James Comey

[soonernvolved]

thehill.com/homenews/senate/477595-mcconnell-tells-gop-senators-to-expect-impeachment-trial-next-week

Three GOP senators said the Republican leader warned lawmakers during the caucus meeting that they should not expect to be able to go home next weekend, indicating that the long-delayed trial will be underway.

Proceedings have been held up while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to send over the House-passed articles of impeachment, but she told reporters earlier Thursday that she would “soon” do so.

“We thought, we as the body, that the Speaker will … shortly send that over, so [he] said next weekend don’t go anywhere,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), characterizing McConnell’s message as a heads up that the Senate would be in session.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) added that McConnell told senators that the two articles would be sent over “soon,” expecting them in the “next day or two.”

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/09/mitch-mcconnell-signs-onto-gop-proposal-to-dismiss-impeachment-trial/

Mitch McConnell Signs Onto GOP Proposal To Dismiss Impeachment Trial
JANUARY 9, 2020 By Tristan Justice
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed a resolution Thursday to dismiss the partisan impeachment trial expected in the Senate following the passage of impeachment articles.

McConnell joins a dozen other GOP co-sponsors who have signed onto the resolution put forward by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri.


The resolution comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to hand over the articles of impeachment passed by the House days before Christmas over to the upper chamber for the next phase of impeachment to begin.

Pelosi has held the articles hostage to elicit concessions from Republicans on how a trial in the Senate ought to be run in a desperate effort to save the collapsing attempt to reverse the 2016 presidential election.

Throughout their rushed investigation in the lower chamber motivated by allegations that Trump is a clear and urgent danger to the republic, Democratic lawmakers failed to surface any incriminating evidence against the president, let alone actions worthy of a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Instead, the House proceedings were a trainwreck for Democrats hoping to drum up enough public support to apply adequate pressure on Senate Republicans to consider ousting a president of their own party. To the contrary, public support for impeachment went underwater after the proceedings and three Democrats defected from the party on the measure. Despite the lack of evidence, Democrats voted to impeach the president anyway marking a major step closer to achieving the top item on their policy agenda since even before Trump took office.

Weeks after the articles have been passed, Pelosi has continued to withhold the articles from the Senate to allow a trial to begin undercutting the “urgent” nature of the process further exposing the malicious motivations of the proceedings. In a bid to save the effort, Pelosi has called on McConnell to pledge calling additional witnesses to testify in the trial before handing the articles over, though McConnell has shown no signs of bowing to Pelosi’s demands.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/pelosis-impeachment-blunder/

Pelosi’s Impeachment Blunder
By DAVID HARSANYI
January 9, 2020 12:46 PM

Her leverage play turns out to have been an embarrassing mistake.
We are in the midst of an imaginary impeachment standoff between House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. “Both have drawn firm lines in the sand. Someone’s got to give,” one reporter recently declared.

There is, of course, nothing to “give.” Pelosi has no standing to dictate the terms of a Senate trial; no constitutional right or political leverage. Why she has put herself in a position that will ultimately end, one way or another, with her surrendering to McConnell is perplexing.


A new piece in Time magazine does shed some light on the thought process behind Pelosi’s decision to refuse to hand over articles of impeachment to a Senate whose majority doesn’t want them. One of the most interesting nuggets in the piece isn’t that Pelosi — portrayed as courageous risk-taker — had gotten the bright idea from CNN; it’s that she specifically got it from noted felon John Dean, Nixon’s former White House lawyer. Now, Dean is often portrayed as a patriotic, whistleblowing impeachment expert — which is true insofar as he planned the Watergate coverup, and then informed on everyone whom he conspired with after they were caught. His real expertise is cashing in on criminality for the past 50 years (I wrote about Dean’s slimy past here).

Surely Pelosi, blessed with preternatural political instincts, wouldn’t rely on Dean’s advice? Surely Pelosi wasn’t browbeaten into doing this by podcast bros and talking heads on America’s least popular major cable-news network?

Because whatever you make of the case against Donald Trump, it’s getting increasingly difficult to argue that this amateurish, constantly shifting effort by the House has been effective. After two dramatic emergency impeachment hearings, a pretend standoff, and massive cooperative coverage from the media, poll numbers haven’t budged. They may even have ticked back toward Donald Trump.

NOW WATCH: 'Pelosi Unclear About Sending Articles Of Impeachment To The Senate'

Yet, to hear Time tell it, Pelosi has micromanaged every step of this process, from signing off on every committee report and press release — “aides say she caught typos in the Intelligence Committee’s final report before it went out“ — to picking furniture that would make Adam Schiff and the more diminutive Jerry Nadler look like equals.

My working theory is this: Pelosi realized that impeachment was a mistake. She didn’t want the president to be able tell voters that he had been exonerated by Senate. The only way to mitigate the damage was to undertake a ham-fisted effort to attack the Senate trial and dampen, or perhaps circumvent, that inevitable moment.

In the process, however, Pelosi destroyed the Democrats’ justification for rushing impeachment in the first place. Nadler and Schiff both argued that Trump’s tenure in office constituted a national emergency, and that the only way to save the republic from another stolen election was to move quickly.


–– ADVERTISEMENT ––



McConnell, on the other hand, had to take only a short break from confirming judges to inform the House that the Senate would treat the impeachment of Donald Trump the same way it treated the impeachment of Bill Clinton — with a rules package that passed 100–0 in 1998. Under the Clinton precedent, the Senate would allow both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers to make their case, with questions from the Senate to follow.

Pelosi’s defenders are running out of arguments. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin now says that acting on the Clinton precedent means that moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins “will face the real possibility that conclusive evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing will come to light after a sham trial. That would make for a disastrous, humiliating legacy.”


The gaping hole in this argument, and the reason Democrats are losing the debate, is that they’ve already claimed to have conclusive evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing. They claimed they had proof of bribery, but they didn’t include it in the impeachment articles. They claimed to have proof in the Mueller report that Trump obstructed justice, yet it’s not in the article of impeachments either. Rubin herself has alleged, dozens of times, that we already have definitive proof Trump has committed an impeachable offense.

In truth, if the House had made a persuasive case, there would be public pressure on Republicans to act in a different manner. That the House did not is the only reason Pelosi embraced John Dean’s silly idea — which has drastically backfired.

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/markets/fisa-court-sparks-firestorm-appoints-conflicted-anti-trump-attorney-oversee-fbi-fixes

A Ridiculous Choice" - FISA Court Sparks Firestorm, Appoints Conflicted, Anti-Trump Attorney To Oversee FBI Fixes


Update: President Trump has also noticed the ridiculous choice of Kris as FBI overseer...

