James Comey

[soonernvolved]

amp.dailycaller.com/2020/01/16/lev-parnas-cnn-nyt

Lev Parnas’s comments to The New York Times on Wednesday appear to conflict with what CNN reported about the Soviet-born businessman back in November.
Parnas told the Times that he did not speak directly with President Donald Trump about his Ukraine-related efforts. Instead, Parnas worked closely with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
CNN reported on Nov. 16 that associates of Parnas’s said that he claimed that he spoke privately with Trump in late-2018 about Ukraine, and that the president tasked him with a “secret mission.”
Lev Parnas, the Soviet-born businessman linked to Rudy Giuliani, told The New York Times on Wednesday that he did not speak directly with President Donald Trump about his Ukraine-related efforts, a claim that appears to conflict with a CNN report published in November.

The Times reported that “Mr. Parnas said that although he did not speak with Mr. Trump directly about the efforts, he met with the president on several occasions and was told by Mr. Giuliani that Mr. Trump was kept in the loop.”

Those remarks appear inconsistent with what CNN reported on Nov. 16, 2019.

According to the network, Parnas told associates after a White House Hanukkah party in 2018 that Trump personally sent him on a “James Bond mission” related to Ukraine. (RELATED: Lev Parnas Is Willing To Cooperate With Prosecutors, His Lawyer Says)

Parnas said that he and another associate, Igor Fruman, had a private meeting with Trump and Giuliani on the sidelines of the event.

The CNN story reads:

Eventually, according to what Parnas told his confidants, the topic turned to Ukraine that night. According to those two confidants, Parnas said that ‘the big guy,’ as he sometimes referred to the President in conversation, talked about tasking him and Fruman with what Parnas described as ‘a secret mission’ to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Parnas spoke to The Times and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Wednesday, his first public remarks since he was indicted on Oct. 10 on campaign finance charges.

Parnas said in his interview with Maddow that Trump “knew exactly what was going on” with regards to his work with Giuliani, but he notably did not tell the MSNBC host that he spoke directly with the president about his efforts.

Instead, he said that he was certain Trump knew of his work because he was with Giuliani when the pair would speak by phone.

Parnas has provided the House Intelligence Committee with text messages and other documents that reveal details of his work with Giuliani to remove Marie Yovanovitch as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Parnas also worked with the Trump lawyer to collect and disseminate information related to Hunter Biden’s links to Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company.

Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph Bondy, did not confirm the specifics of CNN’s report, but told the outlet that, “Mr. Parnas at all times believed that he was acting only on behalf of the President, as directed by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and never on behalf of any Ukrainian officials.”

Todd Blanche, a lawyer for Fruman, who was indicted alongside Parnas, declined an on the record comment when contacted by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Several allegations attributed to Parnas have been disputed, including one bombshell claim also reported by CNN.

Rep. Devin Nunes sued CNN on Dec. 3 over an article written by the same reporter who published the Nov. 16 story.

Vicky Ward, the journalist, reported on Nov. 23 that Bondy said that Parnas was willing to testify that Nunes met in Vienna in 2018 with Viktor Shokin, a former Ukrainian prosecutor who claimed that he was fired in 2016 at the direction of Joe Biden.

“Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December,” Bondy told CNN.

Nunes vehemently denied visiting Vienna or ever meeting Shokin, and called Parnas a “fraudster and a huckster.”

A source close to Shokin has also denied that the Ukrainian met with Nunes. The Republican did acknowledge on Wednesday that he has spoken by phone with Parnas.

CNN did not respond to a request for comment.

[soonernvolved]

Rand Paul trolls Adam Schiff

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/16/pollak-parnas-undermines-democrats-case-against-trump-on-cnn/amp/

Lev Parnas, whom Democrats now cite as a potential witness in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, actually undermined their case against the president in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper that aired Thursday morning.

President Trump is accused of having withheld U.S. aid to pressure Ukraine to conduct an investigation into past election interference; and into allegations of wrongdoing by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who was paid a fortune to sit on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian fossil fuel company widely viewed as being corrupt.

For months, Democrats have claimed that President Trump was not interested in an actual investigation, but in having the president of Ukraine announce an investigation, to cause the maximum political damage to Biden, a potential 2020 rival.

Parnas likewise told Anderson Cooper that the whole effort had been aimed at securing the president’s re-election in 2020.

But Parnas also suggested that the reason for an announcement by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was that no one “trusted” Ukraine to conduct an investigation. The implication is that the administration did not trust Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt country, to investigate specific cases of corruption without making a public commitment to do so first.

He doubted, but did not know, if Trump cared about corruption — though a witness in the impeachment inquiry, whom Democrats chose not to call publicly, testified behind closed doors that Trump did — but said his team’s mission had been to secure an announcement.

From the transcript:

COOPER: Did the president care about corruption in Ukraine?

PARNAS: You’d have to ask him. But as far as I knew, the only thing we cared about, and were the team was to get Zelensky or Poroshenko or somebody to make a press release, an announcement into the Biden investigation.

COOPER: What’s so fascinating about what you just said is that it’s not to launch an investigation and to investigate even the Bidens and Burisma. It’s to make an announcement of an investigation. That’s what mattered.

PARNAS: Right, because nobody trusted them to do an investigation.

Parnas, a former Rudy Giuliani associate now under federal indictment for campaign finance violations, handed documents and text messages to House impeachment investigators after a federal judge allowed him to do so last week. Democrats want to add Parnas to the list of witnesses they have been pressing the Senate to call when it holds its trial next week.

Democrats did not want to wait for Parnas or his evidence to be available before impeaching the president last month.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/16/ukraines-foreign-minister-on-lev-parnas-i-dont-trust-any-word-he-is-now-saying/

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister On Lev Parnas: ‘I Don’t Trust Any Word He Is Now Saying’
JANUARY 16, 2020 By Chrissy Clark
Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told CNN he never spoke with Rudy Guiliani’s associate Lev Parnas.

“Frankly, I have not spoken with [Lev Parnas], and again, frankly, I don’t trust any word he is now saying,” Prystaiko said.


The Hill
✔
@thehill
Vadym Prystaiko, Foreign Minister of Ukraine: "Frankly, I have not spoken with [Lev Parnas], and again, frankly, I don’t trust any word he is now saying."
Embedded video

1,184
11:31 AM - Jan 16, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

891 people are talking about this

On Wednesday, in an interview with CNN, Parnas said Trump’s efforts in Ukraine were all about 2020 and were focused on personal interests, not the interests of the United States.

“That was the way everyone viewed it,” Parnas told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. “That was the most important thing, for him to stay on for four years and keep the fight going. I mean, there was no other reason for [withholding the Ukrainian security assistance].”

During an interview with MSNBC, Parnas said Trump and Guiliani directed him to urge Ukrainian officials to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden. Parnas also said that Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General Bill Barr, and former national security advisor John Bolton were aware of Trump’s work in Ukraine.

Prystaiko called into question Parnas’ claim that he met with Ukrainian foreign officials on Trump’s behalf by pointing out that Parnas may be lying for personal gain.

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham also dismissed Parnas’ claims.

“These allegations are being made by a man who is currently out on bail for federal crimes and is desperate to reduce his exposure to prison,” Grisham said. “The facts haven’t changed — the president did nothing wrong and this impeachment, which was manufactured and carried out by the Democrats has been a sham from the start.”

In a statement to MSNBC, Guiliani denied telling Ukrainian officials that Parnas was acting on behalf of himself and the Trump administration.

