
• Could this be Democrats walking into  trap?
• Give them Bolton and then bring in Inspector General Michael Atkinson “the 18th witness” whose testimony Schiff has hidden, oh,  and both Bidens

So last night and all day today we have been hearing about the latest “bombshell” reported as such by the usual suspects.  It remains to be seen how close “revelations” are to reality. TownHall provides a straight report based on what the NYT was saying:

‘Bombshell’ Excerpt From Bolton Book Leaks, But The Timing Is Very Suspect              Dems Demand Bolton Testify in Impeachment Trial After ‘Bombshell’ Report 

An article with the benefit of a bit of time to analyze the matter and give perspective appears at RedState:

Another ‘Bombshell’ Involving Trump and John Bolton Dropped Last Night, Here Are the Details 

What we know in our bones is that there is little honor in 90% of Washington “insiders”.  Because Washington is primarily made up of Democrats that is not a hard number to defend. But it necessarily includes a large number of Republicans that “make it there”.  Even if it is not their home, it is their world of power and attention. The Republicans in the number can be self-absorbed swamp-dwellers insisting on their importance.

There is plenty to make one suspicious of the accuracy of the reporting (it being an NYT “scoop”).  There is also the matter of — so what —  because: 1) the Bidens are a crime family of influence peddlers on a grand scale, 2) Ukraine was rife with corruption, 3) knowing both key points it was the president’s duty to insure that there was some assurance that the aid was going to a country that was on the up and up, no matter if US co-conspirators with the corruption there were also political rivals.

Are political rivals given free passes or look-aways lest one in authority to do something about corruption be characterized as politically motivated? Politics is often how we find out about corruption and also involved in how things get done about it.

But as for quid-pro-quo, there was none.  Ukraine got aid, the president of Ukraine insists there was no pressure, no political announcement from Ukraine designed to embarrass the Bidens was forthcoming. There was never any inordinate action from Trump holding up aid, even if Trump did mouth-off.  The lesson, if the mouthing off happened, is do not trust John Bolton with any candid let-your-hair-down bombast.  He is a prig and a sniveling money grubber who does not have the country at heart regardless of his foreign policy beliefs.

Presumably knowing the privileges, immunities, necessity of confidentiality in foreign policy discussion,  how can someone like Bolton write a book scheduled to be released in a matter of months, so soon after his departure, reveal (or make up) Oval Office confidences? Knowing what is going on in the impeachment process, and knowing the lying ravenous nature of the press, whose side is Bolton on? The side of his bank account it seems. It would have to be about the money because how would his ideas come to be advanced in circles of power given what he has done.  Democrats already think his views anathema. Republicans won’t listen to him because no one with foreign policy responsibility will allow him in the room.

I tend to support the idea to the effect . . .  OK –  it did not have to go this way dear Democrats (because the fallout will not be limited to Biden) —  but you get your purported wish for witnesses but no way will you keep  Schiff, the whistleblower,  the testimony of Inspector General Michael Atkinson “the 18th witness” whose testimony Schiff has hidden, oh,  and both Bidens from the witness lineup. Trump legitimately should insist on anti-corruption measures from our foreign aid recipients and the Bidens are both fact witnesses to that effect.

A final memo to John Bolton – the people elected Donald Trump to run foreign policy, consistent with established treaties, not you. You held a confidential advisory capacity. You have not denied the NYT report as to what you said Trump said.  Unless you do,  you are a punk, an untrustworthy asshole.

I could fantasize that this is all rope-a-dope designed to give the coup de gras to Democrats and your testimony will exonerate Trump. If so I will buy your book and proclaim your honor.  But we have seen too many money grubbers and fame-seekers to hold to that. So when you get to the Senate witness stand, if you are not the person of integrity and scope we once gave you credit for being, we hope  Trump’s impeachment managers rip you a new one.       R Mall

Related reading:

John Bolton Needs to Step up and Go on Maddow to Say If New York Times Leak Is True

0

0

• KGB (er, FBI) restricts information obtained from Carter Page FISA surveillance

———————————————————————————————————
It seems to us…

The entire handling of the “surveillance” process against the Trump campaign and administration should scare the hell out of Americans.

And, if anyone thinks Christopher Wray is anything more than a corrupt Deep State operative, they haven’t been paying attention.

And the “FISA Court”? Which “way from Sunday” to destroy any political opponent of the Left in this nation, is it (1,2,3,4,5, or 6 ?) (Maybe Schumer knows)

How easy it must be to find and recruit corrupt judges and law enforcement elites in this country that they seem to permeate every aspect of life in this “free nation”. The FISA apparently aligns with the FBI, both when they are acting illegally…and when they’re caught doing so. This is the very definition of a ‘state security agency’.

One cannot make any statement regarding the shocking abuse of law enforcement and judicial power which has been revealed, without first disclaiming any possible lack of virtue on the part of any of the ‘hardworking, fully committed,, ‘life on the line’, rank and file current and former members of the FBI !

Really?! How many were ‘just following orders’? How did only the “rotten exceptions” among the bureau’s ‘long serving’ , hardworking, committed to their ‘high calling’ members, rise to the key leadership positions in the FBI?

