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 > Posts tagged "democrats" (Page 50)

Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process

Westlake Legal Group 3d07ac94-617f-4195-9a13-c130cea3e6b1-620x317 Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Conservative Tree House's Sundance Congress Changes to House Rules biden Allow Media Exception 2020

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., pauses as she speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 17, 2019. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

 

In December 2018, the soon-to-be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was busy making changes in the House rules for the incoming 116th Congress. She was actually setting the stage for her anticipated impeachment of President Trump. At the time, The Conservative Treehouse’s “Sundance” wrote, “Remember when we warned [November 8th, 2018] that a convergence of left-wing groups, activists, DNC donors and specifically the Lawfare team, would align with (and meet) incoming Democrat leadership to construct a road-map for the “resistance” priorities? Well, exactly that planned and coordinated outcome is visible as incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi presents her new rules for the 116th congress.”

(Note: Sundance points out the details of the relevant rules changes here.)

House Dems are currently using those new rules to subvert historic processes and prepare the articles of impeachment.

Although impeachment is rare, on the few occasions one has been initiated, a full house vote has always been taken. However, this is not mandatory. Pelosi has not held a full house vote and there’s a reason for that. A formal vote would give the minority enforceable rights. Without a full vote, the articles of impeachment “can be drawn up without any participation by the minority. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.”

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-09-29-at-7.53.22-AM-620x184 Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Conservative Tree House's Sundance Congress Changes to House Rules biden Allow Media Exception 2020

Once the articles are drawn up and passed out of committee, they will come before a full house vote. “Once Pelosi achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached.” Pelosi has deliberately timed the whole sequence of events so that Democrats will have the current two-week recess to return to their districts to convince their constituents that impeachment is necessary. According to Sundance:

There are 31 House districts currently held by Democrats which President Trump won in 2016; Pelosi is giving those members an opportunity to make their impeachment case to their constituents now, but failure to support the effort is likely not optional for all except a few of the most tenuously vulnerable. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn will assemble enough votes for impeachment.

While those house members are explaining to their constituents, back in DC the committee work on the articles will collate. On Friday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, issued a subpoena demanding a slew of Ukraine-related documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by Oct. 4th. The committees also scheduled depositions with five State Department officials between Oct. 2 and Oct. 10.

Notice that with the rule changes the minority will not be participating in these depositions. The republicans will likely have no idea what is happening therein.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram explains that “the subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article itself.” Why does that not surprise us?

When Congress reconvenes, the Articles of Impeachment will be ready. Sundance says that for the sake of optics, Pelosi has to make it appear that Republicans played a role in the process. He writes:

She will likely have mid to late October destined for the committee chairs to have committee debate on their pre-assembled articles.

Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they coordinate all endeavors with their media allies. The narrative assembly and usefulness by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October time-frame. This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public interest and make the most money therein.

Then, once Pelosi is certain the maximum political benefit has been achieved, she will announce the date for the Full House Vote on Articles of Impeachment. We can be certain the date will be filled with maximum drama and made-for-tv effect complete with Speaker Pelosi bringing back the big gavel for a grand presentation and a full house vote.

Pergram breaks down the math:

The current House breakdown is 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans, and one independent: Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich. To pass anything in the House, 218 yeas are needed.

That means Democrats can only lose 17 votes from their side and still have enough to pass an article of impeachment. Amash has endorsed impeachment, so let’s say the magic number is actually 16. If the president is to be impeached, that means Democrats could have 15 of their own voting for articles of impeachment while representing a district which Trump carried in 2016.

A House floor vote to impeach the President is kind of like an indictment, codified in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. If the House votes to impeach, Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution sends the article(s) to the Senate for a trial presided over by Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts.

Pelosi has been preparing for this since Election Day. Every detail was carefully planned, except for the crime. She had hoped Mueller would have provided one, but no worries, she found one.

However, she does face several headwinds. For one thing, whistleblower mania is folding faster than a house of cards.

Many of the whistleblower’s claims and the interpretations spun by the eager liberal commentators have been blown up.

First, we were told there were eight references to Biden during President Trump’s July 25th conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Turns out there were three. And they were all found in two sentences.

Next, the media breathlessly reported that a ‘promise’ had been made, there was a quid pro quo. There was no promise, no quid pro quo.

My colleague Nick Arama reported (here) two more whistleblower claims which have been debunked. The complaint said that Counselor to the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Trump/Zelensky call. He was not.

The document also claimed that “by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to “contain the damage” from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s outreach to Ukraine.” Text messages from Volker to Giuliani have since shown that to be false. Even ABC News has acknowledged this. They reported, “The State Department has confirmed that Volker put Giuliani in touch with Zelensky adviser Andriy Yermak at Yermak’s request.”

Last night The Federalist’s Sean Davis reported that days before the whistleblower submitted his complaint, the intelligence community “secretly eliminated the requirement that whistleblower complaints contain only direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing allegations.” This change allowed the whistleblower to file a complaint based on hearsay information.

Right about now, Republicans could use a nice, devastating Inspector General report showing FISA abuse by the FBI. It’s been two weeks since DOJ Inspector General submitted his report to the DOJ for classification. Hopefully, it will be released this week. President Trump, as well as the rest of us, need a win.

The post Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group rsz_f07c7864-5d7c-4b34-8895-98e1e607df21-300x200 Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Conservative Tree House's Sundance Congress Changes to House Rules biden Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process

Westlake Legal Group 3d07ac94-617f-4195-9a13-c130cea3e6b1-620x317 Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Conservative Tree House's Sundance Congress Changes to House Rules biden Allow Media Exception 2020

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., pauses as she speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 17, 2019. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

 

In December 2018, the soon-to-be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was busy making changes in the House rules for the incoming 116th Congress. She was actually setting the stage for her anticipated impeachment of President Trump. At the time, The Conservative Treehouse’s “Sundance” wrote, “Remember when we warned [November 8th, 2018] that a convergence of left-wing groups, activists, DNC donors and specifically the Lawfare team, would align with (and meet) incoming Democrat leadership to construct a road-map for the “resistance” priorities? Well, exactly that planned and coordinated outcome is visible as incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi presents her new rules for the 116th congress.”

(Note: Sundance points out the details of the relevant rules changes here.)

