Category Archives: Coup

The Four C’s Of The Impeachment Sham — Constitution, Corruption, Comity & Coup (by Wolf Howling)

The House is considering three articles of Impeachment.  The Constitution is at issue in questions of Obstruction of Justice, Contempt of Congress and the form of the Senate Trial.  Comity and Corruption are at issue as to the Bidens and Abuse of Power.  And is this is an unlawful attempted coup?

The Constitution

The House is considering three Articles of Impeachment, one of which is expected to be for contempt of Congress.  The House claims that Donald Trump refused to honor lawful subpoenas for testimony and documents as pertains to the Ukraine. Was Trump within his rights to do so?  That is wholly a Constitutional question.  It is also closely related in at least one relevant part to a likely Second Article of Impeachment, namely Obstruction of Justice as to the Russian Hoax inquiry.

The only vote the House of Representatives has held to authorize an impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump was defeated overwhelmingly in January, 2017.  In response to the Ukraine IC IG matter, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker, unilaterally declared an “impeachment inquiry” on September 24, 2019, and the House immediately began issuing subpoenas for witnesses and documents.  As to the latest vote held a week ago to formalize the procedures being used in the ongoing Star Chamber, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was adamant that the Resolution was not an authorization of an “impeachment inquiry.

Can anything less than a vote by the entire House of Representatives to authorize an “impeachment inquiry” be considered Constitutionally valid?  As I’ve discussed before, this is far from mere form.  If the House of Representatives approves a resolution for an impeachment inquiry, the House gains a power that it, by the explicit terms of the Constitution, does not otherwise possess — the judicial power to enforce subpoenas and requests for documents on matters outside its Art. I, Sec. 8 enumerated powers.  Without that power, the White House was acting lawfully when it refused to cooperate.  Tellingly, the House, rather than take those subpoenas to a Court to enforce them — and risk having a Court declare their proceeding unconstitutional — appears to be simply rolling all but one of their refused “subpoenas” into an contempt of Congress charge.

Then there is Part II of the Mueller Report.  We can expect the House to adopt Part II virtually in toto as an obstruction of justice charge.  There is a twist on this, however, and it is where this overlaps with the Contempt of Congress charge.  Without the judicial power of an impeachment inquiry, the House has no power to subpoena the Grand Jury testimony that Mueller referenced in his report.  The House subpoenaed the Department of Justice for that information and got the matter heard before an Obama judge (yes, John Roberts, there are progressive judges who rule by ideology, not the law) who ruled that the House was authorized to receive the material — and thus that their current “impeachment inquiry” was constitutionally sufficient.  The White House made an emergency appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court, which granted a stay, and the matter is now to be heard on November 12 before the D.C. Circuit. If the D.C. Circuit affirms the lower court’s ruling, the Trump administration will assuredly bring it to the Supreme Court, but there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will take up the case.

All of this brings up a huge, core Constitutional issue:  Which branch of government has the power to determine the meaning of the Constitution — specifically in this case, when the question is whether the House may claim judicial powers without a vote of the House of Representatives to authorize an impeachment inquiry? There is no doubt that Articles of Impeachment (other than Contempt of Congress) that the House votes upon would be facially constitutional.  So this question applies only to whether the President may be validly held in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry that was never authorized by a vote of the full House of Representatives.

The Judicial Branch long ago claimed for itself the power to definitively interpret the Constitution, but that right to do so appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.  Can the Senate summarily dispense with any claim for Obstruction of Justice as to this “impeachment inquiry” because the Senators believe that the House acted “unconstitutionally?”  Can the Senate do so in the face of a D.C. Circuit Court opinion to the contrary?  Could the Senate do so in the face of a Supreme Court refusal to hear an appeal from the D.C. Circuit?  And lastly, could the Senate do so even if the Supreme Court hears an appeal and concludes that the obscene House Star Chamber proceeding meets the standards for constitutionality?  Those are all valid questions that I believe should be answered in the affirmative, but that could have long term ramifications for how our nation operates.

A second Constitutional question that touches on this and all of the Articles of Impeachment concerns whether Donald Trump will be afforded the same due process rights at trial (rules of evidence, right to bring definitive motions, etc.) that are afforded all Americans in court?  As Supreme Court Justice Story said, in 1833 when remarking on impeachment:

It is the boast of English jurisprudence, and without it the power of impeachment would be an intolerable grievance, that in trials by impeachment the law differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and punishments prevail. For impeachments are not framed to alter the law; but to carry it into more effectual execution, where it might be obstructed by the influence of too powerful delinquents, or not easily discerned in the ordinary course of jurisdiction, by reason of the peculiar quality of the alleged crimes.

Under current Senate Rules, the President does not explicitly have those protections.  Under the modifications suggested here, he would gain them.  Assuming that the Senate does adopt those changes then before trial begins President Trump should move to dismiss Contempt of Congress Charges for failing to state a legal claim — i.e., the House did not vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry, and thus the President did not obstruct a lawful process.  As to the obstruction of justice charge, President Trump should make a motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that, even assuming all of the facts alleged in the Mueller Report to be true, it does not as a matter of law show a violation of the law or a political offense for which impeachment is warranted.  President Trump committed no underlying crime.  President Trump substantially complied with the investigation and he committed no act that resulted in the investigation being hindered.

Corruption & Comity

A third Article of Impeachment, according to Breitbart, will be for Abuse of Power.  The House’s Star Chamber proceeding is likely to result in a claim that President Trump abused his power by withholding aid from Ukraine subject to them investigating Joe and Hunter Biden for corrupt practices.

This is yet another Article that should be dealt with on a motion to dismiss.  The President’s practice and authority to negotiate with foreign countries for the aid they may receive from America is a well-established power of the Presidency, one that has been exercised by numerous other Presidents.  Thus negotiating foreign aid with the Ukraine cannot itself, be grounds for impeachment.  It is axiomatic that, to again quote Justice Story, impeachment may not be used tomake that a crime at one time, or in one person, which would be deemed innocent at another time, or in another person.  And in fact, the aid was ultimately released in full to the Ukraine in September, 2019, so there is no Constitutional concern with Congress’s power of the purse, nor any legal concern with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

That leads to the next question, whether what Trump was negotiating for — the facts surrounding Joe and Hunter Biden in the Ukraine and whether it involved corruption — was an improper purpose.  (It should be noted that Trump never in the transcript explicitly said that Ukraine’s receiving the money hinged on looking into the Biden matter. Indeed, it’s a stretch even to read into the transcript his having said such a thing implicitly.) As a textual matter, Article II § 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  So when the President looks into possible legal violations, he is acting in fulfillment of his Constitutional duties.

That leaves the last question: Did President Trump have reasonable grounds to suspect that Joe Biden violated federal rules of ethics, and perhaps American laws, regarding corrupt practices?  That is a factual matter. Trump does not need to show actual guilt.  But he needs to be able to show that, based on the facts as he knew them, a reasonable person would suspect that there was enough evidence of corruption that further investigation was warranted.

As a threshold matter, the Joe and Hunter show went far beyond Ukraine.  It was both foreign and domestic.  As to the former, when Daddy became Vice President and was given control of foreign affairs in certain countries,  Hunter Biden became Joe Biden’s little lamb.  With apologies to Sarah Hale and a hat tip to the poetess Bookworm:

Joe Biden had a little Hunter,
That filled its nose with snow,
And everywhere Joe Biden went
Hunter was sure to go;
He followed Joe to Ukraine,
Romania & China too;
He sold his daddy’s name there,
But saying so sparked a coup.

