web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Nancy Pelosi (Page 4)

Trump on Impeachment: Nancy Pelosi is Afraid, of Republicans Taking the Senate and ‘AOC and Plus 3’ Taking Her Place

Westlake Legal Group trump-fist-620x317 Trump on Impeachment: Nancy Pelosi is Afraid, of Republicans Taking the Senate and ‘AOC and Plus 3’ Taking Her Place witch hunt white house washington D.C. Uncategorized The Squad Russia Nancy Pelosi Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories elections donald trump democrats Congress collusion AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020

President Donald Trump gestures towards members on the media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019, after returning from United Nations General Assembly. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

 

 

Donald Trump is a different kind of president. He’s certainly not afraid to call people by name and call out their shenanigans.

And on Friday, the Commander-in-Chief accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of being a scaredy cat.

Who’s Nancy shakin’ in her boots over? Seemingly, it’s the Quad Squad. Trump said House Democrats are following Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her compadres, not the Speaker. Is that why Pelosi moved forward with impeachment, despite being unable to name a “high crime or misdemeanor” that would warrant it? When asked about impeachment in the House, here’s what he had to say:

“They all vote with AOC and plus three; Nancy Pelosi is petrified of them.”

The Donald believes she has good reason to fear: Republicans are coming to oust her.

“I mean, she’s afraid that she is going to lose her position. Nancy Pelosi will lose her speakership right after the election when the Republicans take over the House.”

As for impeachment, the President insisted it’s a witch hunt, just like Russian collusion:

“Should’ve never happened. Just like Russia collusion should’ve never happened. That was a witch hunt. … Should’ve never happened.”

But Trump’s not worried about it, because he’ll be fine in the Senate:

“It think this: We have a great relationship in the Senate. I have a 95% approval rating in the Republican Party. I believe the senators look at this as a hoax, it’s a witch hunt, it’s a disgrace.”

Despite his allegation of Nancy knockin’ at the knees, Pelosi appears to think the same of Trump. On Wednesday, CNN reported the Speaker claiming he’s afraid of House Democrats and the probe that’s coming:

“I think the President knows the argument that can be made against him and he’s scared, and so he’s trying to divert attention from that to where (he’s) standing in the way of legislation.”

That’s all fine and good, but the Dems look to be in a real pickle. Despite their talk, in addition to the reasons I covered here, many congressional Dems may not want to be associated with something as pointed as an actual impeachment.

The Daily Wire stated it aptly:

Democrats have been sidestepping the requirement to bring impeachment proceedings to a full vote on the House floor. More than 30 members of the House Democratic caucus represent congressional districts that voted for Trump during the 2016 election cycle. The Democratic Party largely gained its House majority after a wave of the party’s moderate candidates were elected in those purple districts during the 2018 election cycle.

Nonetheless, putting aside the ravings of AOC, it seems to me the more seasoned Dems in the House may be interested in impeachment because they already know 2020’s a no-go. They have no candidate on deck who can possibly defeat The Donald, and they appear to have given up arguing the superiority of their policies a long time ago.

I miss those days — the Idea days.

-ALEX

 

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Trump on Impeachment: Nancy Pelosi is Afraid, of Republicans Taking the Senate and ‘AOC and Plus 3’ Taking Her Place appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-fist-300x153 Trump on Impeachment: Nancy Pelosi is Afraid, of Republicans Taking the Senate and ‘AOC and Plus 3’ Taking Her Place witch hunt white house washington D.C. Uncategorized The Squad Russia Nancy Pelosi Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories elections donald trump democrats Congress collusion AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WaPo: Four Pinocchios to Schiff for lying about contact with whistleblower

Westlake Legal Group schiff-stare WaPo: Four Pinocchios to Schiff for lying about contact with whistleblower whistleblower WaPo Ukraine-Gate The Blog Nancy Pelosi impeachment Glenn Kessler Fact Check adam schiff

It’s an easy slam dunk, but Glenn Kessler deserves credit for taking it, and Amber Phillips for a surprising follow-up as well. After ripping Mike Pompeo for misleading reporters over his participation in the Donald Trump-Volodymyr Zelensky call, Kessler turns his fact-check guns on Adam Schiff and his repeated representations that he and his staff had no contact with the whistleblower who exposed it. This wasn’t just misleading, Kessler concludes, but at least one flat-out lie by Schiff.

On September 17th in a Morning Joe segment, Schiff asserted that his committee had never directly been in contact with the whistleblower:

Sam Stein: “Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the whistleblower?” …

Schiff: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to. But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.”

This is flat-out false. Unlike the quick two-step dance he performed with Anderson Cooper, Schiff simply says the committee had not spoken to the whistleblower. Now we know that’s not true.

Schiff also lied two days later in a presser, Kessler continues, when Schiff declared that his committee might never have heard about the whistleblower if it hadn’t been for the IG. Kessler calls that “dissembling,” as the New York Times explained that Schiff “knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.” Schiff’s spokesperson tries to sell the idea that Schiff didn’t realize that this was the same whistleblower, which Kessler concludes “strains credulity.”