House Dems are currently using those new rules to subvert historic processes and prepare the articles of impeachment.

Although impeachment is rare, on the few occasions one has been initiated, a full house vote has always been taken. However, this is not mandatory. Pelosi has not held a full house vote and there’s a reason for that. A formal vote would give the minority enforceable rights. Without a full vote, the articles of impeachment “can be drawn up without any participation by the minority. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.”

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-09-29-at-7.53.22-AM-620x184 Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Conservative Tree House's Sundance Congress Changes to House Rules biden Allow Media Exception 2020

Once the articles are drawn up and passed out of committee, they will come before a full house vote. “Once Pelosi achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached.” Pelosi has deliberately timed the whole sequence of events so that Democrats will have the current two-week recess to return to their districts to convince their constituents that impeachment is necessary. According to Sundance:

There are 31 House districts currently held by Democrats which President Trump won in 2016; Pelosi is giving those members an opportunity to make their impeachment case to their constituents now, but failure to support the effort is likely not optional for all except a few of the most tenuously vulnerable. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn will assemble enough votes for impeachment.

While those house members are explaining to their constituents, back in DC the committee work on the articles will collate. On Friday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, issued a subpoena demanding a slew of Ukraine-related documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by Oct. 4th. The committees also scheduled depositions with five State Department officials between Oct. 2 and Oct. 10.

Notice that with the rule changes the minority will not be participating in these depositions. The republicans will likely have no idea what is happening therein.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram explains that “the subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article itself.” Why does that not surprise us?

When Congress reconvenes, the Articles of Impeachment will be ready. Sundance says that for the sake of optics, Pelosi has to make it appear that Republicans played a role in the process. He writes:

She will likely have mid to late October destined for the committee chairs to have committee debate on their pre-assembled articles.

Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they coordinate all endeavors with their media allies. The narrative assembly and usefulness by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October time-frame. This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public interest and make the most money therein.

Then, once Pelosi is certain the maximum political benefit has been achieved, she will announce the date for the Full House Vote on Articles of Impeachment. We can be certain the date will be filled with maximum drama and made-for-tv effect complete with Speaker Pelosi bringing back the big gavel for a grand presentation and a full house vote.

Pergram breaks down the math:

The current House breakdown is 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans, and one independent: Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich. To pass anything in the House, 218 yeas are needed.

That means Democrats can only lose 17 votes from their side and still have enough to pass an article of impeachment. Amash has endorsed impeachment, so let’s say the magic number is actually 16. If the president is to be impeached, that means Democrats could have 15 of their own voting for articles of impeachment while representing a district which Trump carried in 2016.

A House floor vote to impeach the President is kind of like an indictment, codified in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. If the House votes to impeach, Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution sends the article(s) to the Senate for a trial presided over by Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts.

Pelosi has been preparing for this since Election Day. Every detail was carefully planned, except for the crime. She had hoped Mueller would have provided one, but no worries, she found one.

However, she does face several headwinds. For one thing, whistleblower mania is folding faster than a house of cards.

Many of the whistleblower’s claims and the interpretations spun by the eager liberal commentators have been blown up.

First, we were told there were eight references to Biden during President Trump’s July 25th conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Turns out there were three. And they were all found in two sentences.

Next, the media breathlessly reported that a ‘promise’ had been made, there was a quid pro quo. There was no promise, no quid pro quo.

My colleague Nick Arama reported (here) two more whistleblower claims which have been debunked. The complaint said that Counselor to the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Trump/Zelensky call. He was not.

The document also claimed that “by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to “contain the damage” from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s outreach to Ukraine.” Text messages from Volker to Giuliani have since shown that to be false. Even ABC News has acknowledged this. They reported, “The State Department has confirmed that Volker put Giuliani in touch with Zelensky adviser Andriy Yermak at Yermak’s request.”

Last night The Federalist’s Sean Davis reported that days before the whistleblower submitted his complaint, the intelligence community “secretly eliminated the requirement that whistleblower complaints contain only direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing allegations.” This change allowed the whistleblower to file a complaint based on hearsay information.

Right about now, Republicans could use a nice, devastating Inspector General report showing FISA abuse by the FBI. It’s been two weeks since DOJ Inspector General submitted his report to the DOJ for classification. Hopefully, it will be released this week. President Trump, as well as the rest of us, need a win.

The post Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group rsz_f07c7864-5d7c-4b34-8895-98e1e607df21-300x200 Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Conservative Tree House's Sundance Congress Changes to House Rules biden Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Who is the Ukraine Leaker/Whistleblower, Part II

Westlake Legal Group justice-2060093_1280-620x413 Who is the Ukraine Leaker/Whistleblower, Part II Uncategorized Ukraine Politics New House investigations of Trump Never Trumpers Media Mainstream Media journalism International Affairs Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton Government Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats democrat media complex Democrat Lies crime corruption Corrupt Democrats Congress collusion cia biden Biased News Media Abuse of Power

 

I speculated on Thursday about the identity of the Ukraine phone call leaker based on an anonymous State Department source. This was early in the story, and much has been learned since then by intrepid independent journalists. I have come to believe that identity of the leaker (I refuse to call that person a “whistleblower”) is unimportant, as the reality is shaping up to be a conspiracy consisting of many players is at the heart of the story, and that the complainant is merely the front man intended to project a veneer of credibility on the whole gambit. Let’s review what we know and what we suspect.

1. What we know: Rudy Giuliani was approached by Kurt Volker, then the US Special Representative to Ukraine at the State Department, to meet with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in order to help facilitate a phone call and/or meeting between Zelensky and President Trump. Volker is concurrently the head of the McCain Institute for International Leadership and also a senior adviser at his old lobbying firm, BGR Group, which just happens to represent Ukraine.

What we suspect: David Kramer from the McCain Institute was involved in pushing/propagating the fake Russian dossier.

David Kramer, who had known McCain since his days at the State Department, is an expert on Russia and is involved with the McCain Institute for International Leadership. He was deposed in December 2017 as part of a legal battle waged by a Russian businessman Aleksej Gubarev over BuzzFeed’s publication of the dossier.

Kramer’s deposition — which reads like a spy thriller and offers an extraordinary behind-the-scenes lead up to the publication of the dossier — reveals that he circulated the dossier to multiple news organizations.