“All I can say is the truth. He’s a very sad situation,” Guiliani said.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/democrats-embrace-conspiracy-theories-about-vladimir-putin-russia/amp/

Russian Fever Rising Again
By MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY
January 16, 2020 5:39 PM

All Putin, all the time: Democrats are wedded to their mad, sad fantasy.
This week, Representative Eric Swalwell taunted Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy as “Kiev-in McCarthy.” It was reported that Nancy Pelosi has recently told Senate colleagues that she believes Mitch McConnell might be an active traitor to his country. According to CNN’s account of a closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats, “Pelosi laid into McConnell, saying, as she’s said before, that he is acting like a rogue Senate leader. She mused that sometimes she wonders whether McConnell has Russian connections, the sources said.”

And in the Democratic debate, Pete Buttigieg tried to walk an odd line, simultaneously criticizing Trump for being too close to Vladimir Putin, while also criticizing his administration’s inability to find a way to work with Russia on matters of common interest. “Despite this president’s coziness with Vladimir Putin, we actually seem to be further away from being able to work with Russia on things like the renewal of START,” he said.

It was Buttigieg’s comment that was the funniest of them all, showing that at least some Democrats are aware that there is reality itself, in which Republicans are their normal domestic political opponent, but that they must also condescend to a weird partisan fantasy in which Republicans are somehow controlled by Vladimir Putin.


The reality is that Russian and American relations are terrible under Trump. While there has been a relatively orderly process of communication about military movements in Syria, as Russia and the United States sponsor different actors in that civil war, America’s relationship with Russia seems to be at an all-time low since the end of the Cold War.

In August 2017, Russia and the United States engaged in mutual expulsion of some diplomatic personnel. And after an apparent poisoning attack in the United Kingdom in 2018, the Trump administration expelled another round of Russian personnel from the United States. Also in 2018, the United States engaged in a four-hour battle in Syria that killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries. Some security experts even worried that the lack of diplomatic communication between the two nuclear powers put the world in danger.

In November 2017, Andrew Higgins reported in the New York Times that Putin’s political opponents in Russia were getting tired of “what they see as America’s Russia fever.” Why? Because

it reinforces a narrative put forth tirelessly by the state-controlled Russian news media. On television, in newspapers and on websites, Mr. Putin is portrayed as an ever-victorious master strategist who has led Russia — an economic, military and demographic weakling compared with the United States — from triumph to triumph on the world stage.

Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny called the Democrats’ investigations into Russian interference “not just a disgrace but a collective eclipse of the mind.” Fear-mongering and conspiracy theories have consequences.

Trump has occasionally expressed interest in seeing Russia brought back in to make the G-7 into a G-8, but there’s been no substantial improvement in relations. Sanctions still hammer the Russian economy.


For years, Democrats tried to brag that they were the reality-based community, the ones who didn’t let partisan or imperial fantasies interfere with their political judgment. But now it’s as if certain news networks and politicians are caught in a feedback loop and think they have been dropped into an episode of Showtime’s Homeland or a revival of 24.

There are other countries, such as Ukraine, in which Russian interests do get considered and in which domestic actors have entanglements with business and political interests that favor the Kremlin, or at least a faction within Russia. The parliaments of these countries are rife with accusations of dual loyalties or foreign subornation. These are sad countries in many ways, given an unlucky set of geographic and political conditions. The United States is unlike them in every way.

We know that some of these actors know better. Nancy Pelosi, from happy experience, knows that Democrats can win elections by focusing on bread-and-butter issues with their constituents. That’s how she won Democrats a majority in Congress. So the question remains: Why is there this subset of wine-mom Democrats, Morning Joe addicts, and their couriers who prefer to believe this conspiracy theory about Putin?


Perhaps madness has its own attractions. Maybe Americans have grown tired of being a world power and instead prefer the exciting low-level conspiracy theories that pass for news in Italy, Greece, or the sites of other has-been empires.

[soonernvolved]

So, another nothing burger. OMB Director Russ Vought pushed back on the GAO opinion:

[soonernvolved]

On Thursday CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko who told her:

“It’s all over the Ukrainian media as well today and yesterday and strangely enough my name was not mentioned although I am Minister of Foreign Affairs. And frankly I never spoke with this individual. And again frankly I don’t trust any word again he’s now saying.”

[soonernvolved]

Kind of a red flag when CNN does this:

amp.dailycaller.com/2020/01/16/serious-credibility-problem-cnn-jake-tapper-warns-lev-parnas

CNN anchor Jake Tapper issued a warning Thursday against blindly taking Giuliani associate Lev Parnas at his word.

During a segment of his weekday afternoon show “The Lead,” Tapper noted that Parnas had a “serious credibility problem” and suggested people should think twice before running to social media to tout him as “the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt.”



Tapper introduced the topic to a panel on “The Lead,” noting that the White House had already suggested Parnas was not a credible witness. Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway had referred to Parnas earlier in the day as “desperate for attention” and noted that during his television interview, he had not been under oath. (RELATED: John Kennedy Says Impeachment Trial Could Get Interesting: ‘We Could End Up With A Scenario Where Chuck Caught The Car’)

“Let’s chew over all this,” Tapper began. “We can’t ignore Parnas has a serious credibility problem. He’s under indictment for campaign finance charges. The Foreign Minister of Ukraine told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour he doesn’t trust a word Parnas is saying. And I see people out there on social media, Democrats, acting as if he’s the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt.”

All those reasons are why people should want him to testify under oath,” political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson agreed. “Like Kellyanne Conway said, when he’s talking on television, he isn’t under oath. There’s a way to get him under oath.”

Parnas has offered to testify before Congress, but discrepancies between his comments to CNN last November and to the New York Times this past week may lead to further questions with regard to his credibility as a witness.

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/16/rand-paul-trump-impeachment-witnesses-hunter-biden/

Rand Paul Fears Republicans Won’t Let Trump ‘Choose His Witnesses’ In Impeachment Trial



Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he’s worried that his fellow Republican senators will block testimonies from the witnesses President Donald Trump wants called in his impeachment trial, Paul told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday.

Trump previously said he wants Hunter Biden, Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff, and the whistleblower to testify if the Senate allows witnesses during the impeachment trial.


“Here’s the thing is, fair is fair, and if they’re going to put the president through this, they’re going to have to have witnesses on both sides,” Paul told Hannity.

“But I’ll tell you what my fear is, is that some Republicans are going to vote for witnesses, we’ll get those — the ones the Democrats want — and then when we have the votes on bringing witnesses or letting the president choose his witnesses, I think those will fail — not only because of those Republicans, but because a whole variety of Republicans may not allow the whistleblower, may not allow Biden for one reason or another, because they served with him,” Paul continued.

“But if it turns out, and the Republican base sees that this looks like only Democrat witnesses, and no presidential witnesses, I guarantee that the Republican base will punish those people who set up that scenario,” the Kentucky senator added.

“100%,” agreed Hannity. “I can’t support any Republican that does that. I can tell you right now. I can’t.”


Primis Player Placeholder


WATCH:


Paul warned Republican senators that the party’s voters would punish them if they blocked the witnesses the president wants called. (RELATED: This Bernie Sanders Campaign Official Just Ripped Into Joe Biden)

“If you vote against Hunter Biden, you’re voting to lose your election, basically. Seriously. That’s what it is,” he told Politico on Wednesday.

“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.”