The President appears to be referencing Maria Bartiromo's report from earlier this morning:

Sharyl Attkisson, via SharylAttkisson.com, reports that on Friday, the FISA Court posted an order naming anti-Trump lawyer David Kris to “assist the court” in assessing the FBI’s response to the court-ordered cleanup of lapses and abuses identified by Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz.

sharylattkisson.com/2020/01/fisa-court-starts-firestorm-by-appointing-conflicted-anti-trump-attorney-to-help-oversee-fbi-fixes/

violated rules, policies and law in their applications to wiretap former Trump volunteer Carter Page. Horowitz testified the FISA surveillance process needs to be fixed “from top to bottom.”

To some, the appointment of Kris is as mysterious as why the FISA Court’s judges failed to flag the FBI abuses on their own.

In social media posts, Kris has called Republican Congressman Devin Nunes “a politicized, dishonest [Intelligence Community] overseer who attempts to mislead.”

“The Nunes memo was dishonest,” said Kris.

“And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.”

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/13/ig-report-bombshell-did-the-fbi-and-doj-ask-putins-buddy-to-help-get-trump/

IG Report Bombshell: Did The FBI And DOJ Ask Putin’s Buddy To Help Get Trump?
DOJ official Bruce Ohr called a meeting of several federal agencies to discuss ‘working with’ a Russian oligarch because of his belief, premised on the unverified Steele dossier, that Trump was corrupt.

Margot Cleveland By Margot Cleveland

JANUARY 13, 2020
A previously unnoticed passage in Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on federal surveillance abuse suggests Bruce Ohr and his compatriots were willing to bargain with a Russian oligarch to take down Donald Trump.

Two-hundred-plus pages into the IG report, while discussing former Associate Deputy Attorney General Ohr’s continued contacts with Crossfire Hurricane dossier author Christopher Steele, Horowitz revealed a significant detail that to date has been overlooked: “On December 7, 2016, Ohr conveyed an interagency meeting (including representatives from the FBI) regarding strategy in dealing with Russian Oligarch 1.”


The IG report added that after the meeting “one of Ohr’s junior Department colleagues who attended the meeting” asked “Ohr about why the U.S. government would support trying to work with Russian Oligarch 1”—the moniker used in the IG report to refer to one of Vladimir Putin’s closest confidants, the aluminum oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Ohr’s reported response is shocking: “Ohr told her that Steele provided information that the Trump campaign had been corrupted by the Russians,” and that the corruption went all the way to president-elect Trump. Ohr’s junior colleague told the IG that Ohr explained “this information was ‘the basis for the [Deripaska] discussion” in the interagency meeting they had just left.



It has been known for some time that Steele spoke with Ohr about Deripaska. But while the Steele-friendly press portrayed those discussions as FBI attempts to flip Deripaska, the IG reached a different conclusion. He found “Steele performed work for Russian Oligarch 1’s attorney on Russian Oligarch 1’s litigation matters, and, as described later in Chapter Nine, passed information to Department attorney Bruce Ohr advocating on behalf of one of Russian Oligarch 1’s companies regarding U.S. sanctions.” The IG further found that Ohr and Steele’s communications concerning Deripaska occurred “in 2016 during the time period before and after Steele was terminated as a [Confidential Human Source].”


These findings, coupled with previous reports that Steele worked for one of Deripaska’s lawyers, London-based Paul Hauser, and appeared to lobby on behalf of Deripaska through a D.C.-based attorney, Adam Waldman, renew questions concerning whether Steele violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). Likewise, the IG report’s notes that “Ohr said that he understood Steele was ‘angling’ for Ohr to assist him with his clients’ issues,” and that “Ohr stated that Steele was hoping that Ohr would intercede on his behalf with the Department attorney handling a matter involving a European company,” suggest the need for a FARA investigation into Steele’s work.

But the larger question concerns what the above excerpted passage from the IG report suggests about the December 7, 2016 meeting.

5 Things We Learned From This Excerpt
While no further mention was made of this meeting in the IG report, and while Horowitz remained vague in his description of the meeting, the passage nonetheless revealed several key points: (1) that Ohr had “convened,” (2) the “interagency” meeting, (3) after Americans elected Trump . We also know that (4) one of Ohr’s Department of Justice junior colleagues attended the meeting, at which (5) there was a discussion of “trying to work with” Deripaska.

From these facts, we can surmise that Ohr called the December 7, 2016, meeting in his capacity as then-director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), for three reasons. First, OCDETF is a multi-agency task force, comprised of members from the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Treasury Department, U.S. Postal Service, and Department of Labor. Second, Ohr testified before Congress that, as director of OCDETF, his duties included “coordinate drug and organized crime investigations within the Department,” and that “organized crime investigations” including transnational investigations of Russian organized crime and Russian oligarchs.


Relatedly, the IG report noted that Ohr said when he became the OCDETF director, his boss “expressed his desire for Ohr to expand OCDETF’s mission to include transnational organized crime matters.” Ohr then told the IG “that, as a result, he continued working on transnational organized crime policy and, in order to maintain awareness, tracked Russian organized crime issues.” Finally, we know that one of Ohr’s “junior colleagues” attended the meeting, indicating Ohr called the gathering in his official capacity and not as part of his unauthorized Crossfire Hurricane spying.

We can also surmise that because the IG did not identify any specific FBI agents from the Crossfire Hurricane investigation as present at Ohr’s meeting, the “representatives from the FBI” in attendance were not ones involved in the Russia collusion probe. Further, had other members of the Crossfire Hurricane team been present at the December 7, 2016 meeting Ohr called, Horowitz would have surely discussed their role.

Likewise, we can infer that Ohr did not explain during his meeting why the task force should “try to work with” Deripaska, because had he, his junior colleague would have had no need to question him on that point after the meeting. Finally, we know from Ohr’s response to his junior colleague that he suggested working with Deripaska because of the “intel” Steele provided that the Trump campaign was corrupt—all the way up to the then-president-elect.

The implications are startling: Ohr, in his apparent capacity as director of OCDETF, called a meeting of agency members to discuss “working with” a Russian oligarch because of his belief, premised on the unverified Steele dossier, that President-elect Trump was corrupt.


Yet it appears from the IG report that Ohr did not convey to his interagency team why he sought to work with Deripaska, much less that Steele’s “intel” formed the basis for his advocacy. Again, why else would his junior colleague need to inquire on that point?