Read the rest here.

There are no such things as coincidences. John McCain was virulently anti-Trump, as were/are many in the McCain Institute. Kramer propagated the fake dossier, likely at McCain’s behest. Both Kramer and Volker were in the McCain Institute’s International Leadership group. Volker helped set up Guiliani contacts with Ukrainian officials. Occam’s razor says that this gambit was a repeat play of the beginnings of the Russian dossier hoax, with Volker’s resignation Friday adding suspicion to fuel the media’s fire. [Note: an alternative view to Volker’s resignation is that he was caught out and was forced to resign. Regardless, either reason makes him complicit in the conspiracy.]

2. What we know: Giuliani and Yermak spoke on the phone twice and met in Spain in July, the State Department was back-briefed by Giuliani after each instance, and a phone call between the two presidents took place in July. News of a “whistleblower” complaint against President Trump was reported by the Washington Post on 19 September, citing “two officials familiar with the report.” Here is a .pdf of the complaint itself released by the House Intelligence Committee just prior to testimony given by acting DNI Joseph Mcguire last Wednesday. The White House released a detailed summary of the phone call between the two presidents, which debunked most of the hearsay in the complaint. House Intelligence Committee Chairman opened his committed hearing on Thursday with his version of what the phone call consisted of, accusing the President of crimes and impeachable offenses. It was obviously a prepared statement that later in the hearing he pawned off as a “parody” because the released transcript summary completely disproved his fantasy. The President and several House Republicans have subsequently called for Schiff’s resignation for breaking House rules.

What we suspect: The complaint was delivered to Schiff (and Senator Burr’s Senate Intelligence Committee) on 12 August. As reported by several commentators, the complaint is very likely a composite written with the outside help (likely lawyers). For example, there is this from Fred Fleitz, formerly deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council:

From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.

Read the rest here.

Schiff has had the complaint for over a month, and he and his staff have had plenty of time to seed and spin the complaint – which was solely based on second- and third-hand information – falsely throughout the news media. And that is exactly what has happened. A simple web search results in a whole host of legacy media stories that are “going with the spin,” i.e., that POTUS is “guilty” of a whole host of criminal activities. The story has evolved as previous breathless claims have been proven false, too. Here are a few headline examples:

  • As the Whistle-Blower Story Gets Worse for Trump, His Corruption Keeps Spreading (WaPo – 19 Sep)
  • Trump responds to Ukraine whistleblower scandal with contradictions and transparent falsehoods (Vox – 20 Sep)
  • The Ukraine Whistleblower Complaint Makes Impeachment More Likely (WaPo – 23 Sep)
  • Whistle-Blower Is Said to Allege Concerns About White House Handling of Ukraine Call (NY Times – 25 Sep)
  • Whistleblower report reveals how far Trump’s dubious ethics have spread (The Guardian – 26 Sep)
  • White House Lawyers Worked to Obscure Memo of Trump’s Ukraine Call, Whistleblower Claims (National Law Journal – 26 Sep)
  • Not Just Ukraine: Whistleblower Says the White House Is Hiding Other Damaging Documents (Mother Jones – 26 Sep)
  • Pelosi says Trump engaged in ‘cover-up’ to hide Ukraine call records (Politico – 26 Sep)

Notice how the headlines shift to “cover-up” and other process-oriented allegations and peripheral matters after the basic complaint was determined to be based on hearsay and contained false allegations there were exposed by the release of the phone transcript summary. The media piling on and running with rumors and allegations subsequently disproved and then shifting to other process-related allegations is EXACTLY the modus operandi of the Russia hoax that we’ve seen unfold over the past two years.

3. What we know: Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, authorized the changing of the whistleblower disclosure form to allow the use of hearsay information in late September:

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1177580473566093312

Previously, only first-hand information was allowed on the form, and indeed a complaint could not be registered at all unless it contained information personally witnessed by the complainant, as noted in this report from The Federalist.

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.

Read the rest here.

What we suspect: The IC IG was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD). As such, he provided legal advice to disgrace former Obama officials John Carlin and Mary McCord were heavily involved in the “get Trump” operation in 2016 (those two subsequently resigned because they were implicated in lying to FISC Judge Collyer about the Russia dossier and the Carter Page FISA application). That makes Atkinson part of the Deep State swamp. It cannot be a coincidence that he authorized the change of the whistleblower disclosure form and then magically and nearly concurrently forwarded the complaint to congressional committees. He needs to explain this on the record with some very pointed questions asked!

4. What we know: interestingly, there is a Ukraine-US treaty signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 that provides important background on the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call that of course the legacy media ignore. The treaty is entitled, “Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.” The treaty binds the two countries together and obligates them to collaborate in exchanging information on criminal activities in either country. I like this quote from the letter of transmittal:

Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restrain confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state.

What we suspect: Gee, what did POTUS discuss with Zelenskiy again? Why, soliciting Ukraine’s help in getting to the bottom of potential Ukrainian-based interference in the 2016 election, in particular Crowdstrike. And it was Zelenskiy who brought up Biden’s name during the conversation. The Burisma-Biden corruption would be entirely covered under this mutual assistance treaty, too, meaning that President Trump was fulfilling his obligations as head of state under the treaty during that phone call. The accusations by the complainant are thus further proven to be false.

5. What we know: in response to my speculative article here on RedState Thursday conveying who I thought the complainant was based on a single anonymous State Department source and supporting analysis, Drew Harrell from the WaPo contacted me for a statement, parts of which he used in a story published in the WaPo here on Saturday. The main theme of the story is to examine “far-right amateur sleuths” who are trying to expose the complainant. Here are the excerpts about me:

The guessing game took another twist after the New York Times reported the complaint was made by a CIA officer detailed to the White House. A conservative writer, Stu Cvrk, tweeted out his guess a few hours later.

“Is This Guy The Ukraine Phone Call Whistleblower?” Cvrk tweeted, linking to a post he wrote on RedState, a conservative news and commentary site.

“A source known to me at the State Department, who will remain anonymous, tells me that everyone is pointing to Edward ‘Ned’ Price as the whistleblower who came forward with the accusation that President Trump ‘abused his office’ during a phone conversation with the Ukrainian president,” wrote Cvrk. Price is a former CIA officer who retired in 2017 and is now a political analyst for NBC News.