There are right ways and wrong ways to answer reporters’ questions if a politician wants to maintain his or her credibility. There’s nothing wrong with dodging a question, as long as you don’t try to mislead (as Pompeo did).

But Schiff on “Morning Joe” clearly made a statement that was false. He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the IG’s office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication.

The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity.

Kessler gives Schiff the maximum four Pinocchios for his lies about the origins of the whistleblower complaint. That leaves the man in charge of impeachment looking pretty bad, Phillips writes, although she chides him as gently as possible:

President Trump is constantly grasping for anything to exploit to discredit his opponents as Democrats’ early impeachment inquiry produces mounting problems for him. And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the Democrats’ face of the inquiry, has handed the president at least two things to yank on within as many weeks.

We now know that Schiff’s committee had a heads-up about the whistleblower complaint because the whistleblower approached Schiff’s staff for guidance before filing the complaint. The New York Times first reported this week that the whistleblower reached out to Schiff’s staff concerned that attempts to flag what the whistleblower found alarming weren’t getting due attention. …

when asked by reporters about his dealings with the whistleblower pre-complaint numerous times, Schiff either didn’t answer the question or, as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker reported, “clearly made a statement that was false. He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case he should have quickly corrected the record.” They gave him Four Pinnochios [sic], which is reserved for “a whopper” of a false statement.

Republicans on the committee can frame this as Schiff keeping damaging information about Trump to himself.

Oh, they can frame it as a lot more than that, and accurately. According to the committee’s rules, that approach from a whistleblower involving classified material should have been shared with the ranking member on the committee, which Schiff did not do. The Trump-Zelensky call was classified in its entirety, as are all presidential conversations with other heads of governments, a fact that Schiff certainly knew. That’s at least one good reason for Schiff to have lied about that contact when asked about it, and to mislead reporters on the nature of that contact as well.

The result is that this looks cooked, and Schiff looks like the chef. If Nancy Pelosi wants to pursue impeachment with any kind of credibility attached to it, she needs to push Schiff to the sidelines and start establishing and enforcing rules governing the collection and use of evidence and testimony.

The post WaPo: Four Pinocchios to Schiff for lying about contact with whistleblower appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group schiff-stare-300x173 WaPo: Four Pinocchios to Schiff for lying about contact with whistleblower whistleblower WaPo Ukraine-Gate The Blog Nancy Pelosi impeachment Glenn Kessler Fact Check adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump to Pelosi: I triple-dog-dare ya to hold impeachment-inquiry vote

Westlake Legal Group trump-pelosi-sotu Trump to Pelosi: I triple-dog-dare ya to hold impeachment-inquiry vote The Blog Nancy Pelosi impeachment donald trump

At first glance this looks like a briar-patch strategy, and to some extent it might be, but it’s also a tactical move intended to legitimize the next phase of White House strategy. According to both Fox News and Axios, Donald Trump will send Nancy Pelosi a letter today essentially daring her to hold a full House vote on an impeachment inquiry. Until one passes, the letter will declare, the administration will produce no witnesses or documentation for committees attempting an impeachment on the cheap:

The White House is planning to send Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter as soon as Friday arguing that President Trump and his team can ignore lawmakers’ demands until she holds a full House vote formally approving an impeachment inquiry, 2 sources familiar with the letter tell Axios.

Why it matters: By putting in writing the case that Trump and his supporters have been making verbally for days, the White House is preparing for a court fight and arguing to the public that its resistance to Congress’ requests is justified.

  • Trump wants to force House Democrats in vulnerable races to be on the record if they favor pursuing impeachment, these sources tell us.
  • Republicans also say the minority party can exert more influence over hearings and other aspects of an inquiry once it is formalized with a vote.
  • By calling this an inquiry without holding a vote, Pelosi and the Democratic committee chairmen are having it both ways, one official said. “They want to be a little bit pregnant.”

They’ve been “a little bit pregnant” for well nigh unto three years. Until last week’s “Alea iacta est” declaration from Nancy Pelosi, however, Democrats had a way of eliding that fact for political purposes, while still claiming in court the privileges of an impeachment probe. Pelosi’s declaration stripped away that fig leaf, and now Trump wants Pelosi to fish or cut bait.

A full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry therefore holds lower risk for Trump than his current predicament. If the full House does vote to launch a formal impeachment inquiry, then it will look like the effort to remove him has gained momentum … which it unquestionably has, but only among Democrats. However, it will then force Pelosi to adopt formal impeachment processes, outlined in detail by Kevin McCarthy yesterday, that will afford the GOP and the White House a lot more input and control than either have in the current, chaotic ad hoc process. Most if not all of that reflects historical norms and basic fairness within the American legal/judicial process, but it necessarily will require a restart and a slower pace going forward, neither of which Pelosi would prefer.

This triple-dog-dare only works if the Trump administration can make good on its threat to completely cut off cooperation without a formal inquiry. It’s unlikely that courts will curtail committee subpoena powers in that kind of a standoff, but the White House can certainly stall House Democrats in court for quite a while first. Courts have already expressed some skepticism about giving the House the range they demand without opening up a formal impeachment process first.