And…where are all those “Efrem Zimbalists” now, when all the institutional rot has been disclosed? Where are the letters signed by hundreds…thousands of current and former agents decrying and condemning the actions of their current and former bosses?

The Left seems to have no shortage of ‘letter-signers’ condemning anything and everything Trump and his choices for leadership attempt to do, as example following :        dlh

“HUNDREDS OF FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ACCUSING TRUMP OF OBSTRUCTION” (May 17, 2019)

“Hundreds of additional former federal prosecutors have signed onto a statement asserting that President Trump would have been indicted for obstruction of justice were he not currently serving as president.

“The open letter organized by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy had roughly 400 signatures when it was initially posted Monday afternoon on Medium. The letter neared 700 signatures as of Tuesday afternoon.

“Among the new signatories are Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-Mass.), a former prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Philadelphia. Both lawmakers have been critical of Trump.” ( Link above to read more)

——————————————————————————————————-

FBI restricts information obtained from Carter Page FISA surveillance
by Daniel Chaitin (bold our emphasis)

Revealed in a Jan. 7  filing by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that was made public on Thursday, the government said the bureau chose to “sequester all collection the FBI acquired pursuant to the Court’s authorizations” to grant a warrant and three extensions for the electronic surveillance of Page, a U.S. citizen who was suspected of acting as an agent of Russia but was never charged with any wrongdoing.

The filing, signed off by presiding FISA court Judge James Boasberg, further stated that the “sequester” would remain in place until the completion of a further review of the DOJ inspector general report on the Page FISA warrants and the “outcome of related investigations and any litigation.”

“The government has not described what steps are involved in such sequestration or when it will be completed,” Boasberg wrote. “It has, however, undertaken to ‘provide an update to the court when the FBI completes the sequestration.'”

Boasberg’s filing made headlines on Thursday for showing the Justice Department conceded that there was insufficient evidence to justify the last two of four orders covering the final several months of electronic surveillance of Page during the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. The initial order came in October 2016, and the electronic surveillance stretched into the summer of 2017 with a trio of extensions at three-month intervals. It remains unclear whether the Justice Department believes the first two orders targeting Page were similarly flawed.

“Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system. I hope that this latest admission of guilt for these civil rights abuses by the Justice Department marks continued progress towards restoring justice and remedying these reputationally ruinous injuries,” Page said in a statement.

Another brief filing that quietly popped up on the FISA court website Thursday showed the Justice Department requested a deadline extension for the delivery of information regarding minimization procedures designed to stem the disclosure of information about U.S. citizens under surveillance. Boasberg, who seeks the information so that the FISA court can “assess whether the handling and disposition of the information acquired” comports with FISA provisions, wrote that the government’s request was granted, and a new deadline has been set for Feb. 5. The original deadline was Jan. 28.

In December, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report criticizing the DOJ and the FBI for 17 “significant errors and omissions” in its submissions to the FISA court seeking authority to surveil Page and the reliance on British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified dossier. The watchdog report showed that FBI interviews with Steele’s primary source, beginning in January 2017 after the first FISA renewal, “raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting.”

Following Horowitz’s investigation, FBI Director Christopher Wray ordered more than 40 “corrective steps” to address the watchdog’s report, including 12 reforms related to the FISA process.

In a Jan. 10 response to the court, Wray said he “deeply regrets” the FBI’s failures in the Page FISA process and offered a timetable of reforms and training the bureau is undertaking. David Kris, a former Justice Department lawyer picked to advise the FISA court on the reform process, submitted a brief that pushed for improved communications between FBI and DOJ attorneys on FISA matters beyond what the bureau has proposed.

The FISA court also ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer whoaltered a key document about Page in the process to obtain the third warrant renewal. He is now under criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham, a prosecutor from Connecticut who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr with investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry.

0

0

“Nursing home fugitive’ Robert DeNiro as Adam Schiff (actually interchangeable)

“I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it…”

“Class vs. Buffoonery”…a quick and accurate description of the difference between the President’s legal team and the “Clown Parade” of House Managers…     dlh

Trump Legal Team Lays Out 6-Point Case Crushing Democrats’ Impeachment Claims
By Ryan Saavedra  DailyWire.com (excerpts, bold our emphasis)

President Donald Trump’s legal defense team laid out an aggressive six-point case dismantling the Democrats’ impeachment case on Saturday that was simply built around highlighting the facts of what happened surrounding Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump’s defense team only used two of the 24 hours that they were allotted during their first of three days that they have to argue in front of the Senate that Trump should be acquitted from the Democrats’ partisan impeachment charges.

Laying out Trump’s six-point defense was deputy White House counsel Michael Purpura, who said the following:

“The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren’t even mentioned on the call.”

“President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything.”

“President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know, did not even know, the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call.”

“Not a single witness testified that the President himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else.”

“The security assistance flowed on September 11 and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.”

“The Democrats blind drive to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact, as attested to by the Democrats own witnesses, that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor.”

“Those are the facts,” Purpura said. “Each one of these six facts standing alone is enough to sink the Democrats’ case. Combined they establish what we’ve known since the beginning, the president did absolutely nothing wrong.”