Price, who was more amused than upset at the claim, said it made him concerned about the development of “discourse that is just divorced from the facts.”

“It’s part of the political atmosphere that we live in now,” Price said. “People are looking for anything on which to hang their tinfoil hats.”

Cvrk, in a direct Twitter message to The Post, stood by his assessment. “You didn’t seriously think he would admit it, did you?” he wrote, adding that he was insulted by the inference “that I am a tinfoil hat guy.”

What we suspect: I’ll gladly accept the pejorative of being lumped with “far-right amateur sleuths” and wear that badge proudly. I and many other independents are doing the real digging and exposing the truth about both the Russia hoax and now the Ukraine political hit-job. While Harrell kindly quoted me accurately, he left out the other comments I sent to him which tell the whole story and place the above comments in complete context:

[Price is] a political hack. You didn’t seriously think he would admit to it, did you? It is no coincidence that his Twitter feed aligns with the evolution of the evolving hit piece aka “WB.” Just as Steele was the face of the dossier (hiding people who contributed to it), someone served the same function in this charade, as the “complaint” was a composite almost certainly written by multiple people including Democrat lawyers. Whether Price was the front-man or not, it’s clear he knew abt it and is serving as an agit-prop disseminator. Same modus operandi as the Russia hoax is in play. My piece was speculative. The fact that the complaint was not based on firsthand info and has demonstrably false info should lead investigative journalists (almost an oxymoron these days) to find out who and why the complaint was false, as well as who specifically wrote it, not go after those of us who are actually trying to find that out. It is absolutely clear that whoever submitted the false complaint was a political operative acting under false pretenses.

[W]ho at WaPo is looking into who actually wrote the complaint and why nobody with firsthand knowledge of the phone call didn’t submit a complaint if it was all so “egregious.” Do u seriously think the complaint was written by the person who submitted it after it was laundered thru Schiff’s office beginning in August?

Judge for yourself. It’s no surprise that the WaPo sees to disparage independent journalists and commentators, as we are not only direct competition to them, but we also expose their routine #FakeNews at every opportunity. The WaPo has been virulently anti-Trump since before he was inaugurated and has led the charge specifically on this Ukraine complainant hit-job from the very beginning.

6. Here’s a summary of what I think REALLY transpired:

  • The same playbook is being used in both political-hit-jobs: orchestrate a set of false allegations; work behind the scenes using Deep State actors to implicate Trump associates in activities that appear to support the allegations; spread the false allegations everywhere through willing media, elected Democrats, non-profit organizations, and others; and clamor for hearings, recusals, and a public show trial to support impeachment of POTUS.
  • Kurt Volker (McCain Institute) helped to repeat that the Russia hoax gambit just like David Kramer did with the Russian dossier. He facilitated the Giuliani contacts with the Ukrainians and then resigned (potentially to make it look bad for the President). What Volker didn’t count on was Giuliani retaining all pertinent texts and emails proving his interactions with Ukrainians were both above board and also solicited by Volker et al at the State Department.
  • A complaint by an unknown individual formally dated 12 August was lodged with the IC IG accusing the President of unlawful conduct. The complaint was later determined to have been based on second- and third-hand knowledge and laundered immediately through Adam Schiff’s committee.
  • The IC IG (who worked previously as chief legal counsel to two Obama DoJ people who resigned in disgrace) conveniently approved a change to the whistleblower disclosure form to allow the incorporation of second-hand information in the complaint (the new form was updated to DNI servers AFTER the Ukraine complaint was submitted).
  • The media ran with all sorts of stories accusing Giuliani and the President of “seeking a quid pro quo,” strong-arming the Ukrainians, etc., and then shifted to supposed process crimes, obstruction, and peripheral matters after POTUS had the summary transcript of the phone call released, proving that there was NO quid pro quo.
  • The media conveniently have ignored the US-Ukraine mutual assistance treaty signed by Clinton that authorizes exchange of records and information associated with criminal activities – exactly what was discussed during that phone call and further discrediting the complainant’s allegations.
  • Finally, the real purpose of the complaint cannot have been to further the Democrats’ impeachment agenda, as the conspirators surely knew that the phone call transcript summary and other records would disprove all the false allegations. The Democrats know that AG Barr and USA Durham are investigating the origins of the Russia hoax, which leads directly to Ukraine. In addition, the Bidens’ Ukrainian-related corruption (Joe’s blatant obstruction captured on video, and Hunter’s straight corruption with Burisma), and Hillary’s 2016 election shenanigans with Crowdstrike are daggers pointed at all of their black hearts – as well as at some Uniparty Republicans who benefited, too. As much as anything, I believe this gambit was as much about getting Barr to recuse himself and slow the whole investigative process down in hopes that either Trump would be impeached or some Democrat nominee would steal the 2020 election, after which point the whole mess could be swept under the rug.

Oh, and by the way, the name of the leaker/complainant doesn’t matter all that much. What really counts is exposing the entire conspiracy. The leaker/complainant was just a pawn. Viable candidates include Mike Barry, Kurt Volker, and, yes, Ned Price (or someone who fits their anti-Trump profiles). Finding out who did it is gravy.

The end.

The post Who is the Ukraine Leaker/Whistleblower, Part II appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group justice-2060093_1280-300x200 Who is the Ukraine Leaker/Whistleblower, Part II Uncategorized Ukraine Politics New House investigations of Trump Never Trumpers Media Mainstream Media journalism International Affairs Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton Government Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats democrat media complex Democrat Lies crime corruption Corrupt Democrats Congress collusion cia biden Biased News Media Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Remember the ‘Secret Server’ Trump Used to Store Zelensky Call? The Obama Administration used the Same One

Westlake Legal Group Susan-Rice Remember the ‘Secret Server’ Trump Used to Store Zelensky Call? The Obama Administration used the Same One whistleblower Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Susan Rice Rudy Giuliani President Trump Obama Administration Kurt Volker Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats corruption Andriy Yermak Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

 

Whistleblower Mania is folding faster than a house of cards.

Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice, unintentionally and begrudgingly, threw cold water on yet another allegation. The story we’ve been hearing is that White House officials were so worried about this phone call that they saved it on a secret server.