Hunter Biden’s escapades are well documented in the Ukraine, Iraq, China and Romania, for we know that he followed his father into those countries (sometimes flying into them with his father on Air Force Two) and immediately struck lucrative deals with corrupt politicians or, in the case of China, the government itself.  Standing alone, these undisputed facts stink to high heaven.  The mere appearance of corruption is an ethical problem for Joe Biden.  It becomes a legal problem for Joe Biden if he used his position as Vice President to further his son’s enrichment or to protect him from investigation. And to be clear, based on the facts as we know them, if Trump and Trump’s children had done what Joe and Hunter Biden did, the call to impeach and jail him would be deafening.

When it comes to Ukraine, we know Hunter Biden was hired to sit on the Board of Bursima, a Ukrainian energy company owned by a man who is a suspect in billions of dollars of government corruption.  We know that Hunter Biden was not qualified for such a seat beyond his familial relationship to Joe Biden.  We know that people associated with Bursima then dropped Hunter Biden’s name to lobby the State Dept. in order to quash the corruption probes targeting their client.  We know that at least one American official raised this as a problem to Biden’s office.  And we know . . .

It is in fact an open question, not yet definitively answered, whether the prosecutor whom Joe brags about getting fired had an active corruption investigation into Bursima — and perhaps Hunter Biden as well.  That was the question Trump seemed to be asking the President of Ukraine to find an answer to in his 25 July phone call.  If so, there is more to investigate, such as what did Joe Biden know and when did he know it.

But according to Democrats, it is an abuse of power even to ask those questions.  They can go pound sand.  No one is above the law, not even a Democrat candidate for office.  The only thing Trump asked for is information from an investigation.  Was that pretextual or warranted?  The first might arguably be grounds for impeachment, the second cannot be.  Thus the only factual issue to determine whether to proceed to a full impeachment trial on abuse of power grounds is whether Trump was justified in seeking an investigation of Biden’s seemingly corrupt dealings.

Bottom line, we need to hear from Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, under oath at any Senate trial, to determine whether there was sufficient appearance of corruption for a reasonable person in Trump’s shoes to investigate.  Indeed, the rule changes I suggested for the Senate’s impeachment trial are in anticipation of precisely that reality.

Democrats are going nuts over that issue.  This from the Daily Beast, warning that “comity” in the Senate would be irreparably damaged by forcing the Bidens to testify:

Senate Democrats issued stark warnings on Wednesday that Republicans would severely damage the institution of Congress if they acquiesced to a push from Trump allies to haul former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter for testimony about their actions in Ukraine.

A top Biden ally, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), told The Daily Beast that calling the 2020 presidential contender—who served for 35 years in the Senate—and his son for testimony “would be literally rolling a grenade down the aisle of the Senate” that would have “lasting consequences” on the upper chamber’s ability to work together.

“Look, Joe Biden is well known, widely respected, and frankly beloved by many in the Senate on both sides of the aisle,” said Coons. “The impeachment process is already disruptive enough. I think we should be approaching it with seriousness, not by entertaining conspiracy theories that are utterly unfounded. And I think it would be a very unfortunate move.”

Right.  As if the left overturning an election and pushing us to the brink of a second civil war over the proposition that they are above the law while the rest of us are below it is not exponentially beyond concerns of “comity” in the Senate.  Truly, screw these people.

Coup

And finally, here’s a question to pick up after what promises to be a failed impeachment attempt.  Mark Zaid, attorney for the whistle blower who orchestrated this Ukraine madness, tweeted in 2017:

#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers https://t.co/FiNBQo6v0S

— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017

Zaid has since claimed that what he meant only a “legal” coup. There is no such thing. A coup is, by definition, an “illegal seizure of power from a government.” Now, if what Mr. Zaid had in mind was an unlawful abuse of the laws of this nation to effect a coup . . . that is still not legal. It is an act of sedition punishable at law.

We certainly now have evidence of Mr. Zaid’s state of mind. We have reason to suspect that his client was likely previously involved in the leak of classified information to the press in order to damage President Trump and may have spied on Trump on behalf of the FBI, both illegal acts.  Then we have long standing ties between the whistle blower and Adam Schiff’s staff and we have Adam Schiff’s own statement that they coordinated filing a whistle blower complaint.  Lastly, we have a grossly legally deficient whistle blower complaint that should never have been filed as such, and certainly never should have been addressed to Congress as a finding of urgent concern.  The IC IG did not conduct due dillegence in his investigation.

Now, that could all mean nothing.  Or, it could mean that certain people were conspiring to effect a bloodless coup.  There is enough here to warrant an investigation to determine the truth.  And prosecution would be warranted if what we discover is in fact a seditious conspiracy rather than a series of simple errors.  That would in fact be an unlawful coup.

The post The Four C’s Of The Impeachment Sham — Constitution, Corruption, Comity & Coup (by Wolf Howling) appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bombshells But No Wrongdoing In Trump Phone Conversation with Ukraine’s President

Alternate title:  Ukraine, Donald Trump and Joe Biden — Quid Pro No

First, for all those of you deep in a dark fantasy of impeaching Trump, an oldie but a goodie

Watch.  Recapture the excitement as you waited expectantly for impeachment to overturn the election results but a few months ago.  This one has it all.  Progressive politics as religion.  An indictment of Trump for the high crime and misdemeanor of winning the 2016 election, of being the “worst” and, in addition, committing almost all forty of the fantasy crimes and wrongs articulated by the NYT that Bookworm addressed in her post yesterday.   After you’re done with the sing-along, might I suggest a safe space and some My Little Pony coloring books.  Hold on tight to your dreams.

For the rest of us . . .

President Trump this morning released the transcript of his phone call with President of Ukraine.  The transcript of the entire conversation is below.  A few comments on it first.

The Bombshells:

It appears that the DNC Server — the one that was hacked and set off the whole Trump-Russia mania — is in the Ukraine.  This from the memo (emphasis mine):

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.  There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

Holy smokes!!!  What in the world is going on with that?  This stinks to high heaven.

One of the most corrupt aspects of the entire Trump-Russia coup attempt was the FBI’s failure to secure and investigate the DNC server. You remember, of course, that the DNC claimed Russia hacked its server. The DNC based this claim upon a report from Crowdstrike, a computer analytic firm that Perkins Coie hired on the DNC’s behalf. Because the DNC refused to hand its serve to the FBI / DOJ, those agencies could only clutch to their collective breasts a redacted, draft version of the Crowdstrike report. It was this report, based upon a server they never analyzed, that the FBI / DOJ used as a foundation for the Trump investigation.

What’s staggering is that the above conversation strongly indicates that the DNC server, which the DNC refused to allow even the FBI or Special Counsel Robert Mueller to examine, is being stored outside U.S. borders and in the Ukraine.  What the hell?

Further, it seems from what Trump said that people in the Ukraine were involved both in the hoax and in meddling with the 2016 campaign.  That was news to me.  I haven’t seen that information before, but here is the Washington Times today verifying it:

U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating Ukraine’s role in the 2016 FBI probe of President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, the Department of Justice confirmed Wednesday. . . .

“A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

Ms. Kupec said Ukrainians who are not government officials have already volunteered information as part of the probe. She also said that Mr. Barr has not yet contacted the Ukrainian government over the investigation. . . .