The Details Don’t Stop There
Ohr’s supervisors were also unaware of Ohr’s contact with Steele, but here there is another significant detail from the IG report: “When asked why he did not alert anyone in ODAG [the Office of the Deputy Attorney General] about his contacts with Steele and Simpson, . . . ‘Ohr stated that his contacts with Simpson and Steele were not part of any of his OCDETF cases, so he provided the information to the FBI and career people instead.’”

Maybe his “contacts” with Simpson and Steele were “not part of any his OCDETF cases,” but did the Steele “intel” prompt Ohr to push for the United States to work with Deripaska in Ohr’s role as director of OCDETF?

The timing of the December 7, 2016, meeting suggests another troubling possibility: that Ohr called the meeting to discuss the U.S. government “working with Deripaska” to jump-start the lingering criminal investigation of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. As the IG report noted,

in addition to Ohr’s interactions with the FBI and Steele in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Ohr also participated in discussions about a separate money laundering investigation of Paul Manafort that was then being led by prosecutors from the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS), which is located in the Criminal Division at the Department’s headquarters. That criminal investigation was opened by the FBI’s Criminal Investigation Division in January 2016, approximately 2 months before Manafort joined the Trump campaign as an advisor, and concerned allegations that Manafort had engaged in money laundering and tax evasion while acting as a political consultant to members of the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian politicians.
Now the kicker: “Shortly after the 2016 elections, Ohr participated in several meetings with three senior attorneys from the Department’s Criminal Division during which they discussed ways to move the Manafort investigation forward more quickly.” The IG report then notes that “between November 16, 2016 and December 15, 2016, Ohr participated in several meetings that were attended, at various times, by some or all of the following individuals: [Bruce] Swartz, [Zainab Ahmad], Andrew Weissmann (then Section Chief of CRM’s Fraud Section), [Peter] Strzok, and Lisa Page.”

Further, according to the IG report, the meetings involving Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann focused on their shared concern that MLARS was not moving quickly enough on the Manafort criminal investigation and whether they could move the investigation forward. Additionally, both Ohr and Swartz told the IG “they felt an urgency to move the Manafort investigation forward because of Trump’s election and a concern that the new administration would shut the investigation down.”

Remember, Weissmann Ran the Special Counsel
During one December 2016 meeting—the date of which was not specified—Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann “discussed a plan for the Department to approach foreign national,” who was currently under indictment and who “Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann came to believe had information relating to Manafort’s alleged criminal conduct.” The plan discussed called for them to “seek his cooperation against Manafort.”

Significantly, none of these individuals had any role in the Manafort investigation and no one from MLARS attended their strategic sessions. Further, Ohr’s boss stated that “it was ‘unbelievable’ that Ohr was involved in these meetings because as OCDETF Director it was not his job to involve himself in the Manafort investigation.” But that begs the question of whether Ohr tried to use his position as OCDETF director to affect the Manafort investigation.

This raises serious questions concerning whether Ohr and his compatriots discussed Ohr leveraging his position to push for a deal for Deripaska, with the end goal of getting Manafort and then Trump.
While the IG report notes the foursome discussed seeking the cooperation of an indicted foreign national in the investigation against Manafort, no mention is made of any discussion concerning using Deripaska to bring down Manafort. That omission seems strange given that, during Ohr’s first meeting with Swartz and Ahmad on November 16, 2016, he advised them of information “about [Paul] Manafort and Trump and possible Russian influence that [Ohr] was getting from Steele and Glenn Simpson.”

We also know from the IG report that “on September 23, 2016, at Steele’s request, Steele met with Ohr in Washington, D.C.,” and at that meeting Steele conveyed “information regarding Russian Oligarch 1’s willingness to talk with the U.S. government about Manafort.”

We also know from the IG report that Ohr’s telephone log shows Ohr called Simpson on December 8—the day after the interagency meeting in which “working with Deripaska” was discussed. While Ohr “could not recall why he contacted Simpson, Ohr said that he met with Simpson on December 10, 2016, and that Simpson gave him a thumb drive” at that time.

Adding this chronology to the facts the IG report reveals about Ohr’s December 7, 2016, interagency meeting raises serious questions concerning whether Ohr and his compatriots discussed Ohr leveraging his position as the director of OCDETF to push for a deal for Deripaska, with the end goal of getting Manafort and, in turn, so they thought, Trump.

While it is too late for Horowitz to consider these questions, the same cannot be said for U.S. Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham.

[soonernvolved]

Back to Russia again. The New York Times is now reporting that Russian hackers from the military unit known as the GRU “successfully” targeted Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian natural gas company that Hunter Biden was paid millions of dollars for as a board member.

“The attacks were successful,” according to a Silicon Valley security firm told the Times.

According to the New York Times, the Russian hackers began targeting Burisma’s servers in November as House impeachment hearings were in full swing.

The paper claims that the hackers were searching for potentially embarrassing material against Joe and Hunter Biden.

www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/russian-hackers-burisma-ukraine.html

“The hacking attempts against Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served, began in early November, as talk of the Bidens, Ukraine and impeachment was dominating the news in the United States. It is not yet clear what the hackers found, or precisely what they were searching for. But the experts say the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens.”

“The Russian attacks on Burisma appear to be running parallel to an effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information in the analog world that could embarrass the Bidens,”

The Burisma hack was carried out by Russian GRU officials which coincidentally were the same military officials who supposedly hacked into the DNC servers.

What a coincidence!

[soonernvolved]

So, the Democrats are using the old Kavanaugh playbook now. Just keep finding new “evidence” :

The new evidence included information from Lev Parnas, Giuliani’s Ukrainian-American ‘associate’ who was recently indicted for campaign finance violations.

The material also includes a May 2019 letter from Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky where he requests a meeting to discuss the Bidens.

Big deal.

Schiff sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler informing him that the evidence is on two flash drives.

The Democrats will certainly use this new ‘evidence’ to argue they need to call in more witnesses during the Senate impeachment trial.

One piece of evidence is an undated handwritten note from Lev Parnas.

No joke, the note was written on Ritz Carlton stationary (screenshot below) and it said, “Get Zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated” — coincidentally, the Democrats launched their bogus impeachment inquiry based on the lie that Trump pressured Zelensky to announce and investigation into the Bidens and here we are with evidence of just that with a handwritten note!