Speaking at the Texas Tribunal Festival on Friday night, Rice said:

What [the Trump administration] did instead of storing it in the normal system, which is protected and classified, even though there was no classified substance in that actual discussion. Instead of putting it where it normally resides, they hid it on a very highly sensitive, highly compartmented server that very few people in the U.S. government have access to in order to bury it.

The interviewer asked Rice how often Obama moved conversations onto that type of a server. Rice replied that they never moved them over unless they were, in their substance, classified. Asked again, Rice said, “It’s rare for a conversation to be classified to that highest level, it’s not impossible, it’s very rare — even when two leaders are discussing classified information.”

Ultimately, she acknowledged that the Obama administration did sometimes use that server.

The use of this server has become common practice in the Trump administration for a valid reason. Early in his presidency, the contents of Trump’s conversations with leaders from Mexico and Australia were leaked to the media.

ABC News reported:

The two calls in early 2017, with leaders from Australia and from Mexico, leaked early in Trump’s administration, and sources said the procedure to store them quickly changed — many calls between the president and world leaders instead were stored in a secure server to avoid leaks. The sources who talked to ABC News did caution that it’s unclear if the calls being stored were done so for national security or for political concerns.

One source said it became “basically standard operating procedure” for many of the conversations Trump has had during his time in office.

Rather than the Trump administration panicking over this conversation and trying to bury it as the press had characterized it, it was business as usual. And, Susan Rice, as hard as she tried not to admit it, indicated that sometimes they used this secret server as well.

Another one bites the dust. In the last three days, many of the whistleblower’s claims and the interpretations spun by the eager liberal commentators have been blown up.

First, we were told there were eight references to Biden during President Trump’s July 25th conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Turns out there were three. Next, the media breathlessly reported that a ‘promise’ had been made, there was a quid pro quo. There was no promise, no quid pro quo.

My colleague Nick Arama reported (here) two more whistleblower claims which have been debunked. The complaint said that Counselor to the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the Trump/Zelensky call. He was not.

The document also claimed that “by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to “contain the damage” from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s outreach to Ukraine.” Text messages from Volker to Giuliani have since shown that to be false. Even ABC News has acknowledged this. They reported, “The State Department has confirmed that Volker put Giuliani in touch with Zelensky adviser Andriy Yermak at Yermak’s request.”

Last night The Federalist’s Sean Davis reported that days before the whistleblower submitted his complaint, the intelligence community “secretly eliminated the requirement that whistleblower complaints contain only direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing allegations.” This change allowed the whistleblower to file a complaint based on hearsay information.

Right about now, Republicans could use a nice, devastating Inspector General report showing FISA abuse by the FBI. It’s been two weeks since DOJ Inspector General submitted his report to the DOJ for classification. Hopefully, it will be released this week. President Trump, as well as the rest of us, need a win.

The post Remember the ‘Secret Server’ Trump Used to Store Zelensky Call? The Obama Administration used the Same One appeared first on RedState.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Flashback: Watch When Dems Scorned Impeaching a President “For Political Battles”

Westlake Legal Group BillClintonSideEye Flashback: Watch When Dems Scorned Impeaching a President “For Political Battles” Uncategorized Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Congress Campaigns Bill Clinton

Democrats have been pushing impeachment pretty much since President Donald Trump was elected.

Of course, it really has nothing to do with anything he’s done and everything to do with trying to re-litigate the 2016 election.

How do we know this? Well, if it wasn’t already obvious, we could just take a look back at their words the last time the question of impeachment came up, during the administration of President Bill Clinton.

Let’s hear from some of them.

Here’s House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), telling us that they should not be trying to undo a national election and overriding the vote of the people.

How about Joe Biden? He reminds everyone that the President serves at the pleasure of the people, not the Congress.

Republicans may not have liked Bill Clinton, but there’s no match in modern times to the hatred and complete mania that Democrats feel over Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) warns about being paralyzed with fear of the President, so much so that you would violate privacy and the normal checks and balances.

Almost like you might do if you spied on your opponent’s campaign and tried to undermine it, even getting the FBI and the media in on the act in an unprecedented abuse of power.

Then there’s Mad Maxine, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). Now she’s been on a hate-filled rant even before Trump won in 2016. Everyone recalls how she even encouraged people to “get up in” the faces of Trump officials and “push back” wherever her minions might see those officials, which was then followed by a number of officials being harassed. Waters preached against impeachment and hatred, and not being oblivious to what the people say.

Perhaps the best was Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who warned about “impeaching over politics,” that Democrats might demand payback and try to impeach a Republican president if the GOP dared go after Clinton. You think?

But here Democrats are now, doing everything they can to push impeachment over politics, even knowing they will fail to convict in the Senate if they were to manage to impeach in the House. And even knowing that about 60% of America is against it, against them overturning the results of an election.

From NY Post:

That the Democrats have been talking impeachment since before Trump was even sworn in has made the voters a bit cynical about them. “I’m like, yeah, boy who cried wolf,” Donna Burgraff, a Tennessee independent who voted for Barack Obama and Donald Trump, told the Times. “You’ve got to have something big, and I haven’t seen something big.” One Times reporter said she spoke to six middle-of-the-road voters, and all of them vehemently opposed impeachment.

The Clinton impeachment saga lasted six months. If it takes six months this time, it’ll wrap up just seven months before the next election. Why bother? The voters will have their say soon enough. And impeachment will eat Washington. Nothing else will get done. This should matter to Democrats, because it looked as if they might get at least some of their gun-control ideas passed into law. Not anymore. Gun control has been pushed off the back burner and disappeared behind the stove.

If impeachment goes on for the next several months, Democrats will hardly be able to go to the voters and claim they delivered anything for them. Republicans in swing districts where gun control is popular might well say, “Look, we may have had a consensus to do something on this, but the Democrats decided to waste all of our time playing politics.”

And if all they get out of all this, Democratic voters will eat them alive and Trump will sail into office in 2020.