A few points: One, this is starting to sound like a Tom Clancy novel.  Two, it is no wonder that some people are near frantic to impeach Trump and short circuit the investigation into the Trump-Russia coup.  Three, the MSM is studiously ignoring any part of the transcript Trump released that doesn’t deal directly with Biden. This means that the MSM’s audience, unless its members are curious enough to read the transcript themselves, will never know about the peculiar relationship between the DNC and Ukraine or about the missing DNC server that triggered the whole Russiagate hoax. So, for example, you get this from the NYT:  Trump Asks Ukraine’s Leader to ‘Do Us a Favor’ and Also Urges Inquiry of Biden

Quid pro NO

Sorry, progressives, notwithstanding all your swamp fever dreams of impeachment, Trump did not propose a quid pro quo nor did he commit any wrongdoing vis-a-vis his phone conversation with Ukraine’s president.  Biden predicated previously-agreed-upon financial aid to Ukraine by demanding at the last minute that Ukraine agree to fire the prosecutor general investigating his son.  (“Nice little country you’ve got here. It would be a same if something happened to it.”) There is nothing in the transcript that sees Trump saying “I’m doing nothing for you unless you first do this for me.”

Nor did Trump propose aid in return for investigating Joe Biden’s corrupt act.  It is apparent that, while Trump’s request for a follow-up investigation occurred in the context of other agreed-upon exchanges of goods and services (so to speak), none of these other arrangements were contingent upon Ukraine agreeing with Trump’s request.

Most importantly, perhaps, as to those things the President of the Ukraine indicated that he intended to investigate, the only promises he made to President Trump were to conduct open and fair investigations and to provide honest information.

Crazy Nancy has given in to the radical fringe of her party (as an aside, it was not long ago that she was the radical fringe) and is still trying to keep the dream alive.  She issued this statement today, as slanderous as it was based on falsehoods:

The release of the notes of the call by the White House confirms that the President engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of the office he holds and our national security.  The President has tried to make lawlessness a virtue in America and now is exporting it abroad.

“I respect the responsibility of the President to engage with foreign leaders as part of his job.  It is not part of his job to use taxpayer money to shake down other countries for the benefit of his campaign.  Either the President does not know the weight of his words or he does not care about ethics or his constitutional responsibilities.

“The transcript and the Justice Department’s acting in a rogue fashion in being complicit in the President’s lawlessness confirm the need for an impeachment inquiry.  Clearly, the Congress must act. . . .

You decide how far out of touch with reality she is.  This from the memo (emphasis mine):

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it  There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended
with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

President Zelenskyy: Yes it is. very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. . . ., I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly .. That I can assure you.

The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair.  A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. . . .  The other thing,
There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the
prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so
whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelenskyy:  . . .  The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.

This is Biden’s Waterloo

Biden is already in trouble, running a moribund campaign and falling behind Sitting Bull in the latest national poll.  This transcript turns the spotlight onto Biden’s corrupt act in the Ukraine, a topic that will be invoked endlessly as long as it is in the news.  And it is just going to get worse when all of the China corruption involving Hunter Biden is forced into the mainstream.  I can’t see how Biden survives it.  And the real irony of it all is that the “whistleblower’s” lead attorney has donated to Biden.

——————

Here is the memo of the conversation released today in it entirety:

Telephone Conversation with President
Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Pre·sident Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Notetakers: The White House Situation Room
July 25, 2019, 9:03 – 9:33 a.m. EDT

Residence

The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific.job. The way.you came from behind, -somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: You· are absolutely right Mr. President.  We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation  that we  were able to achieve a unique success. I’m able to tell you the following:  the first time, you· called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.

The President: [laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.

President Zelenskyy:   Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

The President:  Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should ·really ask them about. When I.was· speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do  anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way, so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very  good to Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are·absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine.  It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest· partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than.the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation.  I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense.  We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes

The· President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it  There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

President Zelenskyy: Yes it is. very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President,-· it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to· open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United· States and Ukraine.  For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will. personally tell you that one· of my assistants· spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also· wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly .. That I can assure you ..

The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair.  A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor bf New York Ci:ty, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.  Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,· the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that  The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelenskyy:  I wanted to tell ·you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make· sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one. who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree·with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

The President: Well, she’ s going to go through some things. I will. have Mr. Giuliani.give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to· the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot· of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible ·people.

President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States.  Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC.  On the other hand, I also wanted to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of  the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence.  I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities· and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support

The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

President Zelenskyy: Thank ·you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and I . . . get to know. you better. I am looking forward to our meeting arid I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city bf Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country Which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September_l we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in· Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.

The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you’ve done. The whole world was watching. I’m not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

The post Bombshells But No Wrongdoing In Trump Phone Conversation with Ukraine’s President appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Time For A Reckoning Against The Anti-Trump Coup Leaders

If we are to remain a nation of laws, then the people who manifestly engineered a coup against duly elected President Trump need to be called to account.

By Wolf Howling

Can you believe that it is 2019 and Trump has, to this moment at least, survived a coup attempt?  I did not expect him to survive the onslaught.  He has to be the cleanest President we’ve ever had in office.  He just survived a three year investigatory equivalent of a general warrant to search anywhere for any crime — something the Bill of Rights made unlawful on December 15, 1791.

Unlike a criminal investigation, which benefits from Constitutional limits and protections, things were different for Trump. Beginning on July 31, 2016, when the FBI launched an investigation explicitly aimed at Trump — and right through and including the Mueller investigation, likewise explicitly aimed at Trump, — every aspect of Trump’s life, his businesses, and finances his finances was pried open under the rubric of a “counter-intelligence investigation.”  That he is clean as a whistle is obvious, for we know that, had the FBI or the Mueller team found anything that could be cast as a crime, whether related to Russia or not, they would have used it to destroy Trump. After all, Mueller’s team, while pursuing their Russia counter-intelligence investigation, used evidence about fraud regarding taxi medallions, something far removed from Mueller’s mandate, to prosecute Michael Cohen.

Anti-Trump actors in the government leaked top-secret information from NSA wiretaps to the press.  Mueller’s team metaphorically raped people around Trump  — including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen — to get them to give some evidence that Trump committed crimes.  The Mueller investigative team actively solicited testimony adverse to Trump, unethically and seemingly without regard to whether true or false.  Trump’s personal attorney was subject to a SWAT-style raid, as was Roger Stone when his arrest played out for all on CNN.  At least one person, Carter Page, was subject to four separate FISA warrants — and under the three hop rule, we can safely assume that means Trump and his inner circle were spied upon as part and parcel of that warrant as well.  They were spied upon under four FISA Warrants for an entire year, beginning in October 2016 and concluding in September 2017.   Indeed, it is hard not to conclude that they were the real target, with Carter Page merely a convenient patsy. Strikingly, despite this total warfare, when it came to Trump, Mueller and Co. produced . . . nothing.

There is no predicate in American law or history for any of this, whether the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation aimed at Trump, the FISA warrants, or the way in which the DOJ unlawfully authorized Mueller to conduct a criminal investigation under the guise and rules of a counter-intelligence investigation. That is, this did not start with a crime that called for an investigation. This started with an elected president whom Washington insiders both feared and disdained and they used the investigation in the hopes that they could find a crime. The only predicate to this approach can be found in the Soviet Union’s Levrentiy Beria, who famously said, “Show me the man, I’ll find the crime.” It was an abuse aimed at finding anything in Trump’s activities that could force him from office or, during the duration of the investigation, get him to make a mistake, then force him from office on a process crime.