[soonernvolved]

Pelosi announced that Schiff is a manager of the Impeachment. Nadler states that the Senate is on trial along with Trump.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/15/nancy-pelosi-is-doing-putins-bidding/

Nancy Pelosi Is Doing Putin’s Bidding
Nancy Pelosi Is Doing Putin’s Bidding
JANUARY 15, 2020 By Ben Domenech
For the past several years, it has become a cute aspect of Democrats in the media and in elected office to allege, without any evidence whatsoever, that their Republican opponents are operating in service of Russia. It has been repeatedly stated on cable news by a litany of Democrats – without any demands they prove such claims – in behavior that hosts on MSNBC and CNN treat as cute commentary instead of what it really is: allegations of the deepest kind of treachery to the nation they serve.

It’s sickening in a way that goes far beyond Harry Reid’s obvious lies about Mitt Romney not paying any taxes. Hollywood glorifies members of blacklists and politicians decry McCarthyism when it comes to the political associations of the likes of Barack Obama – but when it comes to just dropping the idea that Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are working for a foreign power, that’s just politics. People who in the same breath decry Donald Trump’s assault on civility will turn to saying the his fellow Republicans work for Putin, and no one calls them out on it.

"Vladimir PLOOTIN" pic.twitter.com/RdKAFSx42m
— Caleb Hull (@calebjhull) January 15, 2020

Imagine for a moment what would happen if top Republicans started alleging that Chuck Schumer was working at the behest of a foreign power – that he was a tool of Communist China. Would any Republican be able to appear on-air without being asked about such allegations? They would have to confront them, and be asked whether they supported or disassociated themselves from the obviously controversial remarks.

But when Nancy Pelosi appeared on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday – being interviewed by former Democratic PR expert George Stephanopoulus, who is somehow only the second most biased Sunday host, unable to scale the heights of utter hackery achieved by NBC’s Chuck Todd – there wasn’t a single followup question asked of her about the bombshell allegations she advanced concerning Mitch McConnell. Look at this crazy talk:

NEW: "No, and the president is in complete denial about Russia's role," Pelosi tells @gstephanopoulos when asked if the U.S. is doing enough to stop 2020 meddling.
"Sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell, too…why is he an accomplice to all of that?" t.co/G6Ef3GUsED pic.twitter.com/Id9VTzmY9f
— This Week (@thisweekabc) January 12, 2020
“Sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell too. What’s he — why is he an accomplice to all of that? He has resisted sources going in a manner commensurate with the threat for state agencies, whichever they are in a state, could be the secretary of state or whatever, to protect our infrastructure, our critical infrastructure of elections.”

She repeated these allegations again, speaking to the Democratic conference of the U.S. Congress yesterday. And her claims have been echoed by other prominent Democrats and noted workplace lover Joe Scarborough, who branded McConnell “Moscow Mitch”. Last summer, McConnell branded such efforts “modern-day McCarthyism” in what was for him a particularly emotional speech on the Senate floor: “Over the last several days, I was called unpatriotic, un-American, and essentially treasonous by a couple of left-wing pundits on the basis of boldfaced lies. I was accused of aiding and abetting the very man I’ve singled out as our adversary and opposed for nearly 20 years: Vladimir Putin.”

But in a certain sense, McConnell is being too polite. What Pelosi and other Democrats are actually engaged in is much worse than McCarthyism (which, fwiw, had a record of accuracy that was not zero), because it achieves a goal they know to be a priority of the Kremlin. Alleging that your political opponents, one of the two major parties in America, including the Minority Leader of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the President of the United States are wholly owned assets of a foreign power is the height of irresponsibility.

How can we take anything you say seriously if you engage in such utterly baseless allegations? Are you really too stupid to understand that by making such claims, you are becoming an asset in exactly the kind of undermining effort the Russians have advanced to run down trust in our representative government? The effort to seed distrust has been one of the best returns on investment of any foreign power – and when Pelosi and her fellow leading Democrats engage in such crazed speculation, they are doing the work of America’s enemies. Today, she named New York Congressman Hakeem Jeffries an impeachment manager – one day after he suggested his political opponents are engaged in “a coverup” led by “Moscow Mitch and the Senate Republicans.”

This goes beyond stupid and irresponsible. It is a vile failure of leadership that will have long-ranging ramifications and do damage to the country should the president be re-elected – an effort which such allegations only help.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/law-prof-turley-pelosi-destroyed-democrats-case-for-impeachment

Law Prof Turley: Pelosi ‘Destroyed’ Democrats’ Case For Impeachment

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who served last month as one of three House Judiciary Committee legal academic witnesses on the topic of the U.S. Constitution’s specified criteria for impeachment, has been very outspoken since his testimony. Shortly after testifying, Turley took to the Los Angeles Times to pen an over-arching message to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Democrats: You have rushed this process and have not sufficiently convinced the American public. “The problem is that this is the thinnest record of any modern impeachment as well as arguably the shortest impeachment investigation in history,” he wrote in the Times.

Later last month, as The Daily Wire reported, Turley — who, despite being House Republicans’ lone witness at the aforementioned House Judiciary Committee hearing last month, is hardly a Republican partisan and is best described as an old-school liberal civil libertarian — took to The Hill to defend his decision to testify as a Republican-called witness. “Journalist Henry Louis Mencken once observed, ‘Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them,’” Turley wrote. “Despite unending respect for Mencken, this is an occasion in which I found him mistaken, after I violated the Eleventh Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not testify for Republicans.’”

Now, as Fox News reports, Turley has written a blog post that is simply scathing of Pelosi’s decision to delay the formal transmission of impeachment articles from the House of Representatives to the Senate in a (failed) attempt to extract procedural concessions from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as to the conduct of a prospective impeachment trial.


“From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical,” Turley wrote yesterday in a column entitled, “Pelosi’s Blunder: How the House Destroyed its Own Case for Impeachment.”

“There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed,” he continued. “More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.”

“The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles,” Turley later added.

At the time that Pelosi announced her withholding of the formal transmission of impeachment articles, I pointed out Democrats’ hypocrisy in a New York Post op-ed:


Thorny legal issues aside, ­Pelosi’s gambit lays bare the brazen hypocrisy of the sanctimonious “norm”-worshippers. Most of Trump’s purportedly grievous sins pale in comparison to the destructive and ­destabilizing nature of Pelosi’s transmission delay — not to mention the unfair and underhanded nature of the proceedings in her own chamber.

The president may not have an explicit constitutional right to a Senate trial. But if Democrats really cared about rule of law and good order, they would have allowed the Framers’ process to unfold as it was supposed to do. Their delay tactics merely expose the frivolity of their Trump-induced mass hysteria.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/15/pelosi-appoints-steele-dossier-truthers-as-anti-trump-impeachment-managers/

Pelosi Appoints Steele Dossier Truthers As Anti-Trump Impeachment Managers
JANUARY 15, 2020 By Chrissy Clark
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the seven House managers who will transmit the articles to the Senate for what she called “an impeachment that will last forever.” Pelosi named Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who previously claimed he had incriminating evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia, as the lead manager.