The post Flashback: Watch When Dems Scorned Impeaching a President “For Political Battles” appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BillClintonSideEye-300x157 Flashback: Watch When Dems Scorned Impeaching a President “For Political Battles” Uncategorized Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Congress Campaigns Bill Clinton   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Attacks! Calls Nadler, Schiff, and ‘AOC Plus 3’ a Bunch of ‘Democrat Savages’

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPimage-620x317 Trump Attacks! Calls Nadler, Schiff, and ‘AOC Plus 3’ a Bunch of ‘Democrat Savages’ white house washington D.C. Uncategorized Politics Jerrold Nadler International Affairs Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Congress AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adam schiff 2020

President Donald Trump points to cheering supporters as he leaves a campaign rally, Thursday, Aug. 15, 2019, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

 

 

First of all, if you missed it, ya gotta read “Woman’s Boyfriend Shoots Her In The Head, But She Forgets For Almost Two Months So They Keep Dating.”

Moving on:

On Saturday, the President had a few choice words for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff:

“Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me. Oh well, maybe next time!”

His post, of course, hits the Twitterwaves amid escalating chants of “Impeach!” (Also, “Impeach the Mother*****r!” — here)

Personally, I find the Democrats’ move rather odd:

Firstly, keeping the Ukraine issue in the news will drag Joe through the mud and give Elizabeth a chance to take the lead (which she already has, according to this poll).

And, as I noted previously:

“[A]s surely many would agree, Donald Trump against the mild-mannered Democrat in a no-holds-barred debate will be like Dracula fighting a mosquito — they may both technically be out for blood, but one will just step on the other.”

Secondly, what’s the idea here? America voted in Trump. Why keep trying to fight the election, aka the will of the people? Trump’s already more than half-way through the term, and you’re still trying to undo 2016?

If they’re right about America, and if they have superior ideas, he’ll be ousted in 2020.

It seems the only reason to try to kick him out the back door is if they believe he’ll win again.

And if they believe that, then they believe it’s what America wants. Why, then, would they attempt to cut off at the pass the very country they serve?

Over and over, they’ve said Trump is a threat to Democracy. Isn’t that what they’re being, if the above is the case?

And if they’re that sure he’ll be re-elected, why wouldn’t they try to change lever-pulling minds by convincing America liberal policies are superior?

Regardless, Nadler responded to the President’s jab:

Alexandria likened it to a remix:

As for the other mention in Trump’s Twittering, the Schiff riff is easy to understand; Fox reports:

On Thursday, Schiff pressed Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire on his decision to not to relay a whistleblower complaint about that call. Instead of sending the complaint to the inspector general, Maguire notified the White House.

But their quest appears destined to lead nowhere:

Trump, on Wednesday, released a rough transcript of his call with Zelensky. Neither that transcript nor the whistleblower report contained an explicity quid pro quo offer of foreign aid for an investigation into Biden. But some Democrats have suggested the transcript clearly showed Trump seeking some kind of exchange with the Ukrainian government.

Man, I sure do miss the days when Washington was about the debate of ideas.

Remember JFK? That guy had some notions.

It seems the only idea contemporary Democrats have to offer is “Trump is Lucifer.”

I don’t see that playing particular well.

Voters will get to the polls and realize there’s no one else and nothing else to vote for — Dems spent the last four years just calling Trump a poopie pants.

Then he’ll get clinch another 4 years, and they’ll be crapping themselves.

Welcome to Washington D.C., where the D.C. stands for Diaper Change.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Pro-Communist ‘Revolution Club’ Protests Trump’s Visit By Burning An American Flag In Front Of The Beverly Hills Hotel. Why?

How Far Would You Go For A Lost Love? Here’s An Incredible Story About A Family And Their Commitment To Never Give Up

The BBC Releases A Lesson Plan For 9-Year-Olds: There Are More Than 100 Genders. Disagree And Go To Jail

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. 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Trump Attacks! Calls Nadler, Schiff, and ‘AOC Plus 3’ a Bunch of ‘Democrat Savages’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPimage-300x153 Trump Attacks! Calls Nadler, Schiff, and ‘AOC Plus 3’ a Bunch of ‘Democrat Savages’ white house washington D.C. Uncategorized Politics Jerrold Nadler International Affairs Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Congress AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adam schiff 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Oops. It Turns Out the Obama White House Stored Foreign Call Transcripts On A Highly Secure Server Just Like Trump

Westlake Legal Group Jesus-facepalm-620x413 Oops. It Turns Out the Obama White House Stored Foreign Call Transcripts On A Highly Secure Server Just Like Trump whistleblower complaint volodymyr zelensky Ukraine Susan Rice Politics Michael Atkinson Front Page Stories Featured Story douchebaggery donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

When you get right down to it, there was a lot of profoundly stupid and nonsensical stuff in the so-called whistleblower complaint. Let’s start with the  assertion that President Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to pull a #QuidProJoe stunt to try to strong arm them into investigating corruption rather than follow Biden’s example and trying to force them cover up corruption.

The stupidest thing was alleging an impropriety existed when the Trump administration elected to move transcripts of presidential conversations to a storage system used for sensitive information.

I.    Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records  of  the  phone  call, especially  the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is  customary-by  the  White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House  officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

 

  • White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White-House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level
  • Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system  that  is otherwise  used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One  White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security

I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.

This is from Fusion Natasha

Just a few facts.
1. The President is the original classification authority for the transcripts. He has the authority to classify them and limit their distribution as he sees fit.
2. No mid-grade CIA toad gets a vote in how the president decides to secure documents.
3. Because transcripts of his calls had been leaked on at least two occasions in an effort to embarrass him so small wonder he chose to restrict access.
4. Exactly zero Obama executive orders apply to the Trump White House. Just like exactly zero Bush EOs applied to the Obama White House.

To put it bluntly, you may not like how the Trump White House does business but no one is asking you.

But, as it turns out, the very premise of this particular part of the complaint is just another tarted up lie.

This is how The Federalist’s David Marcus sums it up:

So from Rice we now know the decision to store the conversation on the top-secret server was not unprecedented, but a decision that Obama’s administration made multiple times as well, using its own discretion, just as the Trump administration has. And from ABC News’ reporting we know that this has been a long-standing practice in the Trump White House to protect against a high level of leaks.

Both of these revelations undermine the theory that in this specific case, some unique and bizarre method was used to hide the transcript and engage in a cover up. Rather, the Trump administration appears to have been engaging in business as usual.

This whole incident is simply an attempt to force the appointment of yet another special counsel, to force the recusal of Attorney General Bill Barr, and to be a shabby skeleton upon which to try to build an non-laughable case for impeachment. That’s it. All of it.