It’s this unconstitutional, Soviet-style, bass-ackwards bullshit that allows Mueller to claim before Congress that there’s meaning to the fact that he has not not proven Trump innocent of obstruction. As others have pointed out, Mueller also failed to exonerate Trump of assassinating Lincoln).  And thus do we now have half of the progressive Congresscritters calling for Trump’s impeachment on the grounds that Trump obstructed an investigation . . . that Mueller says was never “curtailed, stopped or hindered” . . . for a crime or crimes . . . that neither Trump nor anyone in his administration committed.

Folks, this is a top-down, engineered coup to overturn the 2016 election.  It is not enough that the coup be defeated.  We need the disinfectant of sunshine — to make public every single aspect of this attempted coup.  And then we need heads on pikes, metaphorically, and people in prison, for real.  Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum. Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

To that end, these are the questions I believe need to be answered:

I.  How did the Russian counter-intelligence operation aimed at the Trump Campaign originate?

A.  When was the Trump campaign targeted, by which law enforcement or intelligence agencies, and to what end in 2016 and 2017?

1)  We now know that, well before Mueller opened the Russia investigation targeting Trump on July 31, 2016, people who were key players in the Russian collusion hoax sought out and interacted with Trump campaign staffers Carter Page, Stephen Miller, and George Papadopoulos.  These key players included Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper and Alexander Downer, along with several women, at least one of whom, Azra Turk, the NYT subsequently identified as a U.S. intelligence agent.  Were any of these individuals acting on behalf of an American intelligence or law enforcement agencies and, if so, what were their orders? Were Mifsud or any of these individuals directed  to make contact with George Papadopolous or Carter Page in a sting operation?

2)  Do transcripts or reports of any sort exist of the interactions between Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, on the one hand, and Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, or Alexander Downer, on the other?  Papadopoulos believes that both Halper and Downer tried to get him to make admissions about Russia collusion and were recording or transmitting the discussions.

3)  Why, if Mueller claims Mifsud lied to his investigators on three occasions, was Mifsud the only person who was not then subject to prosecution for the process crime of lying to the FBI, (in comparison to Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Alex van der Zwaan, and Paul Manafort)?

4)  Did Comey place a spy in the Trump campaign, transition team, or the White House and, if so, under what justification?  Comey repeatedly testified under oath that he was not investigating Trump personally for conspiring with Russia.  Comey did not have probable cause. Yet Comey refused to state that fact publicly and there is evidence that he placed an agent, Anthony Ferrante, a cyber crime specialist, inside the White House.

B.  Did Russian intelligence hack the DNC Server in April-May, 2016? 

It seems insane to have to ask that question about this pivotal issue three years into the nightmare to which this nation has been subject, and yet . . . Mueller made a very deliberate decision not to examine the origins of the Trump-Russia hoax, part and parcel of which is the alleged hack of the DNC server.  The only thing that we know for sure is that in June, 2016, the DNC announced that it had been hacked by Russia and that this hack was obviously intended to benefit Trump.  We know that Julian Assange somehow received thousands of DNC and John Podesta e-mails, which he then released to the public.  We know that Crowstrike, a cyber investigation agency that the DNC employed, analyzed the claimed hack and gave a redacted draft of that analysis to the FBI.  The FBI never saw the server. Beyond that, as Aaron Mate explains in Crowdstrikeout, we do not have even remotely trustworthy evidence that a hack occurred, nor does the Mueller Report, its bald assertions to the contrary, actually tie the hack to the Russian government.

C.  Was an ambiguous comment by third tier staffer George Papadopoulos actually the basis for opening up a counter-intelligence investigation aimed at Donald Trump and the Trump campaign and, if so, was it a reasonable basis? 

Mueller claims in his report that the reason that the FBI, back in July 2016, opened up a counter-intelligence investigation of the Trump Campaign for conspiring with Russia was because of a statement George Papadopoulos purported made to the Australian diplomat and Clinton friend,  Alexander Downer, who then relayed it to the FBI through unofficial channels. This is troubling.

Taking everything in the prosecution of Papadopoulos and the Mueller Report as true — and see Papadopoulos’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee at p. 21) — nothing Papadopoulos ever said indicated that, before the DNC publicly announced in June 2016 that it had been hacked, he had any knowledge about that hack.  What Papadopoulos did believe in April, 2016 was something that half of America — including FBI Director James Comey — also believed: namely, that Russia possessed some or all of the thousands of emails Hillary generated on her private server while serving as Secretary of State.  Given this publicly held knowledge, how could Papadopoulos’s statement — that Mifsud had told him that Russia had “dirt” in the form of “emails of Clinton,” and that they “have thousands of emails” — standing alone, possibly justify a counter-intelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign that used all of the tools and police power of the U.S. government?  Who signed off on opening this investigation and was Papadopoulos’s statement about commonly held public knowledge the only basis?  Was Papadopoulos’s statement used in any other Court documents to provide probable cause for law enforcement actions as regards Russia, Trump, and his campaign?  Why did Mueller ignore this glaring inconsistency in his report?

II.  Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and the Steele Dossier:  Their roles in the Russian collusion hoax.

The genesis of the Russian hoax was the Steele Dossier, which the DNC funded as opposition research on Hillary’s behalf. Steele gave it to the FBI and to every major news outlet before the November, 2016, election.  And yet Mueller, in both his report and testimony, all but completely ignored the Dossier and refused to answer questions about it.  Moreover, Mueller even claimed he did not know that Fusion GPS funded the Dossier. It appears that Mueller was tasked by Rosenstein to investigate the Steele Dossier.  There is no rational reason for Mueller and his team to ignore these things in the final report.  The only possible explanation I can see is that, had Mueller acknowledged that the investigation’s genesis was false, unlawful and unconstitutional, his team would have had to halt its fishing expedition (or, if truly honest brokers, redirect the probe from Trump to the Obama administration) without accomplishing the main goal, which was driving Trump from office.

—————————————

Before We Go Further, A Short Summary of Dossier Facts

The Dossier is a series of “intelligence reports” compiled between June and December, 2016, making a series of wild and unfounded accusations against Donald Trump and the Trump campaign.  Specifically, it alleges that:

— Trump was an agent of Russia and had been working for the Russian government for eight years before 2016.  Russians paid Trump by providing him with hookers.

— Trump was being blackmailed by a tape held by the Russian government showing him watching hookers urinate on a bed in 2013.

— Trump actively supported the hacking of Democratic Party computers to steal and release stolen emails.

— Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page, and campaign manager, Paul Manafort, conspired with the Russian government and coordinated with Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign.

— Carter Page traveled to Moscow in early July 2016 to deliver a public speech at a university. The dossier says he met with two top Kremlin operatives and discussed bribes worth billions of rubles for working to lift economic sanctions.

—  Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, secretly traveled to Prague in August 2016 to orchestrate payments with agents of Vladimir Putin to manage the growing scandal of Trump-Russia collusion.

It is notable that the dossier contains some glaring errors: Here are just a few:

— A claim that Russian intelligence network was being paid for in part through a Russian consulate in Miami.  There is no Russian consulate in Miami.

— A claim that Mikhail Kalugin, chief of the economic section at the Russian Embassy was a spy responsible for funding Russian hacking, and that he was whisked out of Washington when the hacking scandal broke in August. His return to Moscow was actually a normal rotation announced ten months previously.