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/16/tom-cotton-schiff-nadler-impeachment-mercy/

Tom Cotton: Only Way Trump Loses GOP Votes Is If Nadler And Schiff ‘Drone On For So Long That We Sue For Mercy’



Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton joked that the only way President Donald Trump would likely lose Republican votes in his upcoming impeachment trial is if Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff “drone on for so long that we sue for mercy.”

Appearing on Thursday night’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” after Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and an Impeachment Manager appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, read the articles of impeachment before the Senate, Cotton told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that “just listening to 20 minutes of Adam Schiff was already pretty taxing today.”


“I can’t imagine 24 hours of it,” he quipped.

Earlier in the interview, Cotton criticized Pelosi as “anything but a master strategist,” pointing out “those gold-embossed pens.” The Arkansas senator also promised that if Democrats are allowed to call new witnesses, “the president will be able to call witnesses as well.”

“Can you imagine any scenario where the president loses Republicans, any Republicans in the Senate, in this trial?” asked Carlson. (RELATED: Here’s What Senator Kennedy Said To Get Tucker Carlson ‘Excited’ About Impeachment Trial)

“I don’t know, Tucker,” said Cotton. “We have to listen to Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler drone on for so long that we sue for mercy and say we’ll do anything to make it end.”


Primis Player Placeholder


Cotton promised a “fair and even-handed” process to “teach not just this House majority in case they are thinking about impeaching Donald Trump again but future House majorities that there is no political benefit to be gained in this kind of ramshackle impeachment process.”

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/17/why-adam-schiff-is-too-biased-to-manage-trumps-impeachment-trial/

Why Adam Schiff Is Too Biased To Manage Trump’s Impeachment Trial
Given the strong possibility Schiff will be called as a witness, he should immediately step aside and allow the other managers to continue without him.
Elad HakimBy Elad Hakim
JANUARY 17, 2020

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally named the managers who would present the articles of impeachment to the Senate and subsequently prosecute the impeachment case. The lead manager is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. Given the strong possibility Schiff will be called as a witness, however, should he even be permitted to serve as a manager in the upcoming impeachment trial?

According to Module Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a):

A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or
(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.


Generally speaking, a manager’s role in an impeachment trial is similar to that of a prosecutor’s in a criminal trial. Like a criminal trial, the president’s lawyers will serve as defense counsel, and the Senate will serve as the jury.

In cases of presidential impeachments, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. Moreover, all managers typically come from the same party, as they are all in favor of impeachment. While the managers serve as prosecutors, they do not determine the rules of the trial, which the Senate decides.

Schiff Doesn’t Fit Impeachment Manager Criteria
According to Democratic strategist Michael Gordon, an ideal manager choice would be a “credible, least-partisan-seeming” member, rather than an “overly partisan” member who would “not really be open to the facts.” Joe Lockhart, a spokesman for President Bill Clinton during his impeachment, noted that when choosing managers, congressional politics might win out over the most qualified managers.

According to Lockhart, “You could go, for example, with committee chairs and you could go by seniority. And that doesn’t necessarily give you the most effective prosecution.” In the instance of President Donald Trump’s impeachment, Schiff and the other managers will prosecute the case.


Rule 3.7 specifically applies to trials. While impeachment is quasi-judicial in nature, it is presumed that Rule 3.7 would still apply to those lawyers serving as impeachment trial managers. Moreover, the comments to Rule 3.7 provide some clarification as to the purpose of this rule. Specifically, Section (2) of the comments states:

The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party’s rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others.

During the interminable impeachment inquiry, House Republicans intended to call Schiff as a fact witness, but House Democrats prohibited them from doing so in accordance with the one-sided resolution that gave Schiff the ultimate say as to who would be permitted to testify as a witness.

Senate Republicans Will Likely Call Schiff as a Witness
By way of review, the original whistleblower in the Ukraine matter filed a complaint without any firsthand knowledge of what transpired, failed to check off the appropriate box indicating he had met with one or more members of Schiff’s staff, and subsequently concealed these interactions despite reports that Schiff or members of his staff contacted or met with the alleged whistleblower before the complaint was filed.

Moreover, Schiff allegedly knew about the complaint or its contents before it became public. He also sent out a tweet on Aug. 28, 2019, before the complaint was public, that very closely resembled the allegations in the complaint. Schiff has also maintained he does not know the name or identity of the whistleblower and previously claimed, “We have not spoken directly to the whistleblower.”


At one point during the public testimony phase of the impeachment inquiry, however, Schiff threatened House Republicans of possible ethical violations if they named or mentioned the whistleblower. How could Schiff possibly know if this person’s name were mentioned if Schiff didn’t know his identity?

Given these various inconsistencies, Schiff will likely be called as a witness, as his testimony is relevant. The question, then, is whether he is a necessary witness. To date, House Democrats have prevented the whistleblower from testifying.

Therefore, Schiff could be deemed a necessary witness, for example, if he is the only person who could identify the staff members who initially spoke with the whistleblower, what they talked about, his relationship with the whistleblower including when and how they met, when they first discussed the Ukraine matter, what they discussed, whether anyone else was privy to their conversation, whether he encouraged the whistleblower to file a complaint, whether he played any role in preparing the complaint, and why he initially denied speaking with the whistleblower before he had filed his complaint. Schiff’s testimony will also shed light on his credibility and potential bias.

Schiff’s potential dual role as lawyer and witness does not appear to fit into one of Rule 3.7’s exceptions. Specifically, his testimony does not relate to an uncontested issue or to the nature and value of legal services. To the contrary, his testimony directly relates, in part, to the initiation of the whistleblower complaint and the underlying motivation and circumstances surrounding the filing. Finally, given that Schiff’s “team” consists of six additional and qualified attorneys, his disqualification as manager would not result in any hardship.

Schiff’s Dual Role Creates a Conflict of Interest

In this case, Schiff’s ability to serve as lawyer and witness could hinder or prejudice the president’s case in the eyes of the Senate and the American public. His dual role could also create a potential conflict of interest, depending on the information elicited through his testimony.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, was concerned about Schiff’s potential conflict of interest during the inquiry phase. According to Ratcliffe, Schiff has a conflict of interest in light of his secret interactions with the whistleblower before his false complaint against Trump was even submitted:

It’s more than just bias — it’s an actual legal conflict of interest. Schiff is using his authority as a chairman presiding over an impeachment inquiry to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions or the actions of his staff.

He is essentially a witness in the trial over which he is presiding. He has a conflict of interest because his testimony is relevant to the origins of the impeachment process that he is simultaneously conducting, directing, and managing.

If the Senate decides to allow witnesses during the trial, which is another contentious issue, the president’s defense team should be permitted to call Schiff as a witness and to question him about the circumstances behind the whistleblower complaint, his apparent inconsistent statements, his alleged conflict of interest, and his obvious bias.

While Schiff cannot avoid questioning by virtue of the fact that he is a prosecutor in the impeachment trial, his role as manager deserves a second look because of these various considerations. Finally, given his unwillingness to name the whistleblower and his staff members who initially spoke with the whistleblower, his testimony appears necessary, especially if nobody else can provide the needed information.

If this means he cannot serve as a manager, he should immediately step aside and allow the other managers to continue without him.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/17/andrew-mccabe-overseeing-a-fair-fisa-process-is-really-hard/

Andrew McCabe: Overseeing A Fair FISA Process Is Really Hard
At a panel on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reform, fired FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe had a lot of excuses for why the FBI would abuse an American citizen's constitutional rights.
David MarcusBy David Marcus
JANUARY 17, 2020


On Thursday afternoon, New York University Law School hosted a panel discussion on reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a federal law that allows courts to grant federal agencies warrants to secretly spy on American citizens.