So far, Democrats don’t think much of McCarthy’s demands or of Trump’s briar-patch play, Fox reported:

A senior Democratic aide told Fox News on Thursday, “As we continue to follow the facts, it would behoove the president to come up with something more persuasive than Kevin McCarthy’s pathetic and bogus process arguments,” following reports of the White House’s letter to Pelosi, first reported by Axios.

“Given that the president just this morning on national television urged yet another foreign government to meddle in our upcoming 2020 elections, we would think the White House would want to mount a rigorous defense of the president’s clear betrayal of his oath of office,” the aide said.

True, but they’d also like a fair opportunity to mount that defense. Why would Democrats object to that?

The post Trump to Pelosi: I triple-dog-dare ya to hold impeachment-inquiry vote appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-pelosi-sotu-300x162 Trump to Pelosi: I triple-dog-dare ya to hold impeachment-inquiry vote The Blog Nancy Pelosi impeachment donald trump   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Paul Sperry Report: Whistleblower Dug Up Dirt in Ukraine About Trump and Manafort During 2016 Campaign

Westlake Legal Group adam-schiff-subpoena-interpreter-SCREENSHOT-620x348 Paul Sperry Report: Whistleblower Dug Up Dirt in Ukraine About Trump and Manafort During 2016 Campaign whistleblower complain discredited President Trump Paul Sperry Nancy Pelosi Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story corruption Congress Allow Media Exception adam schiff Abuse of Power 2020

FILE- In this Feb. 5, 2018, file photo, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Committee on Intelligence, pauses while speaking during a media availability after a closed-door meeting of the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington. Two weeks after President Donald Trump blocked its full release, the House Intelligence Committee published on Saturday, Feb. 24, a partially blacked-out version of a classified Democratic memo aiming to counter a GOP narrative that the FBI and Justice Department conspired against Trump as they investigated his ties to Russia. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

 

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry reported on Thursday night that the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the House of Representatives to open an impeachment inquiry against President Trump, was “himself helping dig up dirt in Ukraine against Trump (and Manafort) while working in the Obama White House during 2016 campaign.” In an earlier tweet, Sperry wrote, “BREAKING: The whistleblower is a registered Democrat & CIA analyst who was detailed before the 2016 election to the Obama White House, where he worked on the NSC’s Ukraine desk & met w anti-Trump Ukrainian officials before being sent packing by the Trump NSC & becoming disgruntled.”

If these allegations are proven, and Paul Sperry is a very credible journalist, it blows up the Democrats’ case against Trump.

If this story is true, it offers further evidence that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who currently chairs the House Intelligence Committee, is an unscrupulous, deceitful manipulator who has caused great harm to our country. He should immediately be stripped of his chairmanship and thrown off the Intelligence Committee. It’s time for this liar to face justice.

The Democrats’ latest scheme to take out the President has been unraveling by the day. The fact that they chose such a weak narrative speaks to their great desperation.

I’ll keep an eye on this story and will post any updates I find.

The post Paul Sperry Report: Whistleblower Dug Up Dirt in Ukraine About Trump and Manafort During 2016 Campaign appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff-300x200 Paul Sperry Report: Whistleblower Dug Up Dirt in Ukraine About Trump and Manafort During 2016 Campaign whistleblower complain discredited President Trump Paul Sperry Nancy Pelosi Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story corruption Congress Allow Media Exception adam schiff Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Turley, CNN: Why are Dems and the media attacking Barr for doing his job?

Westlake Legal Group barr-smile Turley, CNN: Why are Dems and the media attacking Barr for doing his job? william barr Ukraine-Gate The Blog recusal Nancy Pelosi Jonathan Turley impeachment House Democrats donald trump Department of Justice

Oh, we all know why. It’s still good to see some acknowledgment of the strategy on mainstream media sites. Writing at The Hill, liberal legal analyst Jonathan Turley scolds Democrats and media outlets for attacking Attorney General William Barr needlessly on their Shermanesque march to the Impeachment Sea:

With all of the breathless headlines of the last two weeks, it is astonishing that the entire city of Washington is not swooning from hypoxia. Much of the media have blasted out the news that Attorney General William Barr is “implicated” in the Ukraine scandal, after sources said he pressed leaders in Australia, Italy and England to supply evidence about the origins of the Russia investigation. Esquire Magazine was a tad more descriptive, proclaiming Barr was now “far up s–t creek” because of his calls.

Yet not only is there a valid reason for such calls, but they could indicate that the creek could become a storm of sorts for Democrats over the coming weeks. The calls made by Barr were reportedly linked to the ongoing investigation by United States Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia investigation. It is not uncommon for an attorney general, or even a president, to ask foreign leaders to assist with ongoing investigations. Such calls can shortcut bureaucratic red tape, particularly if the evidence is held, as in this case, by national security or justice officials. A call to request assistance for the Durham investigation would “implicate” Barr in nothing other than an official investigation. …

However, many of the very same figures in Congress and in the media who previously called for full disclosure of every aspect of the Russia investigation are now criticizing the effort to gather evidence in the Durham investigation. It appears the public “right to know” does not extend that far. The reason is that a key report by Durham likely would come at a most importune time in advance of the 2020 election.