—  The claim that Michael Cohen’s wife was Russian and that his father-in-law was a wealthy Russian developer in Moscow.  Neither fact is true.

— The claim that Michael Cohen had been to Prague in August 2016 collapsed when it became apparent that he had never ever been to Prague.

—————————————

A.  Was the dossier, in whole or part, a series of manufactured charges designed to shock the public into supporting Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and did the FBI and others misuse it to attack the Trump administration?

1)  What was Christopher Steele’s source (or chain of sources, where there are multiple levels of hearsay) for each allegation contained in the dossier?  Which of the allegations were based on legitimate foreign intelligence and which were not?  Given the specificity of the Steele allegations and his evidentiary claims in the dossier, the fact that not a single allegation has been proven in three years is stunning.  It strongly suggests on its face that some or all of the allegations were manufactured out of whole cloth, with the expectation that the media would make them public before the 2016 election and that both the media and the newly elected Hillary Clinton administration would conveniently bury them thereafter.  That would be the mother of all crimes against our democracy.  Is it true?

2)  What role did Clinton political hatchet men Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer play in providing allegations included in the Steele Dossier?  When these two men are involved, their history is so sordid that lone justifies investigating every last detail of their relevant acts.  We know that Blumenthal  funneled Cody Shearer’s opposition research to Steele using a State Department employee, Jonathan Winer, as a conduit.  I would not be surprised at all to find the more lurid, sex-based allegations against Trump originated with Blumenthal or Shearer. We do not know Shearer’s sources nor do we have a copy of his memo.  Was it too provided to the FBI?

3)  Steele lied to the FBI about briefing the media on the Steele Dossier in October, 2016.  Senators Grassley and Graham made a recommendation to the FBI that Steele be investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted for this.  Mueller ignored the referral and did not address it in his report.  Why?

4)  It’s already been covered ad nauseum that the Steele Dossier, with its myriad of unverified allegations and obvious discrepancies, was the primary basis to obtain the FISA warrants against Carter Page.  We are awaiting a report from Inspector General Horowitz on whether the FISA warrants targeting Carter Page, signed and attested by Director Comey and others, were criminally deceptive and insufficient.

5)  On whom did the FBI spy as a result of the Steele Dossier?  We only know that the FBI spied upon Carter Page because it was convenient for the left to leak that to the media at the height of the Trump collusion frenzy.  Did the FBI also submit FISA warrants on Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn or anyone else associated with the Trump campaign?  Did any of the players in this coup leak to third parties, including Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, the DNC, or the media, any of the information gleaned from these FISA warrants?

5)  What was CIA Director John Brennan’s role, if any, in creating and transmitting the Steele Dossier allegations to the FBI, to Congress, and to President Obama?  Did Brennan perjure himself in hearings before Congress (a) in claiming that he did not know about the Steele Dossier until December, 2016; and (b) in claiming that he determined, based solely on independent CIA-developed intelligence, that people in the Trump campaign were conspiring with the Kremlin in July 2016?  Note that Brennan now contends that he provided that intelligence to the FBI in July, yet in the one place one would expect to see independent corroborating evidence, in the FISA Court applications for a warrant to spy on Carter Page, there is no reference to information from the CIA.  There are simply the bare allegations of the Steele dossier, references to Michael Isikoff’s Sept 2016 article (based on information Steele gave Isikoff), and Steele’s personal reputation for honesty.

6)  Why was Trump Attorney Michael Cohen charged with a campaign finance violation while Mueller ignored the DNC’s, Clinton Campaign’s, and Perkins Coie law firm’s glaring violations of the same laws?  The fact that the DNC and Clinton Campaign used Perkins Coie to employ Fusion GPS, thus hiding behind a wall of attorney-client privilege their machinations with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, should make them subject to more stringent investigation on fraud grounds rather than getting Mueller’s free pass.

B.  Why has Fusion GPS’s role in manufacturing a Trump-Russian conspiracy been ignored?

1)  One of the pivotal events in the Trump-Russian conspiracy hoax was the fact that Trump family friend Ron Goldstone, arranged a meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. along with several other members of the Trump campaign team, with a Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya. While Veselnitskaya claimed to have compromising material on Hillary Clinton, she didn’t. However, the mere fact of the meeting was played in the press as proof of a Trump-Russia conspiracy.

While Mueller, in his report, expends several pages analyzing the meeting, he ignores the elephant in the room, which is that Veselnitskaya had a business relationship with Fusion GPS and that she met with Fusion GPS’s founder, Glenn Simpson, both the day before and the day after the Trump Jr. meeting.  The Mueller Report fails to explain either Simpson’s role in arranging this apparent sting or how and why Goldstone misrepresented the meeting to Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign workers.

2)  There is  clear evidence that Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS misled and affirmatively lied to Congress about his relationship with Nellie Ohr, wife of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr.  Why hasn’t Mueller or the DOJ pursued this?

III.  FISA Misuse and leaks of classified information

The Trump administration has been plagued by leaks, including the leaks of Top Secret information from FISA intercepts.  It has been abuse on a grand scale for which no one has been held accountable.  The most egregious example was the unmasking and leak of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador that served as the springboard Sally Yates and team Mueller to politically assassinate him.  What, if anything, has been done to identify those abusing the NSA intercepts and leaking / abusing that information?

That concludes my list of questions.  Please feel free to add any that you think I have missed.  I note that Aaron Mate has some different questions in his recent piece, Here are five big holes in Mueller’s work.  And at the Federalist, Adam Mill questions the Mueller investigation itself, given the apparent degree of Robert Mueller’s disconnect from the investigation.

The post Time For A Reckoning Against The Anti-Trump Coup Leaders appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

D-Day, T-Day, the Coup, and the Deep State

Here’s a big post offering a celebration of toxic masculinity, D-Day squared; two anti-Trump coup updates; and the deep state’s entanglement with the media.

D-Day & Toxic Masculinity:

Today is June 6.  Today we celebrate toxic masculinity — twice.

One thing we celebrate today is the 75th anniversary of American, British, and Canadian forces conducting a seaborne attack onto the beaches of Normandy to establish a foothold on the continent of Europe during WWII.  To the men, icons of Toxic Masculinity one and all, who took part, we salute you for your bravery and sacrifice. Some worthwhile links:

USA Today: D-Day: 17 stunning photos from 1944 show how hard the Normandy invasion really was

U.S. Army:  D-Day, June 6, 1944

Youtube:  Normandy — Surviving D-Day

National Geographic: ‘Top Secret’ maps reveal the massive Allied effort behind D-Day

BBC: D-Day: 10 things you might not know about the Normandy invasion

Then there is, of course, the alternative D-Day, also a celebration on June 6 of toxic masculinity (and other bits)  . . . first celebrated by Ms. Bookworm in 2015.

Coup Update

Democrat and deep state efforts to overturn the 2016 election continue apace. Two things in the news today as regards the effort.  One is the complaint by people targeted in the Mueller investigation at the incredibly heavy-handed tactics Mueller used in an attempt to have them implicate Trump.  This from RCI:

Now that Mueller has ended his probe finding no election collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, 10 witnesses and targets of his sprawling, $35 million investigation agreed to speak with RealClearInvestigations because they are no longer in legal jeopardy. . . .