SIX FACTS that sink Dems’ case:

•Transcript shows no conditionality
•Zelensky: no quid pro quo/pressure
•Ukraine didn’t know of aid pause
•No Dem witness testified that POTUS said any conditionality
•Ukraine got aid, did nothing for it
•Trump strengthened Ukraine support

 Purpura later highlighted that Ambassador Kurt Volker, the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, who was not on the call but who met with Zelensky the day after the call, testified that in no way, shape, or form in either the readouts from the United States or Ukraine did [Zelensky] receive any indication that Trump was pursuing a quid pro quo.

Purpura cut back to Volker’s testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee last year where he confirmed under oath that there was no quid pro quo, no bribery, and Ukraine was not even aware that there was a temporary hold on U.S. financial assistance.

After playing the clip, Purpura said: “[Democrats] didn’t tell you about this testimony from Ambassador Volker. Why not? President Zelensky himself has confirmed on at least three separate occasions that his July 25 call with President Trump was a good phone call and normal and that nobody pushed me. When President Zelenksy’s advisor Andriy Yermak was asked if he had ever felt there was a connection between the US military aid in the request for investigations, he was adamant that we never had that feeling and we did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”

Purpura continued to hammer on the fact that all top Ukrainian officials indicated that there was no quid pro quo and later added that it was insulting to Ukraine that Democrats were essentially stating that Ukraine was not telling the truth about the situation.   . . .

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow noted that Democrats’ entire case was built on the notion that they were able to read “everybody’s thoughts, they can read everybody’s intention, even when the principal speakers, the witnesses themselves, insist that those interpretations are wrong.”

Sekulow spent a significant portion of time going after leftist Democrat Rep. Jason Crow (CO) for his dishonesty this week while presenting the Democrats’ case in front of the Senate.

“Manager Crow said this, ‘what’s most interesting to me about this is that president Trump was only interested in Ukraine aid.’ His words, nobody else, ‘the U.S. provides aids to dozens of countries around the world, lots of partners and allies, he didn’t ask about any of them asked he didn’t ask about any of them just Ukraine,’” Sekulow said as he highlighted Crow’s remarks. “Here’s what actually happened: President Trump has placed holds on aid a number of times, we can just take basic due diligence to figure this out.”

Sekulow gave the following examples of instances where the Trump administration has placed holds on foreign assistance:

Ed note: they are Afghanistan, South Korea, Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala Pakistan and Lebanon — more details in full article

Sekulow further noted that two of the Democrats’ witnesses said during their impeachment investigation that the Trump administration has withheld aid from numerous countries across the world for a wide variety of reasons.

“Manager Crow told you that the president’s Ukraine policy was not strong against Russia, noting that we help our partner fight Russia over there so we don’t have to fight Russia here, our friends on the frontlines in trenches and with sneakers and this was following the Russians invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the United States has stood by Ukraine, those are your words,” Sekulow continued. “While it’s true that the United States has stood by Ukraine since the invasion of 2014, only one president since then took a very concrete step, some of you supported it, and that step included actually providing Ukraine with lethal weapons including javelin missiles. That’s what President Trump did.”

“Here’s what Ambassador Taylor said that you didn’t hear in the 23 hours, you didn’t hear this, ‘javelin missiles are serious weapons, they will kill Russian tanks,’” Sekulow continued. “Ambassador Yovanovitch agreed stating, that Ukraine policy under President Trump actually got stronger, stronger than it was under President Obama.”

White House counsel Pat Cipollone noted that Trump’s defense team was going to go in-depth next week in examining evidence that Democrats intentionally did not present to the American public during there three days in front of the Senate.

“They’ve come here today and they’ve basically said, ‘Let’s cancel an election over a meeting with the Ukraine,’” Cipollone said. “It would be a completely irresponsible abuse of power to do what they’re asking you to do: to stop an election, to interfere in an election and to remove the president of the United States from the ballot.”

0

0

We were able to watch some of the presentations of the Trump defense team before the Senate today and will endeavor to post links to transcripts. In some cases the read may be more exciting than the delivery. We do not mean that as a slight as the ones we watched apparently were presenting with determined studiousness. The arguments they made as to facts and chain of events regarding the whole matter painted the Democrat case as mendacious calumny.

We also believe that Trump’s defenders should not shy away from political arguments.  Not threats, but warn of the political implications of what the Democrats are doing as to governance and comity. The practical destruction of the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances is important to bring home to the audience inside and outside the Senate chambers.

While intertwined heretofore, we presume more statements of law and constitutional implications are yet to come. Addressing those, including the loose/ridiculously elastic/unprecedented/baseless and dangerous articles of impeachment is a letter cosigned by 21 current (Republican) Attorneys General. Their letter is embedded below and through this link.  It is a great readable lesson in our Constitution’s history and the intentions and understanding of the wise and practical intentions of our founders.

The Wall Street Journal offered a constitutional analysis that also referenced the AG letter to the Senate.

https://www.israpundit.org/the-corrupt-purposes-impeachment/

0

0