Democrats already are moving to impeach Trump on the Ukraine matter. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have told fellow Democrats to focus on Ukraine instead of on Russia conspiracy or obstruction, which led to more than two years of investigation. One reason for this is that Trump would be able to call his own witnesses during a Senate trial, particularly with a Republican majority dictating the rules. If the Russia investigation winds up as part of an impeachment trial, then Trump would be able to use these reports and earlier disclosures to place the conduct of the Obama administration under the spotlight before the public.

While Turley largely leaves the final dot unconnected, it’s impossible to miss his point. In order to keep the Durham and Horowitz investigations from playing any role in either the 2020 elections or a potential impeachment trial, Democrats need to discredit the man in titular charge of both. Hence the attacks on Barr over Ukraine-Gate, even though Barr has no connection to that scandal at all — not even an investigatory role, which properly belongs with Congress.

CNN’s legal commentator James Schultz, who worked for Trump’s Office of White House Counsel early on, adds his voice to the why-Barr chorus:

The reality is that anyone within Trump’s orbit who isn’t willing to deliver the goods on the President, or who stands in the Democrats’ way in their rush to judgment, is a target. Trump’s opponents would like Barr to help them make a case against the President, regardless of whether or not such a case exists.

But Barr won’t cooperate, and it’s driving Democrats to distraction. Instead, the attorney general is doing his job. … If mentioning the attorney general’s name in a conversation with a foreign leader is reason for recusal, Barr and all future attorneys general won’t have much to do.

In my column at The Week, I argue that Democrats are attempting to derail anything that upends their narrative about Trump ahead of their quixotic impeachment effort. William Barr stands in their way, and that’s enough:

Democrats are taking aim at Barr over investigations that do fall within the DOJ’s purview. Barr’s department has two parallel probes into the beginnings of the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election which later became the Mueller special-counsel probe. Inspector general Michael Horowitz is expected to release a public report on his findings this month; U.S. Attorney John Durham has worked in parallel with Horowitz to review intelligence and determine whether any prosecutions might be warranted.

As part of his responsibilities as attorney general, Barr has facilitated both internal investigations by coordinating with other governments where necessary. That includes contacts reported this week with Italy to assist cooperation regarding an assessment of Maltese figure Joseph Mifsud, “a key figure in the events that triggered the Russia probe,” as Reuters notes. Barr also coordinated with Australia, whose ambassador first reported comments allegedly made by Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Barr has also connected with British intelligence services for their cooperation as part of his support of the two probes.

It is hardly unusual for a cabinet official to be part of efforts to secure international cooperation for their underlings, especially when it comes to sensitive internal investigations touching on issues of abuse of power and the politicization of intelligence. The attacks on Barr, however, are intended to either disqualify him entirely from the processes, which are likely too far along to impact at this point, or to discredit whatever they produce with the public.

As former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on Wednesday, the motives behind these attacks are transparently political. “The hope is that this will delegitimize not only any information that emerges from Ukraine,” McCarthy writes, “but the whole of the Justice Department’s investigation of intelligence and law-enforcement abuses of power attendant to the 2016 election.” The two parallel probes into “questionable Justice Department and FBI conduct” long preceded the Zelensky call, and are focused on whether and how many people in both organizations actually did “go rogue” in 2016.

Just how far Democrats will stretch to go after Barr was made apparent in a Wall Street Journal report on Tuesday evening. Not only was Barr not part of Trump’s efforts on Ukraine, he’s no fan of Rudy Giuliani and his connection to Trump either:

Attorney General William Barr called President Trump in April with a question: What was Rudy Giuliani doing?

Mr. Trump had just avoided criminal charges with the release of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian electoral interference. But Mr. Giuliani was on television attacking former White House counsel Don McGahn, a longtime friend of the attorney general who had testified to investigators about some of the most notable incidents in the report, including Mr. Trump’s efforts to seek Mr. Mueller’s dismissal.

Why, Mr. Barr wanted to know, was the president’s private lawyer making a spectacle of himself rather than declaring victory in the Mueller investigation and moving on, according to a person who paraphrased the conversation. Mr. Barr wanted the president to tell Mr. Giuliani, in effect, to knock it off.

Barr also had a similar reaction to being lumped in with Giuliani on the Zelensky call:

Mr. Barr was surprised and angry to discover weeks later that the president had lumped him together with Mr. Giuliani on the phone call with Mr. Zelensky, according to a person familiar with the matter. The Justice Department said Mr. Trump never asked Mr. Barr to contact the Ukrainians. …

The Justice Department initially blocked the complaint from being turned over to Congress, advising the director of national intelligence in early September that it didn’t constitute an urgent concern that required reporting to the intelligence committees. Justice Department lawyers then said they didn’t find enough evidence to warrant opening a criminal investigation into possible campaign-finance violations.