Their firsthand accounts pull back the curtain on the secret inner workings of the Mueller probe, revealing how the special counsel’s nearly two dozen prosecutors and 40 FBI agents used harshly aggressive tactics to pressure individuals to either cop to crimes or implicate others in felonies involving collusion.

Although they interacted with Mueller’s team at different times and in different places, the witnesses and targets often echoed each other. Almost all decried what they called Mueller’s “scorched earth” methods that affected their physical, mental and financial health. Most said they were forced to retain high-priced Washington lawyers to protect them from falling into “perjury traps” for alleged lying, which became the special counsel’s charge of last resort.  In the end, Mueller convicted four Trump associates for this so-called process crime, and investigated an additional five individuals for allegedly making false statements – including former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. . . .

Mueller, who studiously ignored the roles of Clinton and Obama in the Russia investigation and its origins, didn’t fail to indict Trump for lack of trying.  Indeed, given the arm twisting and expense innocent citizens were put through by Mueller, I am surprised some did not lie about Trump to save their skin. It speaks well of those associated with Trump that they did not.

Having spied on the Trump 2016 election campaign and initiated a (likely unlawful) thorough criminal investigation of Trump that would have made the Soviet Union’s Lavrentiy Beria (“Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime”) proud, the Left is now intent on overturning the election on the claim of a process crime — that Trump obstructed an investigation of himself for a crime that he didn’t commit. Leaving aside the law (18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)) and the fact that nothing Trump did rises to a level of actionable obstruction under that law, the Dems and deep state are hitting a bit of a snag, as it does not seem the Senate will cooperate with impeachment. Oooh, big problem, that.

Enter progressive “constitutional scholar” Lawrence Tribe — a true exemplar of Harvard’s finest — with an opinion piece in Wapo today, “Impeach Trump. But don’t necessarily try him in the Senate.”  Crazy Larry has been advocating impeachment of Trump since shortly after Trump was elected in 2016 on a number of constantly changing justifications.  Interestingly enough, one of Tribe’s later justifications for impeachment was Trump’s claim “that Obama had his ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower.”

When law professor Johnathan Turley laughed off the idea on Morning Joe, back in March, Tribe had a mini-conniption on Twitter: “Using power of WH to falsely accuse [Obama of an] impeachable felony does qualify as an impeachable offense whether via tweet or not,” he huffed.

“Falsely accuse”, eh?  Irony is the meat and potatoes of the finest schadenfreude, though it almost never registers with proggies.

At any rate, Tribe is clear that he wants to see Trump impeached.  But impeachment in the House, with nothing else, will have no impact on Trump and Trump’s chances for reelection in 2020 — except to possibly enhance them.  Thus Tribe argues that the House should go beyond simply voting on impeachment and hold full-scale impeachment hearings in the House proper:

It seems fair to surmise, then, that an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.

The House, assuming an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate pre-committed to burying them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution far stronger than a mere censure. The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication. (A House resolution finding the president “impeachable” but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a “Scarlet ‘I’ ” that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)

The point would not be to take old-school House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset. Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him. . . .

Only there’s a problem with that, one that a “constitutional scholar” really ought to be able to spot, even if he is a proggie.  While Article One Section II of the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” Section III provides that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”  Ahhh, but the damn Constitution gets in the way of the best laid proggie plans yet again.  Maybe that’s why Crazy Larry never quotes the Constitution in his article.

If we do not have a civil war with blood in the streets in this country during my lifetime because progressives run roughshod over the Constitution, I will be amazed.

Lee Smith on Deep State & the Media

Everything journalist Lee Smith at Tablet writes is worth the read.  His latest, out today, is Spies are the New Journalists, decrying the relationship that has developed between the press and the intelligence agencies, one that is at the heart of the “deep state.”  As Smith writes, our nation is now one “where spies are . . . in charge of shaping the news, with the goal of advancing their own institutional agendas, prosecuting political hits, and keeping themselves and their political patrons beyond the reach of the laws that apply to everyone else.”  No kidding.  Step one to ending this is finding out who the multiple leakers were at the start of the Trump administration.  Does anyone doubt that it will likely be one or more of the top people at DOJ, FBI and or CIA?

Do read the whole thing.  Then celebrate the D-Day(s) appropriately.

The post D-Day, T-Day, the Coup, and the Deep State appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Progressives collude to prevent investigation of attempted coup

By resisting an investigation of the apparent attempted coup against Trump, Progressives reject a core Anglo-American doctrine that no one is above the law.

By Wolf Howling

The “collusion investigation” — 2+ years, $30+ million, and using all the investigative resources of government — is over.  Given the specificity and nature of the allegations in the Steele Dossier, given that Steele and his employer wanted the allegations publicized before the 2016 election, given the repeated leaks of classified material to the press over the past two years (central to the Pulitzer Prize won by the NYT and Wapo last year for reporting on Trump’s allegedly treasonous activities) and, finally, given the complete lack of evidence found to support the allegations, it would be reasonable to suspect, first, that this was all a con game from its inception to elect Hillary Clinton and second, after that failed, that it was an effort to destroy the Trump presidency and protect those who broke our laws by engaging in the con.

The former was an unlawful dirty trick involving a false allegation of criminality to the FBI.  The latter would be unprecedented in our nation’s history — nothing less than an attempted coup (one which is still ongoing in Crazy Nancy’s House), seemingly both to overturn the 2016 election and to protect those who had broken the law to protect Hillary Clinton.

Can anyone tell me a legitimate justification for why those reasonable suspicions should not be investigated?  The stakes could not be higher for this nation.

And yet, the MSM and progressive politicians are colluding in a full court “press” to ensure that no investigation takes place or, if it does, that the country is primed to ignore it as illegitimate.  Toward that effort, NBC’s Johnathan Allen has penned a ridiculous polemic today, based on a recent interview Trump gave and his declassification order of earlier in the week.  This from the execrable Mr. Allen:

President Donald Trump found four former federal officials guilty of “treason” Thursday — and then commissioned his intelligence agencies to help the Department of Justice prove it.

In this instance, have been ongoing investigations into the origins of the Russia collusion hoax/coup. In fact, when it comes to the Justice Dept. IG, the investigations have been in play for more than a year.  Trump did not order any of these investigations. Moreover, the declassification order itself orders cooperation with an investigation, no more and no less.  Unless Allen believes that the FBI and DOJ are utterly corrupt (quite possible), investigations are done to establish all relevant facts, and only then is an assessment made of the law in light of those facts.  What do the proggies and media possibly have to fear from that?

More from Allen:

At the same time, he is blocking Congress from executing its constitutional duty to execute oversight of his administration, not only with regard to his campaign’s ties to Russia and the interference detailed in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation but also on a host of other fronts.

The thing about proggies is they are all about building a narrative.  And with the media carrying their water and cheer-leading, it doesn’t matter that the narrative is complete horse crap that cannot possibly survive examination.  Trump has blocked nothing in regards to legitimate oversight — and believe it or not, opposition research is not one of the categories of legitimate oversight.

Prying into Trump’s private affairs is subject to the Fourth Amendment.  Executive and attorney client privilege are well established at law.  You’ll note that Allen does not get into a single specific example.   Democrats in the House are quite literally putting out subpoenas that they know so overreach their bounds that the administration will not comply.  They are doing it to build a narrative that worthless media people like Allen will then parrot to the public.

[Trump’s] wielding power in ways not seen in the United States in generations, if ever, and which many experts say do not resemble global norms for heads of state.