The following six Democrats were also named as impeachment managers: Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., and Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas. Six of the seven managers publicly supported impeachment before the so-called whistleblower ever came forward.


“Today, I have the privilege of naming the Managers of the impeachment trial of the President,” Pelosi tweeted.

The role of impeachment managers is similar to that of a prosecutor. They present the case for impeachment to the Senate during the trial to determine whether or not to remove the president from office. The problem with Pelosi’s picks is that they are such highly partisan figures, it is unlikely they will be able to persuade moderate Republican senators.

Particularly, Schiff who said only impeachment of President Trump could bring forth a fair and honest election in 2020. Schiff has consistently repeated the debunked theory that Trump and the Russians cheated their way into the White House in 2016, despite an investigation which found Trump was legitimately elected. Schiff also treated the now completely debunked and DNC-funded “Steele Dossier” as verified intelligence information for years.

“Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time? The president’s misconduct goes to the heart of whether we can conduct a free and fair election in 2020,” Schiff said.

That is not the kind of argument that would win over moderate Republicans who could be swayed to vote in favor of impeachment. While Republicans are unlikely to break party lines in the upcoming Senate trial, with impeachment managers such as Schiff and Nadler, Democrats aren’t even giving themselves a chance.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[redstripe]

Jan 15, 2020 14:17:27 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

thefederalist.com/2020/01/15/pelosi-appoints-steele-dossier-truthers-as-anti-trump-impeachment-managers/

Pelosi Appoints Steele Dossier Truthers As Anti-Trump Impeachment Managers
JANUARY 15, 2020 By Chrissy Clark
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the seven House managers who will transmit the articles to the Senate for what she called “an impeachment that will last forever.” Pelosi named Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who previously claimed he had incriminating evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia, as the lead manager.

The following six Democrats were also named as impeachment managers: Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., and Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas. Six of the seven managers publicly supported impeachment before the so-called whistleblower ever came forward.


“Today, I have the privilege of naming the Managers of the impeachment trial of the President,” Pelosi tweeted.

The role of impeachment managers is similar to that of a prosecutor. They present the case for impeachment to the Senate during the trial to determine whether or not to remove the president from office. The problem with Pelosi’s picks is that they are such highly partisan figures, it is unlikely they will be able to persuade moderate Republican senators.

Particularly, Schiff who said only impeachment of President Trump could bring forth a fair and honest election in 2020. Schiff has consistently repeated the debunked theory that Trump and the Russians cheated their way into the White House in 2016, despite an investigation which found Trump was legitimately elected. Schiff also treated the now completely debunked and DNC-funded “Steele Dossier” as verified intelligence information for years.

“Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time? The president’s misconduct goes to the heart of whether we can conduct a free and fair election in 2020,” Schiff said.

That is not the kind of argument that would win over moderate Republicans who could be swayed to vote in favor of impeachment. While Republicans are unlikely to break party lines in the upcoming Senate trial, with impeachment managers such as Schiff and Nadler, Democrats aren’t even giving themselves a chance.

My prediction is Schiff lies about something then Mitch prosecutes for perjury.  

[soonernvolved]

Ukrainian Officials blow up the Democrats’ star witness:

www.penmediainc.com/2019/11/13/ukraine-aid-serhiy-shefir-reveals-lev-parnas-lied-about-trump/?fbclid=IwAR2aUwySaD6oxbuvv1nn5nbmygVKnbk4VW5zy0OqEFT2ft0734NEB1mHuZs

Serhiy Shefir, the first aid to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, revealed that Democrat witness Lev Parnas lied about a meeting where he claimed he threatened to withhold military aid.

Parnas told the New York Times last week that he and Shefir discussed withholding $400 million in aid form Ukraine unless they investigated the Bidens. Shefir, however, doesn’t remember it that way.

Serhiy Shefir told Kyiv Post, an English language Ukrainian newspaper, that his meeting with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman was “neither long nor informative”.

According to him, the only thing that Parnas and Fruman discussed was trying to set up a meeting between President Zelensky and Rudy, something they apparently didn’t even take seriously.

“We said that we will gladly meet with him, but only officially, after the inauguration, and that there can be no meeting now.”

Shefir said that Fruman and Parnas told him the point of the meeting was “they want to help this country” since they are Ukrainians themselves. Shefir, however, was not convinced.

“The meeting took place before we started at the job, and we didn’t get very deep into what their ‘help’ would be. These were general words said over a cup of tea.”

Serhiy Shefir also said that he didn’t really give any weight to either Lev Parnas or Igor Fruman, saying they didn’t consider them representatives of President Trump.

“We didn’t perceive them as representatives of the White House. Even now, I don’t understand what their role was. It was a meeting of private citizens with a private citizen.”

[soonernvolved]

On Wednesday Sidney Powell broke the news that her team has found evidence of the Deep State Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack committed subornation of perjury by pushing General Michael Flynn to commit perjury on the court.



Attorney Sidney Powell: We have evidence now that they were actually trying to force Mr. Flynn to lie to a jury and a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia last year last summer and they knew that’s what they were trying to do then.. We have a red lined document showing Mr. Van Grack himself transmitted to Covington, the Special Prosecutor from Special Counsel’s task force, who’s still running this prosecution … And has a history. He was with Mr. Weissmann on the Special Counsel operation and determined to take down General Flynn because that was their path to the president. They had to prosecute Flynn to try to pursue the obstruction mess.

Lou Dobbs: So what is in store here? He’s due to be sentenced this month. Correct?

Sidney Powell: Correct, but the government has already agreed for a motion for a continuum. The judge has not entered an order on that yet but they agreed to a 30 day continuance…

Lou Dobbs: This sounds like the most antithetical to justice case I’ve seen in recent memory and I’ve seen some beauties and the other madness to overthrow this president.

Sidney Powell: What I am seeing and finding by the day is an absolute outrage. What my three colleagues found before coming over here is that Mr. Van Grack actually changed the language in the statement of offense they created against General Flynn and knew that. So when he tried to… when he said last summer that he wanted Flynn to testify to something he knew because he did it himself that it wasn’t true. And if that isn’t subornation of perjury, I don’t know what is… And now they want to punish him (General Flynn) for not lying in his sentencing.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/nadler-accuses-senate-of-disgusting-cover-up-paul-fires-back-in-interview

Nadler Accuses Senate Of ‘Disgusting Cover-Up’. Paul Fires Back In Interview.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) fired back at House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler on Wednesday for accusing the Senate of engaging in an “unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up” if it did not permit the introduction of all witnesses in President Donald Trump’s upcoming Senate trial.