Mr. Barr didn’t believe it was necessary to recuse himself from deliberations given that he didn’t know until later that the president had invoked his name on the call, but nonetheless didn’t oversee the review, an official said.

Democrats don’t really care, however. They see the Horowitz and Durham investigations as dangerous to their narratives and Barr as the main target to discredit them both. It’s so transparent, though, that even friendly mainstream media outlets are beginning to take notice of it, which is not a good sign for Democrats.

The post Turley, CNN: Why are Dems and the media attacking Barr for doing his job? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group barr-smile-300x173 Turley, CNN: Why are Dems and the media attacking Barr for doing his job? william barr Ukraine-Gate The Blog recusal Nancy Pelosi Jonathan Turley impeachment House Democrats donald trump Department of Justice   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WaPo, Chris Matthews Make the Case for Pence to be Impeached and You Know What THAT Means

Westlake Legal Group Chris-Matthews-620x399 WaPo, Chris Matthews Make the Case for Pence to be Impeached and You Know What THAT Means Washington Post President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mike Pence kamala harris Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Congress Chris Matthews Chris Coons Campaigns Allow Media Exception Allapundit Abuse of Power 2020

 

Here’s a subject that no Democratic lawmakers will touch right now. The thinking is: Pence is implicated in Trump’s campaign to pressure Ukraine to reopen their investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. Although Pence never mentioned Biden’s name to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, he was after all, involved in communicating the delay of the U.S. aid and at the request of President Trump, he skipped Zelensky’s inauguration. Shouldn’t Pence be impeached too? A rather low bar for impeachment to be sure, but that’s all they’ve got right now.

The media, on the other hand, has no such reservations. The last few days have seen a couple of Washington Post articles arguing for Pence’s impeachment, a story in the Associated Press and a handful of others.

In the video below, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews speaks to Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE). Matthews asks: “The Vice President now according to reporting as of tonight seems to have engaged in the same thing Trump was engaged in which is basically shaking down a foreign leader to get dirt on a political opponent, the candidate you’re supporting, Joe Biden. Shouldn’t he be the subject of an impeachment inquiry as well at this point?”

Coons, a bit taken aback, replies, “Well, at this point, look Chris, I think it’s important that we focus on the facts here. The facts are that we tie –”

Matthews, not hearing what he wants to hear, abruptly cuts him off and says, “I’m talking the facts. I realize [Trump has] got William Barr, the Attorney General in cahoots with him. He’s got Secretary of State, Pompeo, in cahoots with him. Now, he’s got the Vice President dragged into this cabal.”

The video then shows him speaking to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). “You know, if possible, if it comes to a Senate trial, and it may well by the end of this year where you’ll be a juror in that trial for removal of the President from office after he’s impeached, if that develops as the history of this year, you’re going to a Vice President of the United States who would take the presidency after having been involved personally in the cabal that we’d be impeaching the President for. How does that make sense historically? If Pence was part of this how could he survive as president when Trump goes?”

Kamala does not muster a tremendous amount of enthusiasm over the idea.

Last night, the Washington Post channeled Matthews and published a lengthy piece enumerating Pence’s interactions with Zelensky. It reads like a primer on the anatomy of a political smear. Here are some excerpts:

The president used Pence to tell Zelensky that U.S. aid was still being withheld while demanding more aggressive action on corruption, officials said. At that time — following Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelenksy — the Ukrainians probably understood action on corruption to include the investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Officials close to Pence insist that he was unaware of Trump’s efforts to press Zelensky for damaging information about Biden and his son, who had served on the board of an obscure Ukrainian gas company, when his father was overseeing U.S. policy on Ukraine.

Pence’s activities occurred amid several indications of the president’s hidden agenda. Among them were the abrupt removal of the U.S. ambassador to Kiev; the visible efforts by the president’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to insert himself in the U.S.-Ukraine relationship; as well as alarms being raised inside the White House even before the emergence of an extraordinary whistleblower complaint about Trump’s conduct.

Perhaps most significantly, one of Pence’s top advisers [national security advisor Keith Kellogg] was on the July 25 call and the vice president should have had access to the transcript within hours, officials said.

The authors do at least acknowledge that Kellogg found nothing unusual about the call, nor did he “flag any concerns” to Pence.

Democrats will find a way to interpret anything involving Trump in the most negative way possible which is what they are doing here. The impeachment of both Trump and Pence would set the stage for a President Pelosi, a dream come true for war weary Democrats.

Why is this idea starting to gain traction among the left leaning press, yet no one in Congress appears to want to talk about it?

For one thing, the optics would be bad for them. Maybe they realize they’ve already grossly overstepped by basing their case for Trump’s impeachment on a routine phone call.

Hot Air’s Allapundit has a theory and it goes like this. President Trump, along with many Republicans, myself included, see the Democrats impeachment inquiry as another coup attempt. The thinking is, that if lawmakers call for Pence to be impeached along with Trump, it’s the same as saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be President.

Now that would truly seem like a coup. Actually, it would be a coup. In fact, it’s already a coup.