Really?  Which powers and how so?  If Allen means investigating for a coup, well, we’ve never had one before in this country.  This is unique.  And it is not a global norm because this is unprecedented in supposedly free societies.  If he means resisting Crazy Nancy’s and the House’s efforts to get this deeply treasonous coup across the finish line, well, oh my.  As dryly put at Maggie’s Farm recently:  “”While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it.”

At this point, I will stop my fisking but for two final points.  One regards something utterly central to understanding Progressives — they live on projection.  If you want to know what they are doing, look at what they accuse you of doing.  Thus, you will find no better example of pure projection than this from Allen:

“Countries with the rule of law do not conduct criminal investigations for political reasons,” he said. “In countries that lack the rule of law — like Russia — the ruling political officials instrumentally utilize the legal system to target opponents for criminal prosecution as a means of intimidation or punishment.”

I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment, but in this case, Allen is attempting to claim that any investigation of a lawless coup attempt is disrespect for the rule of law.  It is pure projection turning reality on its head.

Finally, in what has to be the ultimate irony, Allen concludes his polemic by raising Hillary Clinton as a sort of Cassandra regarding the rule of law:

In the hours after Trump was elected in November 2016, Clinton asked her aides to insert lines into her concession speech that would be a subtle caution to the public about the possibility that Trump might try to rewrite the rule of law. She wanted to avoid direct criticism of the president-elect, but she juxtaposed her call to accept his victory with her admonition.

“Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead,” she said the day after the election. “Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don’t just respect that, we cherish it. It also enshrines other things; the rule of law, the principle that we are all equal in rights and dignity, freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values too, and we must defend them.”

Good lord.  We’re in this mess because our weaponized bureaucracy tried to whitewash Hillary Clinton’s felonies in the first place.  We’re in this mess because the progressives have not accepted the 2016 election and still want to overturn it.  Moreover,  Comey and the DOJ actually did rewrite the legal standard of 18 U.S.C. § 793  so that Hillary could escape prosecution, then did a cover up instead of an investigation, all in the expectation that she would beat Trump in the 2016 election.

Trump’s failure in all of this was that he did not immediately move to reestablish rule of law in this country when he was inaugurated.  Hillary skated.  Those who helped her skate tried to stage a coup against Trump while Trump was trying to ignore them and govern.  That didn’t work out too well.

If Trump let’s these people likewise skate from legal consequence, then we have an existential problem.  “Rule of law” is — and can only be — founded on the premise that “no one is above the law.”  Allen would do away with that foundation.  If the progressives succeed, this nation is in dire straits indeed.

The post Progressives collude to prevent investigation of attempted coup appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Russia Collusion Peddlers Will Turn on Each Other—Trump 2020 Adviser Steven Rogers

TRUMP/PUTIN RUSSIA COLLUSION DOES NOT EXIST; DITTO THAT FOR OBSTRUCTION

Communists, their co-conspirators in the global media complex guided by the deep state, appointees of Obama under Barack Obama’s instruction and comrades in both Houses of Congress, John McCain, Jeff Flake, fellow NeverTrumpers, the DNC and Hillary Clinton, et al.,  conspired against the 2016 Republican Party presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump.  Their allegations (a) Russia collusion during the 2016 presidential campaign with Vladimir Putin.

When Plan A failed after candidate, Trump against all odds won the 2016 presidential election, Plan B was launched.  That is where false allegations of Russia collusion, the fake Christopher Steele dossier and eventually obstruction  (also false) were put into play, endgame of which was  (is) the termination of the Trump presidency, annihilation of the Trump name, organization and entities.

Let’s be honest; endgame of which was and continues to be the the final nail in the coffin of the American dream for every American, little boy and little girl.  They failed.

HUNGRY FOR POWER, EXPOSED AS LIARS

Traitors to the Republic underestimated President Donald J. Trump as much as they over-estimated Robert Mueller; and with the appointment (just in time) of Attorney General, Robert Barr, the findings, rather lack thereof of the Mueller Report, results of which exonerated and vindicated President Trump to the dismay of the facilitators of the failed coup sending power-hungry totalitarians even further over the cliff.

Swamp rats were exposed after lying to the world, even worse to American voters, for nearly two years about the 2016 presidential election, followed by another two years plus of false allegations, fake narratives, fake news, fake dossiers including the fact that there was no Russia collusion between President Trump and Vladimir Putin has been exposed.

THAT GLORIOUS DAY OF RECKONING

It is a matter of time until those who conspired against the 45th president of the United States and the Republic begin to scatter like rats fleeing New York City’s sewer system a few years back during Hurricane Sandy.

The only Russian collusion is between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and yes, Joe Biden, members of the Obama administration including the likes of Robert Mueller among others and Putin.  Let’s not forget the Ukraine.

Question:  Who do you think will fall on their sword(s) to save Barack Obama?

The post Russia Collusion Peddlers Will Turn on Each Other—Trump 2020 Adviser Steven Rogers appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

No, Mr. Rove, There Needs To Be A Reckoning On Russian Collusion

Contrary to Rove’s advice that Trump “move on” from Russian collusion, Trump needs to use his bully pulpit to expose Deep State crimes for Americans to see.
by Wolf Howling

Karl Rove appears in the WSJ this morning with some advice: Move On From Mueller, Mr. President.  Mr. Rove is dangerously clueless. His is not advice President Trump needs nor is it advice that would serve the country.

Rove rightly observes that “William Barr’s letter summarizing special counsel Robert Mueller’s report lifted an enormous political weight off President Trump and his team.”  But then Rove advises that Trump leave all the unanswered questions about what was in essence an attempted coup to those below him in the executive office hierarchy.  Trump, he opines, should float above it all and ignore it.

These questions should be answered, but Mr. Trump need not devote much time to pressing them. He can count on Mr. Barr, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to continue cleaning up the FBI and Justice Department. Mr. Horowitz is already investigating possible FISA abuses.

There’s also Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, who promises to get to the bottom of “disturbing” aspects of the FBI and Justice Department’s 2016 and 2017 activities. As House manager of the 1998 Clinton impeachment effort, he learned the importance of not overplaying your hand.

Further, Mr. Rove advises:

Mr. Trump now has an unusual chance to fashion something like the presidential honeymoon that media bitterness over Hillary Clinton’s loss denied him when he took office. Team Trump should use the Mueller report to pivot to issues, like the economy and the opioid crisis, that matter to swing voters who will decide the 2020 presidential election.

Where has Rove been?  Despite this ongoing, slow motion coup aimed at President Trump, our President has been addressing the economy, the opioid crisis, and most other of the serious issues effecting our country.  He does not have to “pivot” to those issues.  They have to make it into the press.  But the media has been focused like a laser on Mueller and Russian collusion.  They won’t start reporting in any meaningful way on other issues until Trump goes on the offensive and things start to look very bad for the left.  Then their focus will change.

It is amazing just how out of touch Rove is with this country.  This is decidedly not the America of 2000 when Rove partnered with George Bush to craft a successful run for the Presidency.   The Democrat Party of 2000 was dominated by Clinton centrists with at least some remnants of intellectual honesty.  The Left of today is a different beast, given over wholly to identity politics, post modern subjectivity, autocracy, and socialism.  Leftists are spoon feeding that toxin to every person coming out of higher education and, increasingly, K-12.  The Left in America started fast transitioning to this ideological “end stage” of hard core neo-Marxism, during the Bush Presidency.  No one more than Mr. Rove should recognize that, at least in hindsight.