“If the Senate doesn’t permit the introduction of all relevant witnesses and of all documents that the House wants to introduce, because the House is the prosecutor here, then the Senate is — is engaging in an unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up,” Nadler, a New York Democrat, said.

Paul responded to the remarks during an interview on Fox News’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto” where he highlighted that Democrats do not really want all relevant witnesses called because that means that Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, would be called to testify.


“Well, it’s kind of interesting,” Paul began. “The comment is that all relevant witnesses. Would he agree that Hunter Biden is relevant, that Joe Biden’s relevant, and that the whistleblower’s relevant?”

“My guess is no. They want all witnesses that they want. And they don’t want any witnesses that the president wants,” Paul continued. “So, I say this. Either allow all witnesses, all witnesses that the president’s defense team deems necessary to their defense, or no witnesses. We’re not going to do a kangaroo court, like they did in the House. The House only produced witnesses that Adam Schiff agreed to.”

“So, I mean, what kind of kangaroo court is it where only the Democrats get to pick the witnesses, and they decide who’s relevant? Paul continued. “So, no, that’s absurd. So, I think the Senate will be more fair. I think both Republicans and Democrats want a more fair-minded presentation. But it’s not going to be — we’re not going to just invite witnesses the Democrats want and say, oh, the president can’t invite witnesses that he think would help him.”

WATCH:



TRANSCRIPT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): If the Senate doesn’t permit the introduction of all relevant witnesses and of all documents that the House wants to introduce, because the House is the prosecutor here, then the Senate is — is engaging in an unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: “Unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up,” if they don’t have witnesses.

Senator Rand Paul here to weigh in on that.

Senator, what do you think of that?

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY):

CAVUTO: Well, are you then open to witnesses? Let’s say there was a quid pro quo. It’s an overused phrase, but what do you think?

PAUL: You know, I’m either all or none. But I lean more towards none.

Now, I have heard — we have heard the arguments. The arguments were so bad in the House that not one Republican voted for impeachment. I think the arguments aren’t going to change when they bring it over here.

We have heard all the information. They basically are upset that President Trump delayed delivering some foreign aid. Well, I’m of the opinion that foreign aid is unconstitutional, and that it’s unwise to send money to countries when you have to borrow the money from China to send it to Ukraine or any other country.

So, you know, I — I don’t know how they’re going to prove a point to someone like me, who doesn’t believe that foreign aid is constitutional.

So, you know, I think it, at this point, we have heard enough. We’re going to hear the arguments again. But I don’t think one of these Democrats who say they want witnesses will vote to allow Hunter or Joe Biden to come.

And if the president was withholding it because he thought there was corruption involving Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, wouldn’t we want to hear from them, or at least hear about that corruption?

CAVUTO: While I have you, Senator, has there been any blowback for you, when you and Senator Mike Lee of Utah challenged him in his over — use of force maybe and rein him in on the War Powers thing, or is — bygones are bygones?

Where does that all stand?

PAUL: I spoke with the president personally about the War Powers Act this week. He understands that I have a very strong philosophic position.

That didn’t start with President Trump. It really started with my objection to Truman. I wasn’t quite around at the time, but a lot of us objected to Truman taking us to the Korean War without a declaration. We objected to LBJ and Nixon in the Vietnam War without a declaration.

But we also object to being in Afghanistan for 20 years without re-voting about whether we should be there. Same with Iraq. We’re there 20 years later or 18 years later. And then the administration comes to us and says, oh, we can kill an Iranian general because Congress gave us permission to get rid of Saddam Hussein in 2002.

That is insulting to the Constitution. And he understands that there’s this big philosophic debate.

But I also say in the same breath that I think that President Trump has shown restraint, and I don’t think he does want a larger war. I think he, more than any recent president — that includes Obama and the Bushes — has really wanted to get us out of these wars.

He hasn’t quite done it, but I think his desires are sincere. And I continue to encourage him that now, more than any, we’re at a position of strength. Soleimani is dead. Their — the ringmaster for terrorism is dead. Now is a good time to come home.

The Iraqi parliament has shown their disdain. We liberated them three times. We liberated them from Saddam Hussein, from the Sunni extremists in 2007, and then from ISIS.

CAVUTO: Well, as you know, they’re fighting us. They’re fighting us in our troop presence there.

PAUL: Yes. Yes.

CAVUTO: Would you be telling the president —

PAUL: Time to come home.

CAVUTO: — all right, then leave now?

PAUL: That’s my advice to the president, both public and private. Bring them home. The people are ready. Americans are ready.

The Iranian — the Iraqi government is disdainful of us liberating them three times? Let them fight the next time.

So, yes, I’m ready to bring them home. Bring them home. We spend — we spend so much money — we spend $50 billion in Afghanistan. That would pave 9,000 miles of six-lane interstate — 9,000 miles every year of six-lane interstate.

Let’s spend that money at home and quit wasting it overseas.

They were killing each other before we got there, they’ll be killing each other after we leave.

CAVUTO: Rand Paul, thank you very much. Good catching up with you.

PAUL: Thank you.

CAVUTO: Senator Rand Paul.

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/michael-avenattis-bail-revoked-creepy-porn-lawyer-back-jail

Michael Avenatti's Bail Revoked, "Creepy Porn Lawyer" Back In Jail

Less than a week after his lawyers claimed to have text messages exposing Nike's cooperation with federal investigators against "creepy porn lawyer" Michael Avenatti as a self-serving hatchet job, the infamous attorney and wannabe presidential candidate - who gained a national profile after representing former porn star Stormy Daniels - is back in jail.
According to the New York Post, that same Manhattan judge has indefinitely postponed Avenatti's trial on charges he attempted to shake down the world's largest sportswear company, after another judge in California decided to revoke Avenatti's bail, after prosecutors on the West Coast unsealed new charges claiming Avenatti violated his terms of release.


Michael Avenatti


Nike Wants Its Execs To Steer Clear Of Michael Avenatti Trial
Prosecutors said on Wednesday that the lawyer pocketed $1 million in legal fees while under indictment, then tried to hide the money from debt collectors by moving it around between various bank accounts that he controlled.
Avenatti was all set to stand trial in New York next week on the allegations that he attempted a mafia-like shakedown of Nike. Avenatti was caught on tape allegedly threatening two attorneys representing Nike, demanding that the company hire him to investigate claims that Nike improperly "sponsored" youth athletes at the steep cost of up to $25 million.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.