The post WaPo, Chris Matthews Make the Case for Pence to be Impeached and You Know What THAT Means appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Chris-Matthews-300x193 WaPo, Chris Matthews Make the Case for Pence to be Impeached and You Know What THAT Means Washington Post President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mike Pence kamala harris Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Congress Chris Matthews Chris Coons Campaigns Allow Media Exception Allapundit Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

McCarthy to Pelosi: Time to suspend and retool your whole approach to impeachment

Westlake Legal Group pelosi-abc McCarthy to Pelosi: Time to suspend and retool your whole approach to impeachment The Blog Nancy Pelosi Kevin McCarthy Jerrold Nadler impeachment House Democrats adam schiff 2020 election

Alea iacta est in haste, repent at leisure. Kevin McCarthy’s trying to toss Nancy Pelosi a lifeline here, but she’ll never grab at it. As House Democrats careen from one rationalization to the next on impeachment and refuse to explicitly authorize an inquiry at all, they House Minority Leader called for a halt to the chaos. Either put together a “transparent and equitable” process for evidence and testimony, he tells Pelosi in a letter released earlier this morning, or hang it up altogether:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi on to suspend the House impeachment inquiry until she establishes more “transparent and equitable rules and procedures” to govern the probe.

“Unfortunately, you have given no clear indication as to how your impeachment inquiry will proceed — including whether key historical precedents or basic standards of due process will be observed,” McCarthy wrote in a letter to Pelosi, D-Calif., on Thursday.

“In addition, the swiftness and recklessness with which you have proceeded has already resulted in committee chairs attempting to limit minority participation in scheduled interviews, calling into question the integrity of such an inquiry,” he continued.

Put simply, Pelosi’s impeachment Rubicon has become an impassable mess. Her chair for the effort, Adam Schiff, just got exposed by the New York Times as misrepresenting his role in cultivating the whistleblower complaint that has been its catalyst. Schiff has now had to backpedal from his earlier public denials that he or his staff having had contact with the whistleblower well before he claimed that the White House had withheld that information from him. Having cast her die without bothering to wait for the evidence Schiff claimed the White House was covering up, she has tossed her caucus into the proverbial Rubicon creek without a paddle.

McCarthy wants Pelosi to commit to a credible process that allows for a true judicial approach to the question of impeachment. That includes an extensive resolution adopted by the whole House outlining “transparent and equitable rules and procedures,” including the following:

  • Co-equal subpoena power to the committee chair and ranking member
  • Right for Donald Trump’s counsel to attend all committee hearings and depositions, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses
  • Allow the president’s legal team to present its own evidence

“By answering ‘no’ to any of the above,” McCarthy concludes, “you would create a process completely devoid of any merit or legitimacy.” That’s going to be a major problem for Pelosi, not just for a Senate trial but just to get impeachment past a floor vote. She has at least a couple dozen caucus members who have to run next year in Trump-friendly districts who won’t be happy with any kind of impeachment process. If Pelosi allows Schiff to run a kangaroo court without any appearance of due process to produce articles of impeachment, it will only make that situation worse — and it will give Senate Republicans plenty of justification for a quick dismissal to its impeachment trial afterward.

Frankly, McCarthy might be doing Pelosi a favor with this letter, in at least two ways. The bigger favor would be that this would allow Pelosi to dump Schiff from leadership of the impeachment push, and probably Jerrold Nadler as well. Both have undermined their credibility to lead a fair investigation into Trump over the past two years, especially Schiff. Pelosi could use the resolution process McCarthy suggests to put a more credible figure in charge — perhaps Foreign Affairs chair Eliot Engel, or maybe even deputy speaker Steny Hoyer — while appointing Schiff and Nadler to the select committee. A select committee would make it easier to meet McCarthy’s other demands too, rather than retool existing rules for the standing committees. It would be a fresh start to crossing the Rubicon, a do-over of iacta-ing the alea, so to speak.

The smaller favor would be extracting some of the obvious politicization from the process. If Pelosi adopts McCarthy’s approach, she at least has some nominal buy-in from the GOP caucus leader on an impeachment process modeled on his recommendations. That would help protect her moderates while giving up nothing of substance to the GOP except — and this is not unimportant — the several weeks it would add to any passage of impeachment articles. The closer this gets to the primaries, the more political impeachment looks, and Pelosi knows it.

Will she take this opportunity to solve this problem? Based on Pelosi’s lack of care to keep from conflating impeachment and re-election this morning on ABC, I’m betting … naaah.

Addendum: Here’s yet another reason to find a way, any way, to get rid of Schiff’s leadership on impeachment:

Schiff’s not even abiding by the normal rules of his committee. He’s going to be a disaster as an impeachment manager, and Pelosi should realize that by now.

The post McCarthy to Pelosi: Time to suspend and retool your whole approach to impeachment appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group pelosi-abc-300x163 McCarthy to Pelosi: Time to suspend and retool your whole approach to impeachment The Blog Nancy Pelosi Kevin McCarthy Jerrold Nadler impeachment House Democrats adam schiff 2020 election   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Did Adam Schiff Force Nancy Pelosi’s Hand On Impeachment?