To take a walk back down memory lane, in the wake of the 2000 election, you had the 60’s radicals completing their take-over of academia, the rise of far Left politically savvy groups like that led by Kos, and a massive infusion of money into far Left causes from George Soros and his mid-90’s creation, the Open Society Foundation.   The Democrats’ Overton window went from Bismarck’s welfare state to Marx’s socialism.  And with it came a whole host of toxins, including post-modernism, lawlessness, unequal application of the rule of law, disdain for the Constitution, and contempt for any American who does not wholly agree with the neo-Marxist dogma.

The first serious manifestation of this was the claim that Bush lied about WMD.  I am sure you all remember that.  It started out with Barbara Boxer on the Senate Floor in 2003, if I remember correctly, and then “Bush lied, people died” became both a mantra and a mythical dogma, endlessly repeated by the left and their increasingly corrupt media partners.  Rove advised Bush to ignore it and let those below him respond, much as he is advising Trump now to ignore this attempted coup and let others handle it.  That worked out well,

While Bush, at Rove’s urging, maintained dignified silence, the left and their number in the media succeeded in rewriting history into dark fiction and moving this nation hard to the left.  Indeed, at one time, at least as late as 2010, recognized this reality.  That was when he penned an op-ed in the WSJ admitting My Biggest Mistake in the White House, Failing to refute charges that Bush lied us into war has hurt our country.

In the end, Rove’s strategy gave us Obama, ISIS, Obamacare, a wildly triumphal class of neo-Marxists intent on seizing power by any means, and a series of constitutional crises — from DACA (presidential assumption of legislative powers), to the Iran Deal, to the Paris Accords, to using the regulatory bureaucracy to replace Congress, and to the Supreme Court assuming power to rewrite the Constitution — that threatened and, because there have been no systemic fixes, still threaten the fabric of our nation.

And yet Mr. Rove opines that:

Mr. Trump needs to understand that despite months of relentlessly railing against a “witch hunt,” his supporters are not as revved up as his detractors. That’s the conclusion of the March 20 Fox News poll, which surveyed voters before the Mueller probe ended. While it found Mr. Trump’s approval rating to be 46%—approaching his February 2017 high of 48%—only 27% strongly approve of the president while 42% strongly disapprove.

Has Rove had his head in the sand?  The fact that Trump has an approval rating anywhere in the double digits is simply amazing, given the relentless attacks on him every single day from virtually every single media outlet over a period of years.  There are a huge number of Americans who have no clue that this “Russia collusion” scam was an attempted coup.  Might that not be impacting the poll numbers.  This attempted coup could not have been more serious a direct attack on our nation, one designed first to throw an election and then, in the aftermath, to overthrow a validly elected President or, failing that, to utterly hamstring his administration and render him ineffective.  If this gets swept under the rug without the wrongdoers exposed and punished, our nation will not long survive.  It will only further embolden those who would destroy our nation in the future.

Trump needs to do the opposite of what Rove has suggested.  He needs to stand before the American people and lay out what is publicly known:

  • That the DNC paid for Fusion GPS to generate opposition research, generating a series of what is now known to be wildly false allegations. Moreover, if those allegations were knowingly false when presented to the FBI to start an investigation that constitutes a crime.
  • That it appears that certain members in the leadership of the FBI and DOJ, in an effort to spy on his campaign and to investigate himself and his administration in the hopes of finding a crime, themselves broke laws regarding FISA.
  • That it appears that several people involved may have committed the crime of lying to Congress.
  • That a whole host of leaks of false information seemingly came out of the FBI and DOJ in an effort to undermine and bring down the lawful government of the United States.
  • That a number of innocent people were unlawfully unmasked as part and parcel thereof, in violation of the law and their rights under the 4th Amendment.

Once the president loudly identifies those grievous alleged criminal acts, the President should say that he is joining with Congress to request that the AG appoint a special counsel to investigate what happened and to punish any who in fact have broken the law.  This is well beyond the powers of the Senate to fully investigate, however much I look forward to the entertainment of watching Lindsey Graham 2.0 unleashed.

Then, and only then, can Trump pivot, Mr. Rove.  Though actually, it won’t be Trump pivoting.  It will be the media pivoting, both to avoid showing the inner workings of the attempted coup that just played out and their own duplicity.

Two final notes.  One, Lee Smith at Tablet has an exceptional article up today, System Fail, excoriating the press for being nothing more than partisan mouthpieces for their favored ideology.  He concludes:

American democracy is premised on a free press that does its best to provide the public with information. Misinforming the public is like dumping toxic waste in the rivers. It poisoned our democracy—and it continues to do so. In fact, the most important thing for the public to understand is that Russiagate is not unique. It’s the way that the expert class opines on everything now, from immigration to foreign policy.

Take for instance last week’s big news that President Trump had decided to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The decision was universally praised in Israel, by both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and by opponents like Yair Lapid. Yet Obama’s former ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, insisted that the decision was politically motivated, telling the Washington Post that “the timing seems pretty transparent.” Surely, like his ambassadorial colleague, McFaul, Shapiro knew exactly what he’s talking about when he tweeted that the decision was made without “any policy planning process to consider potential reactions by Russia, Assad regime, Hezbollah, Arab states, Europe, etc., some of which may not be immediate. A decision like this should factor in such questions. No evidence it has.”

Shapiro was dead wrong. As the Atlantic noted in a detailed reported piece posted hours after Shapiro’s tweet, “the push for Trump to make such a move has been going on for more than a year, due to parallel efforts by Israeli officials and members of Congress.”

But whatever. Experts can say anything they like—the Saudis hacked Jeff Bezos’ emails and photos of him and his girlfriend; Jamal Khashoggi was an American journalist; Jussie Smollett was nearly lynched by Trump supporters; Brett Kavanaugh was part of a rape gang, etc., etc. And reporters will print it, and editors will shrug, because that’s what the press is now—a pass-through mechanism mostly used for manipulative, ill-informed and often nonsensical propaganda.

Americans still want and need accurate information on which to base their decisions about their own lives and the path that the country should take. But neither the legacy media nor the expert class it sustains is likely to survive the post-dossier era in any recognizable form. For them, Russiagate is an extinction level event.

I couldn’t agree more.  But again, this goes to my point about Rove, that it is not enough for Trump now to float above this mess, but rather to set in motion the processes that will expose all of this to the public.  Otherwise, Russiagate will not be an extinction level event for a press full of partisan hacks, it will be an extinction level event for this nation.

Lastly, from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, there is this:

RAND PAUL: Former Obama CIA chief promoted ‘dossier,’ demands investigation of Obama team.

Sen. Rand Paul escalated his demand for an investigation into former Obama officials who “concocted” the anti-Trump Russia scandal, revealing that former CIA Director John Brennan was the key figure who legitimized the charges and discredited “dossier” against the president.

In an interview, the Kentucky Republican said the Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately ask Brennan about his involvement in the document that helped to kick off the Russia collusion investigation of President Trump.

“I think we need to find the truth,” he told Washington Secrets. He said the goal would be to stop similar faulty investigations into future administrations, “Democratic or Republican.”

I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate this, not just Senate hearings.

Amen.

Rove Russian Collusion

The post No, Mr. Rove, There Needs To Be A Reckoning On Russian Collusion appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.