The panel was held by Just Security, an online forum for analysis of national security. Moderated by The Atlantic magazine’s Adam Sewer, speakers were Liza Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center; Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez; Andrew Weismann, a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office; and recently fired Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.


After registration a light lunch was available, then the assembled awkwardly walked into the auditorium, balancing plates and coats, cups and briefcases. Then we sat waiting.

A loud gentleman with a nonspecific New York accent laughed behind me and said, “Why is Andrew McCabe on a panel about FISA? To explain how to abuse it?” No sooner had the panel taken the stage than someone filming with a selfie stick started peppering McCabe with questions about Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s secret investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. He was asked to leave and did, but these two incidents indicated why I was there.

The actual panel began with a brief description of the secretive FISA process through which surveillance of Americans allegedly suspected of being foreign agents operates. Almost entirely lacking in transparency, for claimed national security reasons, the process lacks the accountability of the domestic criminal surveillance process, because there is little no adversarial challenge to it. It must merely jump through more hoops and agencies, which counterintuitively all panelists seemed to agree made the process more, not less, susceptible to abuse because this supposedly diffuses accountability among more nameless actors who cannot then be held to account for their specific actions.

There were basically three teams. Goitein and Sanchez were the most critical of the FISA process and most anxious to have Congress make broad changes. They were also most likely to assign blame to the FBI’s handling of FISA, specifically the applications to wiretap former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.


McCabe, not surprisingly, took the side of himself and the FBI he directed. While admitting mistakes were made, he almost seemed to suggest they were inevitable and nobody’s fault. At one point referring to exculpatory evidence for Page, some of which the FBI had hidden from the FISA court, he explained that some of it was buried in the middle of a 72-page interview report. You know, they missed it. But always in the same direction.

As to why these errors outlined the recent inspector general’s report never seemed to be exculpatory to Trump, Goitein and Sanchez both cited confirmation basis, and Sanchez more specifically a culture in the FBI that turns a blind eye to evidence that helps the targets of their investigation. And this is really the crux of the issue. The FISA Court and the FBI lawyers work in concert. It was even suggested their staffs might be too cozy, and there is little to no check on their power.

This is where Weismann tried to play the middle. Although very critical of the Page FISA application, even more so than Sanchez, he was also in general deferential to the FBI. But he was the first person to bring up an existing check on the FBI that is almost never used, amicus curiae. Leslie McAdoo Gordon has a deep dive of it here, but it is basically a group of lawyers with security clearance who can play devil’s advocate on FISA applications.

The problem is that this almost never happens. All of the panelists agree that the use of amicus curiae should be expanded. Weismann indicated that the first Page application was so shoddy that it was “not close,” maybe something an amicus could have discovered. One wonders also why the FISA court granted the abuse of Page’s rights on “shoddy” grounds. Again McCabe hedged, wondering if an amicus could really have enough knowledge of the case to find the mistakes.


Another reform advanced was the idea of informing those watched by FISA that had they had been after the case was over. In criminal searches this is the norm, and provides the opportunity to challenge the validity of the warrant. In FISA cases, such potential accountability does not exist.

Accountability was really the name of the game. It was suggest that a kind of watchdog group, or “red team,” could be established to review the applications. It would be impossible to do so for all of the vast number of applications per year, but even if just a percentage were reviewed the FBI would know the possibility of getting caught doing something wrong exists.

The main takeaway of the event was that the IG report so damning about the FBI’s handling of Page’s application was a very rare check on FISA power. And if errors were found in so high profile a case, how many more be going unchecked in more run of the mill cases? The profound balance at work here is protecting national security interests and the civil liberties of Americans at the same time. Both, it seems cannot be done extremely well at the same time.

The failed attempt to take down Donald Trump in the Russia investigation, much of which sprang from the Page applications, shows the importance of reforming this system. Whether the mistakes that harmed Trump were a result of human error or political bias, something Inspector General Michael Horowitz would neither confirm nor deny, they threw the country into a tumult we have not recovered from.


For this to never happen again, the FBI and the FISA courts need serious checks on their power. Nothing I saw at the panel gave me the slightest bit of hope we are anywhere near achieving that.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/17/rand-paul-is-right-if-the-senate-wants-impeachment-witnesses-they-have-to-call-hunter-biden/

Rand Paul Is Right: If The Senate Wants Impeachment Witnesses, They Have To Call Hunter Biden
Do Democrats really care about the getting to the bottom of the allegations against Trump, or do they just want a show trial?
John Daniel DavidsonBy John Daniel Davidson
JANUARY 17, 2020

With President Trump’s impeachment trial set to begin next week, the Senate faces a stark choice: it can hold a legitimate trial that aims to get to the bottom of the allegations against the president, or it can stage an empty media spectacle like House Democrats did in their sham impeachment inquiry.

The problem for Democrats is that if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opts for the former, it will mean calling not just the witnesses Democrats want, like former National Security Advisor John Bolton, but also witnesses the administration wants, like Hunter Biden and Eric Ciaramella, the anti-Trump whistleblower who first set all of this in motion.


Indeed, it’s hard to see how Senate Democrats can demand to hear only from witnesses they think will bolster their preferred narrative—like Lev Parnas, the Soviet-born associate of Rudy Giuliani who was indicted for campaign law violations, and lately been making grand accusations about Trump in the media—but not hear from Ciaramella or Biden. At least, they can’t do so while also maintaining the fiction that this impeachment is anything but bare-knuckle partisan politics, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s somber soliloquies about the Constitution notwithstanding.

In any case, Trump’s Republican allies in the Senate might not let them. In an interview with Politico on Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul said he will force the Senate to vote on subpoenaing President Trump’s preferred witnesses—specifically, Hunter Biden and Ciaramella—if four or more of his colleagues join with Democrats in calling for new witness testimony in the impeachment trial set to begin next week.

“My first preference would be to be done with it as soon as possible and not to have any witnesses,” Paul said. “If they insist on having people like [John] 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.”

Even if no GOP senators call for new witnesses, Paul’s point is valid: how on earth can the Senate conduct even the semblance of a credible, fair trial without hearing from the person who started all this? Until he thought better of it, House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff insisted that it was essential to hear Ciamarella’s testimony. Senate Republicans could rightly argue that it still is.


Do Democrats, who are presumably interested in the unvarnished truth, really expect the American people to be content with the testimony of State Department bureaucrats with second- and third-hand knowledge, or law professors with strong opinions? After all, we were told this was serious business.

Moreover, could the American people really stomach the spectacle of an impeachment trial in which the Joe and Hunter Biden are at the center of a dispute over whether Trump abused his power, but are never called to testify? Imagine Joe Biden, of all people, campaigning away in Iowa while his rivals are stuck in Washington litigating a show-trail spawned in part by his family’s alleged corruption in Ukraine.

There Are Real Questions For the Senate to Investigate
And what about the substance of the articles of impeachment? House Democrats charge that Trump abused his power when he delayed aid to Ukraine and pressured the Ukrainian president to launch investigations into 2016 election interference and corruption at Burisma, the energy company that paid Hunter Biden astronomical sums while Joe Biden was the U.S. government’s anticorruption point-man in Ukraine.

Clearly, the question about abuse of power is directly related to the question of whether there were legitimate reasons for Trump to delay the aid and ask for these investigations. Yes, an investigation of Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma might hurt his father’s presidential campaign, and therefore might accrue to Trump’s benefit. But that doesn’t mean it was Trump’s sole or even primary motivation, especially given Ukraine’s endemic corruption problems.