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

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

The post Oops. It Turns Out the Obama White House Stored Foreign Call Transcripts On A Highly Secure Server Just Like Trump appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Jesus-facepalm-300x200 Oops. It Turns Out the Obama White House Stored Foreign Call Transcripts On A Highly Secure Server Just Like Trump whistleblower complaint volodymyr zelensky Ukraine Susan Rice Politics Michael Atkinson Front Page Stories Featured Story douchebaggery donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Senate Democrat Who Claimed Evidence of Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Changes His Story

Westlake Legal Group a8636803-f428-4e76-ab5b-b516cf1d9e5e-620x317 Senate Democrat Who Claimed Evidence of Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Changes His Story whistle-blower Ukraine Trump scandal pressure Politics media bias Made up lying Joe Biden hack Front Page Stories Front Page free beacon Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Chris Murphy

It’s almost like all these Democrats who constantly proclaim they’ve got evidence that will bring Trump down are just full of it?

As we move through the ridiculousness that is the current Trump-Ukraine “scandal,” one figure that attempted to place himself as offering corroboration of wrongdoing was Sen. Chris Murphy. He claimed that Ukrainian president Zelensky personally told him Trump pressured him to investigate Biden.

This per the Free Beacon.

Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), who traveled to Ukraine in early September, told reporters this week that he had heard “directly” from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that Zelensky felt pressured by Trump to investigate Hunter Biden’s involvement with Ukrainian gas giant Burisma…

…The senator said Monday that the “entire new Ukrainian administration” including Zelensky told him they believed the United States withheld aid due to his “unwillingness to investigate the Bidens.”

“Once I got on the ground there, I heard about how confused the entire new Ukrainian administration was about the nature of these demands they were getting from the Trump administration to conduct this political investigation, and that they worry that the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence for their unwillingness, at the time, to investigate the Bidens,” Murphy said, adding that the concern was relayed to him “from the president directly.”

This was bandied about early this week as proof that Trump had broken the law and applied immense pressure on the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden. Eventually, we’d get the transcript and learn that it was a completely mundane conversation with no pressure or threats applied. Actually, it was surprising just how nonchalant Trump was about Biden. He didn’t press the issue at all and Ukraine wasn’t even aware of any holdup with the military aid.

It’s also worth nothing that Murphy’s claims of what Zelensky told him were back-filled. He originally made no mention of any such conversation and only took to the press to make his claims after the whistle-blower story broke. It was way, way too convenient. Then the Beacon got a hold of the Sept. 11th audio, where Murphy is shown to have no mentioned any of this.

Now, apparently realizing he’s been caught in a lie, Murphy is running to change his story.

Oops. That’s pretty for removed from “they thought aid was being withheld because of Biden” isn’t it? Far removed might be an understatement. It’s not even close to the same thing.

And just like that, another plank in all this nonsense collapses. Will any media outlet call out Murphy for lying? Of course they won’t, but I’m not sure it matters anymore. There are plenty of alternative forms of media that are doing great work on this story and the news is getting out there. CNN and The New York Times can keep playing patty cake.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Senate Democrat Who Claimed Evidence of Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Changes His Story appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SenChrisMurphy-300x165 Senate Democrat Who Claimed Evidence of Trump-Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Changes His Story whistle-blower Ukraine Trump scandal pressure Politics media bias Made up lying Joe Biden hack Front Page Stories Front Page free beacon Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Chris Murphy   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Did the Intelligence Community IG Actively Aid the “Whistleblower” in His Impeachment Quest

Westlake Legal Group michael-atkinson-620x353 Did the Intelligence Community IG Actively Aid the “Whistleblower” in His Impeachment Quest whistleblower complaint Politics ODNI Michael Atkinson intelligence community ic ig Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception adam schiff

Michael Atkinson. IC IG. CREDIT: ODNI/Cropped

 

Many of us have been harping on the point that the alleged “whistleblower” in the bullsh** attack on President Trump is not actually a whistleblower.

In fact, the so-called complaint is a compendium of provable lies, misrepresentations. innuendo, and links to newspaper clippings that warrants the assclown who wrote it being horsewhipped out of the front gate of CIA headquarters rather than being lionized even the by the debased excuses for humanity that constitute the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.

But if a shocking story reported by Sean Davis yesterday is true, then not only were we wrong but the implications are that the Intelligence Community, itself, and in particular the Intelligence Community IG decided to assist in the effort create a narrative that would justify the impeachment of a lawfully elected president who was acting lawfully.

Sean Davis reported (read Bonchie’s BREAKING: Intel Community Secretly Changed the Whistle-Blower Rules to Allow the Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed) that the IC changed the rules for classifying disgruntled personnel as whistleblowers in a very significant way:

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed…

A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

“The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the previous form stated under the bolded heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” “This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”

“If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA,” the form concluded.

What this does is essentially give anyone whistleblower immunity on the basis of rumor mongering.

This leads us to the second part of the problem, which is the seeming active complicity of the Intelligence Community IG in this little farce.

In this September 9 letter, the IG, Michael Atkinson, throws his boss under the bus in order to perpetrate this farce.

Sept. 9 letter from Intel I… by PBS NewsHour on Scribd

More follows in this September 17 letter.

Sept. 17 letter from Intel … by PBS NewsHour on Scribd

In these letters the IG claims that the matter is of “urgent concern.” We know for a fact that there was no universe win which an event that happened in July and had already been resolved, particularly a matter that did not involve any intelligence activity whatsoever was of “any” concern to the IC IG, much less of “urgent concern.” The Department of Justice looked at this claim and issued an opinion that all but had a laugh track attached. (Read the OLC ruling.) Even though the opinion is dated September 24, it is obvious from the preceding correspondence that the IG already knew of the determination and it didn’t fit his agenda. In fairness to Atkinson, he may not be a duplicitous douchebag out to destroy the man who gave him the job, he could very well be your run-of-the-mill p***y who is so intent upon winning the approval of the “right people” that he simply didn’t have the courage to stand fast and do his duty.