If the company refused, Avenatti threatened to take his claims public, something that he said could wipe as much as $1 billion off of Nike's market cap.

Prosecutors are claiming that Avenatti tried to hide the $1 million from them, and use it to pay down some of his $15 million in personal debt.
Avenatti is now "in the custody of the US Marshals Service" and is presumably being transported back to California, where he will spend some time in jail before facing trial on several counts of embezzlement and money laundering.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/news/ukraine-announces-investigation-into-alleged-surveillance-of-u-s-amb-yovanovitch-by-giuliani-associates/

Ukraine Announces Investigation into Alleged Surveillance of U.S. Amb. Yovanovitch by Giuliani Associates
By ZACHARY EVANS
January 16, 2020 8:57 AM

Ukraine’s Interior Ministry announced on Thursday that it was opening a criminal probe into allegations of illegal surveillance of former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch by associates of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

The news comes after the House released documents turned over by businessman Lev Parnas, who is under indictment for campaign-finance charges and allegedly helped Giuliani in the lawyer’s efforts to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine. The documents include texts between Parnas and Robert Hyde, a Republican 2020 congressional candidate and Trump donor, in which Hyde discussed Yovanovitch’s whereabouts.

“Ukraine’s position is to not interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States,” an Interior Ministry official said in a statement. “However, the published records contain the fact of a possible violation of the legislation of Ukraine and the Vienna Convention…Ukraine cannot ignore such illegal activities on its territory.”

Hyde wrote in several text messages about the ambassador’s location.

Stay Updated with NR Daily
NR's afternoon roundup of the day's best commentary & must-read analysis.


Email Address
“She’s under heavy protection outside Kiev,” read one message, while another read “it’s confirmed, we have a person inside,” possibly referring to the U.S. embassy.

“Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch’s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing,” Yovanovitch’s attorney Lawrence S. Robbins said in a statement to the New York Post regarding the documents. “We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened.”

Yovanovitch testified during House impeachment hearings that Parnas and Igor Fruman, led by Giuliani, conducted a smear campaign designed to oust her from her post. President Trump fired Yovanovitch in May 2019 after reports from Giuliani that the ambassador was hindering efforts to investigate the Bidens.

President Trump is currently the subject of impeachment due to allegations he withheld military aid to Ukraine to pressure the country to announce an investigation into the Bidens.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/news/rand-paul-warns-republicans-of-electoral-consequences-if-they-back-dem-witnesses-but-refuse-to-call-hunter-biden/

Rand Paul Warns Republicans of Electoral Consequences if They Back Dem Witnesses But Refuse to Call Hunter Biden

Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) warned fellow caucus members that voting against subpoenaing President Trump’s preferred witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial would be tantamount t0 “voting to lose your election.”

“If you don’t want to vote and you think you’re going to have to vote against Hunter Biden, you should just vote against witnesses, period,” Paul said, adding that his “first preference” would be a trial with no witnesses.

“. . . If they insist on having people like Bolton coming forward, my insistence will be not just one witness. But that the president should be able to call any witnesses that he deems necessary to his defense,” Paul stated.

My colleagues can’t have it both ways. Calling for some, while blocking others. If we are going to give a platform to witnesses the Dems demand, I look forward to forcing votes to call Hunter Biden and many more! t.co/hrOzVyiG9x

— Senator Rand Paul (@randpaul) January 14, 2020

Stay Updated with NR Daily
NR's afternoon roundup of the day's best commentary & must-read analysis.


Email Address
Last week, McConnell signaled that Republicans, who hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, had secured the minimum 51 votes required to move forward with a trial mirroring that of former president Bill Clinton, in which a vote to call witnesses took place after opening arguments. But a vote to allow witnesses to be called seems likely, after GOP leadership suggested Republicans “generally are not interested in the motion to dismiss.”


Paul said he believed an immediate dismissal was destined to fail, saying “there might be 10” Republicans who want to call witnesses.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democrats have been clamoring to allow witnesses like John Bolton to testify. They’ve also argued that newly released documents should be admitted to illuminate Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas’s attempts to oust former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/man-at-center-of-new-ukraine-allegations-democrats-have-their-panties-in-a-bunch-over-drunken-jokes-on-whatsapp

On the eve of the House Democrats’ vote to transfer their articles of impeachment against President Trump, Democrats heading up the impeachment effort released new documents of evidence they say requires further investigations. Among the materials are a series of WhatsApp messages between Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and Republican congressional candidate Robert Hyde — whose name has not previously come up in the impeachment inquiry — in which he discusses supposedly surveilling U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

Amid Democrats’ demands for an investigation into Hyde’s “disturbing” and “outrageous” messages to Parnas, the landscaper-turned-congressional candidate has responded to the “definitely laughable” allegations that he was “surveilling” a U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

The messages between Hyde and Parnas among the materials released by the Democrats Tuesday evening include the following messages from Hyde — all sent between March 23 and 29 — and interspersed with links to various articles, some related to Yovanovitch:


Wow. Can’t believe Trumo [sic] hasn’t fired this b*tch. I’ll get right in that … She under heavy protection outside Kiev … They are moving her tomorrow … The guys over they [sic] asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them … Wake up Yankees man … She’s talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off. … She’s next to the embassy. … Not in the embassy … Private security. Been there since Thursday … They know she’s a political puppet …. They will let me know when she is on the move … I mean where if they can find out … That address I sent you checks out … It’s next to the embassy … They are willing to help if we/you would like a price … Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money … What I was told …. Update she will not be moved special security unit upgraded force on the compound people are already aware of the situation my contacts are asking what is the next step because they cannot keep going to check people will start to ask questions … If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces … From Ukrainians … Nothing is changed she is still not moving they check today again … It’s confirmed we have a person inside … Hey brother do we stand down?? Or you still need intel be safe … She had visitors … It’s confirmed we have a person inside … Hey broski tell me what we are doing what’s the next step

To the message about paying Ukrainians, Parnas responded “LOL.” To some of the other posts, Parnas simply replied “interesting” and “perfect.”

With Democrats calling for an investigation into his alleged “surveillance” of Yovanovitch — who Giuliani reportedly wanted removed from her post because she would hamper his call for investigations into Burisma and the Bidens — Hyde posted a message on Facebook Tuesday, mocking the Democrats’ allegations.

“I was never in Kiev,” Hyde wrote, as reported by Politico. “For them to take some texts my buddy’s and I wrote back to some dweeb we were playing with that we met a few times while we had a few drinks is definitely laughable.”