In the same way, an investigation of 2016 election meddling that, say, revealed Democratic Party officials solicited Ukrainian officials for dirt on the Trump campaign ahead of the 2016 election might damage Democrats in 2020, which would obviously help Trump. But was Trump’s only consideration his own personal benefit? It’s easy to see why any U.S. president would want to get to the bottom of such a matter, regardless of how it affected an upcoming election.

Moreover, the whole question of whether a foreign policy decision might benefit Trump’s reelection bid in some way is misinformed. Any foreign policy move a first-term president can claim as a success will be politically beneficial. Just because it helps the president doesn’t mean he was using foreign policy to advance his personal political interests, as Democrats have alleged. In the same way, decrying a “quid pro quo,” as Democrats did for months about Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, belies an oversimplified—and dishonest—view of American foreign policy, which is by nature transactional.

In other words, Democrats must prove that Trump’s only reason for requesting these investigations was that he believed it would hurt Joe Biden and the Democrats and benefit him personally. They have to show that there were no other compelling reasons for Trump to ask for the investigations—and manically repeating, as the media has, that 2016 election interference is a debunked “conspiracy theory” or that Joe Biden did nothing wrong just won’t cut it.

To do that, they will need to dig into whether there was anything in Ukraine worth investigating. That’s the one thing Democrats are not willing to do, which should tell you all you need to know about this impeachment.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/01/17/mollie-hemingway-impeachment-is-pornography-for-the-trump-deranged/

Mollie Hemingway: Impeachment Is ‘Pornography For The Trump-Deranged’
JANUARY 17, 2020 By The Federalist Staff
During a Fox News panel on how Democrats ignore the booming success of the economy and President Trump’s trade policy, Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway pointed out many Democrats and NeverTrumpers focus on impeachment instead.

“You have Republicans, Mitch McConnell confirming justices. You have Republicans in Congress working with deregulation, as is the president,” she said. “Then you have Democrats who said that they were going to come to DC and work on health care and all these other issues, instead spending their time really freaking out about Donald Trump.”

Trump complained on Thursday about the lack of attention and credit the media has given to the passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade deal.

“I did the biggest deal ever in the history of our country yesterday in terms of trade… and that was the second story to a total hoax,” Trump said.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-democrats-botch-case-for-witnesses/

The Botched Democratic Case for Witnesses
By RICH LOWRY
January 17, 2020 6:30 AM

Senate Republicans aren’t making their best case on witnesses either.


The fate of the republic, we are now supposed to believe, hinges on whether there are witnesses at a Senate impeachment trial.

Upon the long-anticipated transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said if the upper chamber doesn’t obtain the witnesses and documents the House impeachment managers want, it is engaged “in an unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up,” indeed would be participating “in the president’s crimes.”



It’s not clear what constitutional provision mandates that the Senate do whatever House managers say, nor what alleged crimes President Donald Trump committed, but let’s put that aside and chalk up the chairman’s rhetoric to an excess of sorrow and prayerfulness.

What Nadler and other Democrats are insisting on is that the Senate take up its investigative baton. In other words, the body controlled by the party that was desperate to impeach Trump wants to outsource its work to the body controlled by the party that rejects Trump’s impeachment.

This is a cockamamie demand that is of a piece with the House’s attitude to the Senate’s proceedings: We are going to rush the impeachment, but don’t dare rush the trial. We are going to impeach without key witnesses and documents, but if you hold a trial without key witnesses and documents, you are engaged in malfeasance. We didn’t want to deal with knotty questions of privilege and potential litigation arising from them; you are obliged to.

NOW WATCH: 'Schumer Vows to Force Votes on Impeachment Witnesses'

The House has been in an awkward situation ever since the pace of its investigation diverged from the pace of its impeachment.

The time that Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to devote to impeaching Trump over Ukraine fell short of the time it would take to thoroughly investigate Ukraine, so impeachment took precedence, and the investigation gave way. The House scored some meaningful witnesses, but in a more deliberate process, it would have kept working its way up the food chain of Trump officials and digging into Rudy Giuliani’s skullduggery.

Since there wasn’t time to do this before a pre-Christmas impeachment, the House didn’t try. It failed to subpoena John Bolton, whose testimony is now said to be absolutely central to the integrity of a Senate trial.


The new, disturbing Lev Parnas documents are a boon to the Democrats. But the House impeached about a month before getting them. Indeed, if Pelosi hadn’t delayed transmitting the articles in a futile attempt to pressure Mitch McConnell, the Senate trial could conceivably have ended before the release of the documents. Pelosi’s defenders say this is a vindication of her stall, but it’s more of an indictment of her rush to impeach.

Even now, the documents raise questions that would be natural to answer in an impeachment inquiry — if the inquiry hadn’t already ended.

If the House hasn’t managed to keep its story straight over the past month, Senate Republicans aren’t making their best case on witnesses either. Their most compelling argument would be that we already know the broad outlines of what Trump has done, so more fact-finding is unnecessary, and the Senate only has to decide the threshold question of whether his conduct rises to the level of removal. But if Republicans maintain Trump didn’t engage in any misconduct, it raises the natural question why Bolton and others shouldn’t come testify and put to rest the allegations against him.

The fact of the matter is that this is a most political impeachment because it’s happening in the run-up to an election. Pelosi wanted to rush impeachment, in part, to get it over with as soon as possible for her vulnerable members. Meanwhile, McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will be engaging in a political joust, with McConnell trying to hold together and protect his caucus and Schumer trying to split it and force awkward votes. Whether there are witnesses will depend on the contours of this contest.

Either way, the republic will survive.

[soonernvolved]

www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/indicted-giuliani-associate-lev-parnas-can-stay-free-bail-after-n1103261

Parnas, 47, had been seeking less restrictive terms of confinement and monitoring while he awaits trial.

Parnas was arrested in October along with Igor Fruman, another Giuliani associate, and pleaded not guilty to charges of funneling money from foreign entities to U.S. candidates in a scheme to buy political influence.

Both Parnas and Fruman are alleged to have started making illegal campaign contributions in March 2018. Parnas, who is Ukrainian, was originally released on a $1 million bond secured on $200,000 cash. He was eventually released to home confinement with electronic monitoring.

[soonernvolved]

The Defense team for President Trump is better than the Democrats' Prosecution team:

Ken Starr is best known for leading the investigation and impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Alan Dershowitz is a life-long Democrat attorney, author and Harvard Law Professor.

Dershowitz has been gone public refuting the current charges against President Donald Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 23 to 17 along party lines on Friday to approve two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.

After several weeks of threats and testimony the Democrats accused President Trump of two non-crimes:
1.) Abuse of power
2.) Obstructing Congress

In December Harvard Attorney Alan Dershowitz told Sean Hannity that the recent decision by SCOTUS to review President Trump’s legal arguments against Congress’s request for his financial records nullified Democrats’ “obstructing Congress” charges against the president.

Alan Dershowitz: Look, the most important development happened TODAY. The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena! And the Supreme Court said we’re going to hear this case!… Think of what that message is – It’s Trump was right!

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/trump-responds-to-gao-report-saying-he-violated-law-in-withholding-ukraine-aid

On Thursday, the Government Accountability Office issued its report on the White House temporarily freezing U.S. security aid allocated for Ukraine, concluding that President Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by “substitut[ing] his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.” Trump responded Friday morning by tweeting out a quote from Harvard Law’s Alan Dershowitz, who argues that the GAO has it “exactly backwards.”