The second part of this equation is awarding whistleblower status when, in fact, even it its worst light the activity reported does not fall under the purview of the IC IG. (Read the Office of Legal Counsel evisceration of Atkninson’s reasoning for yourself.) Again, in fairness to Atkinson, he may just be a gutless drone who was more intent upon fellating Adam Schiff in a public forum than in doing his job.

Finally, Atkinson opines that he is fearful that the president may have violated campaign finance laws.

Again, not his f***ing job to tell Schiff about this, there are channels for reporting criminal violations that do not involve hyperpartisan Democrats or the press. We now know that possible offense had been investigated by Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and dismissed. The fact that Justice was investigating, and probably the outcome, was known to Atkinson before he wrote to Schiff. Again, in fairness to Atkinson, he may not have been working with the whistleblower to make as big a splash as possible out of this, he may have simply been a weak, feckless little man trying to ingratiate himself with the people he thinks should really be in charge.

To review the bidding. Someone in the Intelligence Committee leadership changed the definition of whistleblower so this whistleblower was elevated from a rumor monger to a protected individual. They did this about the same time as the complaint was filed. Because the IC IG is intimately involved in the whistleblower regulations (I’d be willing to guess that office is the proponent of the regulation but I don’t know that for a fact) Atkinson knew about the change. The major issues of concern Atkinson raised in his letter are, charitably, bullsh**. The allegation does not fall under the whistleblower statue because it is not an intelligence matter. It is not a matter of “urgent concern” because it isn’t. The fanciful potential criminal violation by Trump was not his business and it was investigated and resolved by the appropriate agency.

Yet, despite all this, it is Atkinson who is the driving force in creating the scandal. He, against the directions of Department of Justice, decided that this was so extra special serious that he just had to tell Adam Schiff. Given the suspicion that the whistleblower had a lot of legal help in writing the complaint and the obvious involvement of Schiff for some weeks before it all became public, one wonders the degree to which Atkinson and his office were working with Schiff to make sure this became public.

In short, at every juncture where the system was designed to stop abusive use of the whistleblower statute, Atkinson appears to object that this particular snowflake of a case was extremely special and needed deferential treatment. Right down to changing the regulation to allow a complaint to be submitted that would have been rejected only a month ago. In fact, this question raised well before we knew anything about the allegation is just as valid today as then. The incident did not involve IC people or activities, there is no way Atkinson should have take the complaint:

The fact pattern here merits a close look by the administration into whether Atkinson is part of the solution or a large chunk of the problem. At a minimum, he has shown a gutlessness and bureaucratic deference to Schiff that should disqualify him from any policy making position in the administration. At worst, he’s actively collaborated in an attempt to bring about the impeachment of a president.

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

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

The post Did the Intelligence Community IG Actively Aid the “Whistleblower” in His Impeachment Quest appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group michael-atkinson-300x171 Did the Intelligence Community IG Actively Aid the “Whistleblower” in His Impeachment Quest whistleblower complaint Politics ODNI Michael Atkinson intelligence community ic ig 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 

With Impeachment Unlikely, Democrats Like Beto and AOC Try a Different Trick to Force Trump Out of Office

Westlake Legal Group AlexandraOcasioCortez-620x317 With Impeachment Unlikely, Democrats Like Beto and AOC Try a Different Trick to Force Trump Out of Office washington D.C. Texas Social Media Politics North Carolina New York Media Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020 Elections 2020

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., listens during a House Financial Services Committee hearing with leaders of major banks, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Even if House Democrats move beyond the impeachment inquiry phase and begin actual impeachment proceedings against President Trump, they know the odds of him being impeached in the Republican- controlled Senate are close to zero.

Not only that, but impeachment even in the Democrat-controlled House is not a certainty at this point. Many in vulnerable House districts who have jumped on board have been cautious in not leapfrogging over the inquiry process to directly call for actual impeachment. There is a real fear among them that an ugly and prolonged impeachment fight will not sit will at home with voters in their districts, regardless of what day to day polling might suggest.

It it perhaps with that in mind that a growing number of Democrats have calculatingly introduced a different, alternative tactic into the mix in hopes they can avoid the long battle in a crucial election year altogether: Get Trump to resign.

2020 candidate for president Beto O’Rourke is one Democrat who is amplifying this talking point. He called for it today during the Texas Tribune Festival:

“Those people close to the president can sit down with him and level with him, and make sure that he understands what’s going to happen to him going forward, and that they also understand their complicity, and the judgement of history, and the judgment of our courts should they fail to act while there is still time to do it,” he said.

“So the best possible path, especially if you’re concerned about a country that’s never been more divided, perhaps more highly polarized every day, is for this president to resign, allow this country to heal, and ensure that we come back together with the greatest most ambitious agenda we’ve ever faced, none of it possible while he remains in power,” O’Rourke said.

Watch:

Earlier this week on CNN, O’Rourke also called for Trump to resign:

He actually thinks Trump resigning would “heal” the country’s divisions. Wow. Once again he proves he does not have a clue.

Beto is not the only high profile Democrat to float a Trump resignation. Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (NY) called for it in the wee hours of the morning Saturday:

Judging by what you can find in the #TrumpResign Twitter hashtag, liberal talking heads are also joining the growing chorus calling for Trump to resign.

Never Trumpers like Jennifer Rubin, of course, are lending a helping hand to the effort:

The Boston Globe‘s Michael Cohen wrote “Forget impeachment. Trump should resign.” The Connecticut Post published an editorial this week calling for Trump to step down.

I’ve got just two words for them: Hell. No.

Not only is Trump not the kind of politician who would resign and go quietly into the night, but Democrats – every single one of them including those who have fed into the impeachment frenzy for two and a half years now – need to see the process through. People aren’t just going to resign or step down because you don’t like them. They need to make their case or shut up about it.

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a good point earlier this week: He said, in so many words, that impeachment is not a partisan tool to use to oust a president simply because you don’t like them. But he understand that’s exactly what Democrats are doing and he is all but daring them to do it – because he knows ultimately they don’t have the goods.

—–
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post With Impeachment Unlikely, Democrats Like Beto and AOC Try a Different Trick to Force Trump Out of Office appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AlexandraOcasioCortez-300x153 With Impeachment Unlikely, Democrats Like Beto and AOC Try a Different Trick to Force Trump Out of Office washington D.C. Texas Social Media Politics North Carolina New York Media Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Beto O'Rourke beto AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com