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff-620x413 Did Adam Schiff Force Nancy Pelosi’s Hand On Impeachment? whistle-blower Ukraine New York Times Nancy Pelosi Media Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception adam schiff

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaks after a closed meeting on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 6, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

There are two things that we have to acknowledge.

The first is that an idea that was widely panned by liberals and journalists as a conspiracy theory was confirmed by the New York Times yesterday. The second is that, in confirming it, we might have a glimpse into the coup that is happening right under Nancy Pelosi’s nose.

Most conservatives who dared to suggest that the rollout of the whistleblower complaint was a coordinated drip-drip by House Democrats (particularly Adam Schiff) were attacked as crazy conspiracy theorists for the past couple of days. Then, the Times released their story and basically confirmed that, yes, Schiff had knowledge of this for a month and a half and could, at least theoretically, have planned a slow rollout.

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

As Erick Erickson mentioned on his Atlanta-based radio show yesterday, the writers here omitted a very important piece of information in this opening paragraph – and the entire story.

The whistle-blower complaint was filed on August 12. The news broke in late September.

That’s a pretty big omission because, without that context, you could read that paragraph and think this is all recent stuff. But, it isn’t. It’s a month and a half of trying to build a (rather shoddy) impeachment case. A case, the Times adds, the whistle-blower didn’t seem able to make he got “help” from House Intelligence aides.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

However, the caveat here is that we still don’t have all the information. Only the publicly-released information. There are investigations and, as I said last week, the whistle-blower’s complaint is written in a way that makes it appear more as a road map to impeachment rather than an impeachment accusation itself. There is still the (in my opinion, rapidly shrinking) chance that someone does have something that could be properly used against Trump.

But that is a discussion for lawyers and people who are interested in pursuing this rabbit hole. I am not. Instead, I find it way more fascinating to note that the New York Times story also had another glaring omission: Nancy Pelosi’s name.

The Speaker of the House, the loudest and most powerful voice against impeachment proceedings, appears nowhere in the timeline the Times has built for this story. If Pelosi knew about the whistle-blower complaint, it appears that it came way later than the House Intelligence’s discovery of it.

That isn’t a mistake on Schiff’s part as chairman of that committee. That’s a straight-up coup of Pelosi’s role as Speaker of the House and leader of the Democrats in Congress. Schiff kept this from his boss.

If that is the case, then Pelosi would do best to announce retirement now. She’s got no real power left. Let Nadler or Schiff or, God help us, Ocasio-Cortez fight for the job. If one of her closest lieutenants kept this whistle-blower report from her – and there is very little evidence suggesting she was in on it from the start or even from the middle – then she does not even have the respect of her House leaders.

Schiff not only prepped a slow rollout of the whistleblower complaint, but did so behind the back of (supposedly) the most powerful woman in Congress. He forced her hand on impeachment, a move she has carefully sought to avoid making.

That’s a whole bloody rebellion.

The post Did Adam Schiff Force Nancy Pelosi’s Hand On Impeachment? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff-300x200 Did Adam Schiff Force Nancy Pelosi’s Hand On Impeachment? whistle-blower Ukraine New York Times Nancy Pelosi Media Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff-620x413 Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General whistleblower complaint whistleblower Ukraine republicans Politics Nancy Pelosi Michael Atkinson Kevin McCarthy Joseph Maguire impeachment Front Page Stories donald trump democrats Congress California Allow Media Exception adam schiff

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaks after a closed meeting on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 6, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

 

There have been a lot of mysteries surrounding the complaint filed by the so-called whistleblower in the matter of President Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president. I say “so-called” because the whistleblower did nothing more or less than leak hearsay about a conversation with the intent of either damaging President Trump or creating a pretext for an impeachment vote. The matter was not an intelligence concern, it was a policy difference, and it wasn’t in any way urgent and should not have been reported to Congress. The flimsy justification used by the IC IG, Michael Atkinson, was totally demolished by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

They mysteries include the IC IG bending over backwards to let Schiff know that he had something he wanted to report but was not being allowed to report. There is the matter of the structure of the complaint looking like it was crafted with substantial legal assistance. And you have the statements by Schiff and Pelosi indicating that they knew of the whistleblower complaint well in advance of it ever being officially reported.

A lot of pieces quickly fell together today when the New York Times ran this story today: Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

And by days, we can probably say that he means more than two weeks judging from when Atkinson squirted in his drawers in his effort to inform Schiff of the complaint.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

Even with this minor admission, Schiff is still holding the line:

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, from turning over the complaint sooner.

This is a masterpiece of the non-denial denial. He’s denying one small part of the picture in order to blow smoke. All he’s saying is that he didn’t see an advance copy of the complaint. He’s not saying that the whistleblower didn’t tell him in great detail about the future complaint, he just didn’t see the actual written complaint. Similarly, he’s not saying some committee staff didn’t work with the whistleblower, he’s just saying the “committee” didn’t.