“The [GAO] got it exactly backwards,” Trump tweeted, quoting Dershowitz, a self-described liberal who has frequently defended Trump over the course of his presidency. “Here’s what they said. The law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities to those Congress has enacted into law. It’s exactly the opposite. The Constitution does not allow Congress to substitute its own priorities for the foreign policies of the President.”

As The Daily Wire reported Thursday, the GAO issued its conclusions on the legality of the White House withholding the aid to Ukraine in an alleged attempt to “pressure” the government to conduct investigations into alleged Ukrainian corruption, particularly involving Joe and Hunter Biden.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the 8-page report signed by General Counsel Thomas H. Armstrong, states in its overview. “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.”

“In the summer of 2019, OMB withheld from obligation approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine,” the GAO’s “decision” section outlines. “OMB withheld amounts by issuing a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) unavailable for obligation. … As explained below, we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an unauthorized reason in violation of the ICA.1 See 2 U.S.C. § 684. We also question actions regarding funds appropriated to the Department of State (State) for security assistance to Ukraine.”


“At issue in this decision is whether OMB had authority to withhold the USAI funds from obligation,” Armstrong explains in the “discussion” section of the report. “The Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress and sets forth the procedures of bicameralism and presentment, through which the President may accept or veto a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and Congress may subsequently override a presidential veto. Id., art. I, § 7, cl. 2, 3. The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law.”

The report concludes by urging the OMB and the State Department to “provide the information we need to fulfill our duties under the ICA regarding potential impoundments of FMF funds.”

“We will continue to pursue this matter and will provide our decision to the Congress after we have received the necessary information,” Armstrong stresses. “We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance.”

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/17/maggie-haberman-media-instant-credibility-anti-trump/

NYT’s Maggie Haberman Admits Media Gives ‘Instant Credibility’ To Anti-Trump Voices

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman warned Friday that there was a tendency in media to give “instant credibility” to anyone who came out as anti-Trump.

Haberman appeared on CNN’s “New Day” to discuss the ongoing impeachment of President Donald Trump and the recent interview with indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, and she noted the importance of evaluating the facts independent of those voices. (RELATED: Maggie Haberman, Ana Navarro And Shaun King Among A Massive List Of Activist Journalists Named On Covington’s Lawsuit)


WATCH:



Host John Berman brought up the fact that Parnas, who recently gave a lengthy interview to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, has argued that he would be a great witness for Senate Republicans because he could tell them what former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter had done wrong with regard to Ukraine.

“It was really interesting because what Parnas was saying, he was actually saying he should be a Republican witness. ‘Republicans should want to talk to me,'” Berman said.

“They do but not for the reasons he thinks,” Haberman replied. “There are some Republicans talking privately about the idea that maybe he wouldn’t be the worst witness for us to call because we could try to hit into his credibility and again for the reasons we just said, there are concerns that he would not be able to hold up.”


Primis Player Placeholder


Echoing the concerns of CNN anchor Jake Tapper, who warned Thursday that Parnas had a “serious credibility problem,” Haberman continued.

“One of the hallmarks of the Trump era is anybody who is oppositional to Trump gets instant credibility,” she said. “We’ve seen it over and over again. Michael Avenatti, Cohen even at points, even when he was admitting he was lying to Congress at some point after he pleaded guilty to other charges. It’s important to just assess these facts on their own.”

Haberman also warned, as even White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway suggested, that Parnas was simply putting himself out there as a potential witness in the hopes that it might help with his own legal troubles. “Parnas knows what he’s doing. He knows it’s compelling to go on TV saying, ‘I’m here, come take me,'” Haberman explained. “He’s clearly hoping that’s going to help him in his criminal case. I don’t know that it will. If he got called as a witness, it might not go the way he’s describing it. That’s all.”

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/alan-dershowitz-ken-starr-join-trumps-impeachment-defense

Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr Join Trump's Impeachment Defense

As President Trump gears up for his big day in court the Senate on Tuesday, CNN reports that he is adding three more lawyers to his impeachment defense team.

The new lawyers include Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, Clinton-era special prosecutor Ken Starr and Robert Ray, Starr's successor at the Office of Independent Counsel during the Clinton administration.

They will join a team led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone (the successor to Don McGahn) and external attorney Jay Sekulow, who also was a key player on the team of lawyers that represented Trump during the Mueller probe. Both Sekulow and Cipollone are still expected to deliver statement's on Trump's behalf from the Senate floor after the trial opens on Tuesday.




Alan Dershowitz

Some of the new additions have been rumored since shortly before the House voted to impeach the president last month.

Dershowitz confirmed the news - or at least confirmed that he would be joining the team - in a series of tweets:

STATEMENT REGARDING PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ’S ROLE IN THE SENATE TRIAL - Professor Dershowitz will present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal. (1of 2)

— Alan Dershowitz (@alandersh) January 17, 2020
(2 of 3) While Professor Dershowitz is non partisan when it comes to the constitution—he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton— he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution.

— Alan Dershowitz (@alandersh) January 17, 2020
(3of 3) He is participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent.

— Alan Dershowitz (@alandersh) January 17, 2020
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

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

Your email...
As we explained yesterday, Dems and Republicans are still battling over whether to subpoena witnesses (including Lev Parnas) and explore additional evidence in the trial (the Dems' position) or to wrap up the proceedings without calling witnesses (the White House position). Whatever happens, it's extremely unlikely that President Trump will be impeached.

Dershowitz has been one of the most outspoken critics of the Democrats' impeachment strategy. In several op-eds written for the Hill and the Gatestone Institute, Dershowitz condemned the impeachment push as a political 'weapon' being used against the president to try and bolster the Dems' position heading into November.

For his support, Trump invited Dershowitz to the White House in December to speak at a Hanukkah event.

Of course, opinion polls suggest that despite all of the effort the Dems have squandered on impeachment, public approval of the president is little-changed.

Proceedings are expected to start on Tuesday, after the long holiday weekend.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/17/alan-dershowitz-joins-trumps-impeachment-legal-team/

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr and Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz have joined President Donald Trump’s impeachment legal team ahead of the Senate’s upcoming trial.

“Professor Dershowitz will present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal,” a spokesperson for the legal team said in a statement Friday. “While Professor Dershowitz is non-partisan when it comes to the constitution—he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton— he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution.”




Dershowitz, one of the country’s most high-profile constitutional lawyers, confirmed the news to CNBC. “The president asked me to do this, and the legal team asked me to do this,” he said.

Breitbart TV



Play Video
CLICK TO PLAY

Pelosi: Trump Was Impeached, 'That Will Last Forever’

Starr, a former appeals court judge who headed up the investigation into the Whitewater the Monica Lewinsky scandals, has yet to confirm the news.

Robert Ray, an ex-federal prosecutor and independent counsel who took over for Starr in the Whitewater probe, is also expected to join the president’s legal team, CNN reports.

“You can confirm that I expect an announcement this afternoon,” Ray told CNBC of the report.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s personal attorney, will lead the defense team.

The development comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) bowed to pressure on Wednesday from Republicans and several Democrats to transfer two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — to the Senate after a near four-week delay. Additionally, Pelosi announced the seven House Democrats who will serve as impeachment managers in the trial, naming: 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 was appointed lead impeachment manager.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said this week that the trial will likely start 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 confirmed at a Capitol Hill press conference.