Speaking with NBC News Tuesday, Hyde said again that he’d been drinking when he sent some of the messages. In a phone interview with “America This Week with Eric Bolling” on Wednesday, Hyde laughed off the latest Ukraine scandal in which he was the unlikely star.

“We were playing,” Hyde said. “I thought we were playing. I didn’t know he was so serious.”

“We sent some colorful texts,” he said. “It’s kind of unfortunate the left had to get their panties in a bunch.”

Asked if he was really surveilling Yovanovitch, Hyde said, “Absolutely not. Are you kidding me? I’m a little nasty [expletive], excuse my language. Come on, you know me, Eric.”


As pointed out by The Daily Beast, Hyde also made some comments about being warned in advance about Parnas. “Listen, I was told a long time ago who Lev was by a lot of people down in communities throughout this country who would pull me aside, have meetings with me, and tell me to stay away from the guy,” he said. “Honestly, I was never a close associate with Lev Parnas. Did I like his character and did we have laughs and joke a bit? Of course. But to try to throw me under a bus somehow for joking around on WhatsApp? I’d love to see Adam Schiff’s texts on WhatsApp.”

In its report on Hyde’s “wild backstory,” NBC notes that after getting himself into “Trump’s world” in 2016 via various big donations, Hyde “ditched his landscaping company to open a ‘government and public relations’ consulting company called Finley Hyde & Associates in December 2018.” In August, he announced that he was running for Congress in Connecticut’s 5th District.

[soonernvolved]

GAO is a "legislative" branch office.
The timing of this report and Nancy's delay is a dead giveaway of more orchestrated democrat treachery.



It's Kavanaugh all over again.
Remember. In Washington there are never any coincidences



www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/16/federal-agency-white-house-violated-law-by-withholding-military-aid-to-ukraine/

The White House violated the law by temporarily withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine, said a Government Accountability Office report published on Thursday.

“In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine,” the eight-page watchdog report read.




“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA,” it concluded.

The Office of Management and Budget placed a hold on the aid on July 25, “pending a policy decision,” and was lifted on September 12, the office’s general counsel Mark Paoletta has said. Paoletta wrote in a December letter to the GAO that the hold was a “programmatic delay,” and thus, Congress did not require prior notice of the move.

The OMB issued a statement in response to the report’s findings, reaffirming that the hold was appropriate.

“We disagree with GAO’s opinion. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law,” OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said.

The report comes one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent to articles of impeachment against the president — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — to the Senate amid pressure from Republicans and several Democrats in the upper chamber. In addition to transferring the articles, the speaker also named the seven House Democrats who will serve as impeachment managers in the Senate’s impeachment trial, selecting: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Val Demings (D-FL), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jason Crow (D-CO), and Sylvia Garcia (D-TX). Schiff will take on the role of lead impeachment manager.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Tuesday that “in all likelihood,” the trial will begin next Tuesday.

“We’ll be able to go through some preliminary steps here this week, which could well include the Chief Justice coming over and swearing-in members of the Senate and some other kind of housekeeping measures…which would set us up to begin the actual trial next Tuesday,” McConnell said at a press conference.
...........................................................

LMAO...



the GAO just gave Barr all the ammo he needs to prosecute Joe Biden for his "I threatened to withhold $1 billion in foreign aid from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor" video.....

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

pjmedia.com/trending/the-gao-ruled-obama-broke-the-law-but-no-one-called-for-his-impeachment/

Back in 2014, the GAO ruled that Obama’s prisoner swap of five detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl violated federal law. “The Department of Defense violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30-days notice to certain congressional committees,” the GAO explained.
........

So, he broke the law but no calls for impeachment.

[soonernvolved]

ICE is considering evidence that Ilhan Omar married a UK citizen (who was also her own brother) to commit immigration fraud.

Steinberg says according to evidence he has gathered, Ilhan Omar “likely committed dozens of felonies in the course of sustaining this fraud.”

[soonernvolved]

amp.dailycaller.com/2020/01/16/omb-gao-ukraine-aid-illegal

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Trump allies are pushing back on a Government Accountability Office (GAO) finding that the administration acted illegally by withholding aid from Ukraine earlier this year.

The GAO issued a legal decision Thursday indicating that OMB broke the law by withholding $214 million in security assistance to Ukraine in the summer of 2019, asserting that the agency cannot withhold funds for policy reasons. (RELATED: Trump Administration Illegally Withheld Aid From Ukraine, GAO Finds)

OMB told GAO, which is a nonpartisan, that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,” General Counsel Thomas Armstrong said.

The ruling could add fuel to the current impeachment proceedings as President Donald Trump is accused of a coordinated pressure campaign urging Ukraine to investigate a political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.

However, OMB is standing by its authority to withhold the funds.

“We disagree with GAO’s opinion. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law,” OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said.

A senior administration official took it a step further, accusing the GAO of inappropriately asserting itself into the Democrats’ impeachment ambition and of having a long history of “flip-flops.”

“GAO’s findings are a pretty clear overreach as they attempt to insert themselves into the media’s controversy of the day. Further, GAO has a history of the flip-flops, reversing 40-years of precedent this year on their pocket rescission decision, they were also forced to reverse a legally faulty opinion when they opposed the reimbursement of federal employee travel costs,” the official told the Daily Caller. “In their rush to insert themselves in the impeachment narrative, maybe they’ll have to reverse their opinion again.”

The budget office also contended this past December in a letter to the GAO that it is well within its rights to control the flow of appropriated funds, adding that Congress itself has routinely withheld foreign aid.

“OMB regularly uses this apportionment authority to temporarily pause agency obligations to obtain additional information needed to determine the best possible use of the funds consistent with the law,” OMB General Counsel Mark R. Paoletta wrote.

The GAO is also an arm of Congress, and its decisions are not binding on the administration. It notably ruled against the Obama administration on several major policy decisions, particularly the administration’s move to release five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for the release of U.S. soldier Bowe Berghdahl without notifying Congress.

Matt Wolking, the Deputy Director of Communications for the Trump Campaign, posted a Twitter thread containing some of the GAO decisions that accused the Obama administration of acting illegally.

We strongly disagree with GAO’s conclusion, and we reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully,” the Obama administration said in response to the GAO’s Berghdahl decision at the time.

Chairman of the Conservative Partnership Institute and former Sen. Jim DeMint also attempted to show the irrelevance of the GAO’s decision by pointing out that it also accused the Trump administration of illegality when the president opted to keep national parks open during a government shutdown.