Based on what we seem to know now, it looks like the whistleblower approached the Democrats working for Schiff with the complaint. According to the narrative this was after he had approached the IC general counsel and didn’t like the answer he was getting about his whistleblower status (my guess is that the general counsel read the same regulations and laws as did Department of Justice and decided this was just a vindictive f*** trying to hurt President Trump while firmly grasping a get-out-of-jail free card as a whistleblower). Some Democrat staffers interviewed him and gave him advice and helped him write his complaint. Along the line, Adam Schiff was briefed and he, I imagine, briefed Pelosi. The whistleblower now approaches the IC IG and tells him that he has a complaint and that Schiff nows. The IC IG befouls himself. He doesn’t want to get caught up in this sh**storm so he creates a special dispensation to recognized gossip monger as a class of whistleblower and notifies his boss of the “urgent” nature of the allegations. At some point in this, the whistleblower form was changed to allow hearsay allegations. The acting DNI, having read the law, says no. The IC IG notifies Schiff that he has this really urgent complaint that just has to get out but his righteous ass is being stymied by everyone. At this point, the story starts bubbling into press reports.

As a final note, are the accusations being made about Schiff a little bit more than the article will support? Like this?

Sure, they are. But now a spotlight is going to be shined on Schiff’s ethics (none) and integrity (likewise none) and those deficiencies are going to color future events.

Postscript. This is why you never trust the New York Times with anything of importance.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff-300x200 Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General whistleblower complaint whistleblower Ukraine republicans Politics Nancy Pelosi Michael Atkinson Kevin McCarthy Joseph Maguire impeachment Front Page Stories donald trump democrats Congress California Allow Media Exception adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff-620x413 Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General whistleblower complaint whistleblower Ukraine republicans Politics Nancy Pelosi Michael Atkinson Kevin McCarthy Joseph Maguire impeachment Front Page Stories donald trump democrats Congress California Allow Media Exception adam schiff

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaks after a closed meeting on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 6, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

 

There have been a lot of mysteries surrounding the complaint filed by the so-called whistleblower in the matter of President Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president. I say “so-called” because the whistleblower did nothing more or less than leak hearsay about a conversation with the intent of either damaging President Trump or creating a pretext for an impeachment vote. The matter was not an intelligence concern, it was a policy difference, and it wasn’t in any way urgent and should not have been reported to Congress. The flimsy justification used by the IC IG, Michael Atkinson, was totally demolished by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

They mysteries include the IC IG bending over backwards to let Schiff know that he had something he wanted to report but was not being allowed to report. There is the matter of the structure of the complaint looking like it was crafted with substantial legal assistance. And you have the statements by Schiff and Pelosi indicating that they knew of the whistleblower complaint well in advance of it ever being officially reported.

A lot of pieces quickly fell together today when the New York Times ran this story today: Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

And by days, we can probably say that he means more than two weeks judging from when Atkinson squirted in his drawers in his effort to inform Schiff of the complaint.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

Even with this minor admission, Schiff is still holding the line:

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, from turning over the complaint sooner.

This is a masterpiece of the non-denial denial. He’s denying one small part of the picture in order to blow smoke. All he’s saying is that he didn’t see an advance copy of the complaint. He’s not saying that the whistleblower didn’t tell him in great detail about the future complaint, he just didn’t see the actual written complaint. Similarly, he’s not saying some committee staff didn’t work with the whistleblower, he’s just saying the “committee” didn’t.

Based on what we seem to know now, it looks like the whistleblower approached the Democrats working for Schiff with the complaint. According to the narrative this was after he had approached the IC general counsel and didn’t like the answer he was getting about his whistleblower status (my guess is that the general counsel read the same regulations and laws as did Department of Justice and decided this was just a vindictive f*** trying to hurt President Trump while firmly grasping a get-out-of-jail free card as a whistleblower). Some Democrat staffers interviewed him and gave him advice and helped him write his complaint. Along the line, Adam Schiff was briefed and he, I imagine, briefed Pelosi. The whistleblower now approaches the IC IG and tells him that he has a complaint and that Schiff nows. The IC IG befouls himself. He doesn’t want to get caught up in this sh**storm so he creates a special dispensation to recognized gossip monger as a class of whistleblower and notifies his boss of the “urgent” nature of the allegations. At some point in this, the whistleblower form was changed to allow hearsay allegations. The acting DNI, having read the law, says no. The IC IG notifies Schiff that he has this really urgent complaint that just has to get out but his righteous ass is being stymied by everyone. At this point, the story starts bubbling into press reports.

As a final note, are the accusations being made about Schiff a little bit more than the article will support? Like this?

Sure, they are. But now a spotlight is going to be shined on Schiff’s ethics (none) and integrity (likewise none) and those deficiencies are going to color future events.

Postscript. This is why you never trust the New York Times with anything of importance.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-adam-schiff-300x200 Adam Schiff Coordinated the Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed With the Inspector General whistleblower complaint whistleblower Ukraine republicans Politics Nancy Pelosi Michael Atkinson Kevin McCarthy Joseph Maguire impeachment Front Page Stories donald trump democrats Congress California Allow Media Exception adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com