President Trump has repeatedly criticized the Democrats’ impeachment effort as a “hoax” and an “illegal, partisan attempted coup.”

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/17/cnn-msnbc-lev-parnas/

To hear Lev Parnas tell it, as he did in interviews this week with Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper, his laser-like focus on getting rid of the American ambassador to Ukraine was purely in service of President Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani.

In his interviews, which aired Wednesday and Thursday, Parnas apologized for his role in forcing Marie Yovanovitch’s removal from Kyiv. He said he no longer believes some of the allegations he spread about the diplomat, who Trump recalled from her post on April 24, 2019.


But Parnas left key details about his interest in Yavanovitch out of his interviews, which were the first he had conducted since being indicted on campaign finance charges in New York.

According to an indictment unsealed on Oct. 10, the Soviet-born Parnas made illegal campaign contributions, known as “straw” donations, to several lawmakers and political committees. Prosecutors allege that Parnas acted at the behest of at least one Ukrainian government official — not Trump or Giuliani — to force Yovanovitch from office.

“PARNAS’s efforts to remove the Ambassador were conducted, at least in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials,” the government alleges.

One recipient of Parnas’s contributions was then-Texas Republican Rep. Pete Sessions. Parnas allegedly made straw donations in June 2018 to Sessions’ campaign. (RELATED: Lev Parnas’s Comments To NYT Conflict With CNN Report)


Primis Player Placeholder


Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on May 9, 2018 requesting a review of Yovanovitch.

“I kindly ask you to consider terminating her ambassadorship and find a replacement as soon as possible,” Sessions wrote to Pompeo.

Yovanovitch was on Parnas’s mind a week before his meeting with Sessions.

Parnas told both Maddow and Cooper that he told Trump at a private fundraising event on April 30, 2018 that Yovanovitch had made derogatory statements about him.


“I don’t know how the conversation came up, but I do remember me telling the president that the ambassador was bad-mouthing him, and saying he would be impeached. Something to that effect,” Parnas told Maddow.

The information appeared to be news to Trump, according to Parnas’s telling. He said that Trump turned to an aide and instructed him to fire Yovanovitch.

Yovanovitch was not fired at the time. She remained ambassador for nearly a year longer. Trump ultimately recalled her following a series of reports in conservative media portraying Yovanovitch as being corrupt and anti-Trump.

Parnas and Giuliani worked closely with John Solomon, a reporter then with The Hill, to set up interviews and gather documents used in the anti-Yovanovitch campaign.

In his interview with Cooper, Parnas attributed his interest in Yovanovitch to a sort of peer pressure from the “Trump crowd,” never mentioning that the indictment against him said that he was working in benefit of an unnamed Ukrainian official.

Neither Maddow nor Cooper pressed Parnas on what motivated him to bring up Yovanovitch, or which Ukrainian official he was allegedly helping.

“Did you want Yovanovitch removed?” Cooper asked Parnas.

“Me personally? I didn’t have no personal motives,” he said.

“You didn’t have an opinion at all?” Cooper asked.

“My opinion came from the crowd I was in,” said Parnas, referring to Team Trump. “Over the time it grew more and more and more and more and more and eventually I felt like I hated her because you know everybody hated her.”

[soonernvolved]

omny.fm/shows/the-larry-o-connor-show/sidney-powell-on-the-larry-oconnor-show-01-16-2020

Sidney Powell: “And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”

[soonernvolved]

Alan Dershowitz: The reason I agreed to do this over the great objection of some of my family members and many, many friends. One of my relatives wrote to me today and said would you please change your last name.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/17/house-continues-inquiry-after-pelosi-transmits-articles-to-senate/

House Continues Inquiry After Pelosi Transmits Articles to Senate


5:27
House Democrat leaders pursuing the removal of President Donald Trump from office appear reluctant to let go of their investigation after voting to impeach him last month, even after Speaker Nancy Pelosi transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate this week.

“Plainly, there are loose ends here that the House should have tied up and that, importantly, the House is continuing to investigate,” former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy wrote in an editorial Wednesday, the day House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) finally handed over the articles of impeachment to the Senate.



McCarthy, who currently serves as the senior fellow at National Review Institute and a National Review contributing editor, suggested postponing the impeachment trial unit the House finishes its inquiry.

By handing over the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Pelosi is supposed have passed the baton of the impeachment process to the upper chamber, but some House members refuse to let go of their inquiries into Donald Trump.

The House already did its part — it voted to impeach Trump on December 18, charging him with two articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

In a press release issued on the day before Pelosi transmitted the articles to the Senate on Wednesday, House leaders pursuing the impeachment inquiry against Trump conceded that they continued to investigate the president after the lawmakers voted to impeach him and charge him with the two articles.

The chairmen of the House Committees on Oversight and Reform, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence declared in a joint statement:

Since the House voted to impeach President Trump, we have continued our investigation so the House Managers can present to the Senate the most complete factual record possible before the trial on the Articles of Impeachment. Despite the President’s unprecedented and sweeping obstruction of our impeachment inquiry, we have continued to collect additional evidence relevant to the President’s scheme to abuse his power by pressing Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election for the President’s benefit.

After repeatedly saying impeaching Trump was an urgent national matter, Pelosi chose not to hand over the articles of impeachment for weeks until this past Wednesday. Republicans accused the Speaker of trying to exert control on how the upper chamber conducts its part of the process — the trial to acquit or remove Trump from office and possibly to allow House leaders more time to investigate Trump.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected Pelosi’s ploy to try to tell the Senate how to conduct its business, saying, “There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure.”

On the eve of Pelosi transmitting the articles to the Senate, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) indicated that Democrats might continue with their inquiry after the Senate receives the articles.

In a letter dated January 14, Schiff wrote House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) that he was transmitting new evidence related to the impeachment.
“Despite unprecedented obstruction by the president, the [House Intelligence] Committee continues to receive and review potentially relevant evidence and will make supplemental transmittals,” Schiff declared.

The House judiciary panel is charged with compiling the complete record of the impeachment probe ahead of the Senate’s trial.
Schiff sent Nadler “additional records and other materials related to the impeachment inquiry” produced by Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, pursuant to a subpoena.

At the end of October, Breitbart News warned that the approval of the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry resolution would officially authorize probes into Trump that are unrelated to the subject at hand. The approved expansive resolution authorized any ongoing Trump investigations under the sun.

House Democrats, however, appear intent on introducing new evidence and request the deposition of new witnesses during the Senate trial, a prospect the GOP-controlled upper chamber is unlikely to indulge.

The Senate began its impeachment trial to remove or acquit (the most likely outcome) President Trump on Thursday.


On Wednesday, Kevin McCarthy acknowledged that the House was likely continuing with its probe even after Pelosi handed over the articles.
McCarthy wrote:

Two things happened simultaneously on Wednesday: (a) The House of Representatives transmitted to the Senate two articles of impeachment approved on straight partisan lines a month ago, and (b) the House’s impeachment inquiry — yes, it’s still very much alive — highlighted new, relevant evidence it has turned up about the activities in Ukraine of President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Giuliani’s associates.
…
House Democrats rushed through the investigation, forgoing salient witnesses and evidence, because of the political calendar. The charges are weak, and the inquiry was needlessly short-circuited, so Democrats have continued investigating the premature allegations. Now they are publicly disclosing newly acquired evidence, with the promise of more to come.

It appears some House members are reluctant to stop their inquiry and are trying to pressure the Republican-controlled Senate to help them remove the leader of their party.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Afterwards, she flew back home to attend the ballet:

datebook.sfchronicle.com/dance/sf-ballet-gala-leaves-guests-spellbound-but-nacy-pelosi-was-the-nights-star

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/senate-republicans-weaponize-impeachment-witnesses-if-moderate-colleagues-side-dems

Senate Republicans To 'Weaponize' Impeachment Witnesses If Moderate Colleagues Side With Dems

Trump supporting Senate Republicans have warned their moderate GOP colleagues that if they side with the Democrats to force witnesses in the upcoming impeachment trial, they're going to flip the script and weaponize the process to call controversial witnesses such as Hunter Biden and Alexandra Chalupa - people central to the core claims behind the impeachment, yet were ignored like the plague by House Democrats during their investigations.



The pressure tactics are the latest shift in strategy as Republican leaders try to navigate the factions in their caucus, where moderates want to leave the potential for witnesses on the table and conservatives are anxious to quickly acquit President Trump. -The Hill

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) warned fellow GOP senators that if four or more of them join with Democrats to entertain witness testimony, he'll make sure the Senate holds a vote on subpoenaing President Trump's preferred witnesses - including the Bidens.


"If you vote against Hunter Biden, you’re voting to lose your election, basically. Seriously. That’s what it is," Paul told Politico on Wednesday. "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 added that if GOP senators insist on calling people "who are unhappy about being fired," referring to former National Security Adviser John Bolton, "then I think the president should get to call his [witnesses] and we should have votes on those."

"The president gets to call anybody he thinks would be good for his defense, the prosecution can call who they want, but I don’t think we should selectively call witnesses that don't like the president," he said.

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy says he expects that if moderate GOP join with Democrats to call their preferred witnesses, it's only fair that Trump's team can call theirs.

"I assume that if we're going to be fair ... that if we get into having witnesses and evidence that both the prosecution and the defense will be able to weigh in as well," said Kennedy. "I feel pretty confident, though I don’t know it for a fact, that the defense team is going to want to call its witnesses, including but not limited to the Bidens, [and] as a fact witness the whistleblower."

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) declined to weigh in on Thursday about if he would be willing to engage in a trade where Democrats could call Bolton in exchange for Republicans calling Hunter Biden, who has emerged as a prime fixation for Trump and his allies over his work on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

“I’m not going to negotiate out here,” he told reporters. “They haven’t made any offer about any witnesses or any documents.” -The Hill

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has floated the idea of "witness reciprocity" across the aisle.

"If they are going to bring witnesses in, we’re not going to do what the House did of a one-sided show trial, and I think it should be at a bare minimum one-for-one," Cruz told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "So if the prosecution brings ... John Bolton, then President Trump can bring a witness. He can bring Hunter Biden."

Hannity told Cruz he "loved your proposal" and that he hopes the Democrats agree so that Republicans can call the Bidens, whistleblower Eric Ciaramella and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), whose staff met with the whistleblower and steered him to Democratic operative attorney Mark Zaid - who loves going to Disneyland alone.


Children's theme park enthusiast Mark Zaid
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

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

Your email...
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has worked behind the scenes to unite various factions within his caucus as the impeachment trial looms - meeting recently with moderates such as Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) - the latter of whom was bullied mercilessly by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) during the Kavanaugh confirmation.





Sen. Roy Blunt, meanwhile, the #4 GOP senator, said McConnell has convinced Republicans to entertain a decision on witnesses after the trial begins.

"I think he’s done a good job listening and trying to understand that everybody has their own unique set of considerations here as to how they move forward," said Blunt, adding "By doing that [he] has all of us in the same place on the rules that we’ll vote on next Tuesday. That’s a good way to start."

[soonernvolved]

Remember, Alan Dershowitz is a liberal Democrat and voted for Hillary Clinton.

www.zerohedge.com/political/gao-wrong-dershowitz-confirms-trump-had-right-withhold-ukraine-funds
www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15462/trump-had-right-to-withhold-ukraine-funds-gao-is

GAO Is Wrong - Dershowitz Confirms Trump Had Right To Withhold Ukraine Funds

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" - the Impoundment Control Act- "does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ."

Yes, it does - when it comes to foreign policy.

The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.

Whatever one may think about the substantive merits of what President Donald Trump did or did not do with regard to the Ukrainian money— which was eventually sent without strings —he certainly had the authority to delay sending the funds. The GAO was simply wrong in alleging that he violated the law, which includes the Constitution, by doing so.

To be sure, the statute requires notification to Congress, but if such notification significantly delays the president from implementing his foreign policy at a time of his choice, that too would raise serious constitutional issues.

Why then would a nonpartisan agency get it so wrong as a matter of constitutional law.

There are two obvious answers:

In the age of Trump there is no such thing as nonpartisan. The political world is largely divided into people who hate and people who love President Trump. This is as true of long term civil servants as it is of partisan politicians. We have seen this with regard to the FBI, the CIA, the Fed and other government agencies that are supposed to be nonpartisan. There are of course exceptions such as the inspector general of the Department of Justice who seems genuinely non-partisan. But most civil servants share the nationwide trend of picking sides. The GAO does not seem immune to this divisiveness.

Even if the GAO were non-partisan in the sense of preferring one political party over the other, it is partial to Congress over the president. The GAO is a congressional body. It is part of the legislative, not executive, branch. As such, it favors congressional prerogatives over executive power. It is not surprising therefore that it would elevate the authority of Congress to enact legislation over that of the president to conduct foreign policy.

In any event, even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not— the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents. Those alleged violations were barely noted by the media. But in the hyper-partisan impeachment atmosphere, this report received breathless "breaking news" coverage and a demand for inclusion among the articles of impeachment.

If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law. But let us not continue to water down the constitutional criteria for impeachment by including highly questionable, and on my view wrongheaded, views about violations of an unconstitutional civil law.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/harvard-law-professor-alan-dershowitz-democrats-impeachment-greatest-nightmare-founders-had

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz: Democrats’ Impeachment ‘Greatest Nightmare’ Founders Had

Harvard law professor and self-described liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz slammed House Democrats’ Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump on Sunday, saying that what they are doing amounts to the “greatest nightmare” that America’s founding fathers had when forming the country.

Dershowitz, who is on Trump’s legal defense team in a very limited role, pushed back on ABC News’ George Stephanopolous’ suggestion that the Articles contained crimes.

“But they weren’t elements – they are not articles of impeachment,” Dershowitz said. “The articles of impeachment are two non-criminal actions, namely obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, and those are – would have to be voted on by the Senate.”


“Let me press that, though,” Stephanopolous said. “Is it your position that President Trump should not be impeached even if all the evidence and arguments laid out by the House are accepted as fact?”

“That’s right,” Dershowitz responded. “When you have somebody who, for example, is indicted for a crime – let’s assume you have a lot of evidence – but the grand jury simply indicts for something that’s not a crime, and that’s what happened here, you have a lot of evidence, disputed evidence, that could go both ways, but the vote was to impeach on abuse of power, which is not within the constitutional criteria for impeachment, and obstruction of Congress.”

“Those are both the kinds of things that led Hamilton and Madison – talk about nightmare – to regard that as the greatest nightmare, number one, giving Congress too much power to allow the president to serve at the will of Congress,” Dershowitz continued. “And number two, as Hamilton put it, the greatest danger is turning impeachment into a question of who has the most votes in which House, and rather than having a consensus and a broad view of impeachable conduct.”

WATCH: