Adam Schiff’s Capacious Definition of Bribery Was Tried in 1787

From Jonathan Turley

The Trial of Warren Hastings

Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on case that may be looming in the background of tomorrow’s opening hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.

I have been called to testify at the hearing. With only a few days to prepare, I will be completing my testimony today and I will hopefully post it before leaving for the hearing in the morning. This is a daunting but not unfamiliar challenge as an academic. It has been 20 years since I testified at the Clinton impeachment hearing with other constitutional and historical experts on this same question. It has been 10 years since I served as the last lead counsel (with Dan Schwartz) in the impeachment trial of Judge Thomas Porteous.  The hearing will begin at 10:00 am in the Longworth House Office Building.

Here is the column:

In the push for a December impeachment vote, House Democrats appear poised to make history. It will be the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the narrowest impeachment in history. There is, however, a precedent for the Democrats’ expansive interpretations of bribery and impeachment: the trial of Warren Hastings, 230 years ago in Britain. But Hastings’ tale is a cautionary one that nobody should aim to repeat.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has “corroborated evidence of bribery.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff agrees, explaining that, “As the founders understood bribery, it was not as we understand it in law today. It was much broader. It connoted the breach of the public trust in a way where you’re offering official acts for some personal or political reason, not in the nation’s interest.”

Mr. Schiff’s sudden transformation into an originalist may be short-lived. The Framers did not, in fact, view bribery as some overarching concept of corruption. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason objected to listing only “treason” and “bribery” as impeachable offenses because they were too narrow and limited. He suggested a broader term, “maladministration,” citing the still-unfolding Hastings case, which was based on interpretations of bribery and corruption that would soon be exposed as dubious.

Edmund Burke

Warren Hastings was Britain’s governor-general in India, a realm rife with corruption and bribery. The East India Company held tremendous power in the subcontinent and was accused of perpetuating the corruption for its own ends. Hastings had sought greater control over Indian governance, and his actions became controversial in Britain, where Parliament was bitterly divided. Hastings’s greatest detractor was the statesman Edmund Burke, who pilloried him as the “captain-general of iniquity” and a “spider of Hell.” Even today’s overheated rhetoric pales in comparison with Burke’s denouncing Hastings as a “ravenous vulture devouring the carcasses of the dead.” Burke would lead the impeachment of Hastings, who was arrested in 1787 by Parliament’s sergeant-at-arms.

Hastings was charged by the impeachment committee with bribery and other forms of abuse of power. The case dragged on for seven years before Hastings was acquitted on every article of impeachment. Even though Hastings did have some dodgy personal financial dealings, his impeachment today is widely viewed as an injustice, and Burke was ultimately censured for his intemperate rhetoric.

While Hastings had not yet stood trial in London, in Philadelphia Mason spoke of the Hastings impeachment with approval. He wanted the U.S. Constitution to include a similarly broad scope for impeachable offenses, covering everything that could “subvert the Constitution.”

Mason failed. The Framers rejected terms ranging from “corruption,” obtaining office by improper means, betraying one’s trust to a foreign power, “negligence,” “perfidy,” “peculation” and “oppression.” All these were rejected along with “maladministration” and kept off the Constitution’s list of impeachable offenses.

Notably, perfidy means dishonesty and peculation means self-dealing — two common allegations in today’s Trump hearings. The Framers dropped these terms, however, as too broad and undefined. Indeed, in arguing against the inclusion of maladministration, Madison remarked that “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate,” an outcome repugnant to him. Mason then substituted “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” which was approved.

Since then, politicians have often sought to adopt expansive interpretations to make impeachment easier. When I served as lead defense counsel in the Senate impeachment trial of federal Judge Thomas Porteous, the lead House manager sought to convict my client on the novel theory that even conduct before taking office could be impeachable. That impeachment manager was Adam Schiff.

There is much that is worthy of investigation in the Ukraine scandal, and it is true that impeachment doesn’t require a crime. But the Framers expressly warned against lowering the impeachment standard to a mere discretionary option for any party that happens to control the Senate. That’s what interpreting bribery to include any action viewed as “offering public acts for some personal or political purposes” would do.

All politicians are self-dealers who use their offices to advance themselves politically. That doesn’t make their acts criminal or impeachable. Just ask Warren Hastings.

Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial in defense of Judge Thomas Porteous. He has testified with other constitutional experts in the Clinton impeachment.

Time to Pivot from the Middle East to the Mexican Border

Article by Stu Cvrk in "RedState":

The Age of Trump has pulled the scales from my eyes regarding US foreign policy related to the Middle East. We have been continuously at war since 9/11/01 at various times in multiple countries. To be honest, my initial gut response to Bush 43’s decision to take out Saddam Hussein after the 9/11 attacks was, “What?” Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda weren’t in Iraq; they were in Tora Bora and other parts of Afghanistan and surrounding areas. But as a “good Republican,” I went along with the political decision and then watched the debacle that ensued when half-measures were used for political purposes, a quagmire resulted, and no mission success or exit criteria were ever clearly communicated to the American people.

I wonder how many troop rotations there have been over the past 18 years? And to what end and for what purpose? Nation-building is a farce; it’s impossible to create Western-style democracies in countries with histories of 100% authoritarianism! We’ve tried that globalist fool’s errand for nearly 20 years now, and at what cost in American lives and treasure? So that’s definitely out.

The US is now the world’s #1 producer of oil and gas, and in a few short months, the US will achieve net energy independence, as reported here, so the need to keep Middle East supplies flowing is a secondary concern – but is a REAL concern for the Europeans and others. Let them take the baton from the US and step up. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Since 9/11, the US has “invested” an incredible amount of blood and treasure in the region. Approximately 7,000 U.S. servicemen and women have died during “Global War on Terrorism” operations (Obama remained it as “Overseas Contingency Operations.”) Approximately 53,000 more have been wounded. And those numbers don’t include the approximately 3,400 civilian contractor personnel killed and around 39,000 injured. Of all those injured, nearly 1,700 have lost at least one arm or leg. And those people would have likely bled out in prior wars, as modern battlefield medical procedures undoubtedly saved their lives.

There are other human costs. According to the Veterans Administration, approximately 11 to 20 out of every 100 veterans who served in operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) have suffered PTSD in a given year. The total is over 30,000 people with PTSD. The VA also reports that 20 veterans die by suicide every day. And the human costs don’t stop there. Taking care of widows and orphans, the strain on families during extended and multiple repeat deployments, broken families, childhood trauma for the survivors’ children, etc., are the continuing tragedies experienced by your fellow Americans each and every day.

What about the “treasure” part of the equation? Here are some statistics from an April 2019 Congressional Research Service report:

• $1.55 trillion appropriated for DoD war costs since 2002
• $44.8 billion appropriated to non-DOD agencies (and civilians) since 2002 for reconstruction and relief operations in Afghanistan
• $10 billion allocated to non-DOD agencies for Iraqi reconstruction and relief
• DoD’s FY20 budget requests GWOT/OCO:
  • Direct War Requirements ($25.4 billion)
  • OCO for Enduring Requirements ($41.3 billion)
  • OCO for Base Requirements ($97.9 billion)
  • Emergency Requirements ($9.2 billion)

Read the entire CRS report for more details here. Imagine that money being spent on crumbling inner cities in America.

And we STILL have people all over the Middle East with no end in sight! Here are some force dispositions from among the between 60,000 and 70,000 U.S. troops currently deployed to the region:

• Afghanistan: 14,000
• Bahrain: 7,000
• Iraq:  5,200
• Jordan: 2,795
• Kuwait: 13,000
• Oman: 300
• Qatar: 13,000
• Syria: 2,000
• United Arab Emirates: 5,000

See the rest of the open-source details about US troop deployments to the Middle East here.
I say again, what are the mission success and exit criteria? Are these losses of American blood and treasure to continue ad infinitum? I would argue that our priorities are greatly misplaced – and have been for decades. The Middle East has been at war with itself virtually throughout recorded human history – and will remain involved in factional, religious, and racial wars long after the US leaves, too.

The Middle East is not an existential crisis for America. China, Russia, and – the open southern US border – are the real existential threats to the US. Yes, the US-Mexico border qualifies BIGLY.
Enough of the Democrat nonsense that the border crisis is “manufactured”! The President has been right about the border crisis all along and will declare the Mexican cartels to be “terrorist organizations.” The former DEA agent who caught El Chapo agrees wholeheartedly:

The former head of the Chicago DEA, who spent years fighting the Mexican drug cartels and brought down the infamous drug lord “El Chapo,” said he “applauds” President Trump for pushing to designate the cartels as terrorist organizations.

“The president is showing real leadership if he can get that done,” former DEA agent Jack Riley told Fox News. “There are so many people inside and outside of Congress, the pundits, that will be against it. But this is exactly what is necessary. We have the tools. This would be a game-changer.”

Read the rest here.

Illegal drugs continue to pour across the border. I have covered the Mexican cartels and their involvement in the flow of Chinese-produced fentanyl across the Mexican border in detail here. Human trafficking remains unchecked. Illegal aliens of all persuasions, including bona fide terrorists, continue to freely enter the US in the absence of an impervious physical barrier and strict enforcement of standing immigration laws.

The increased incidence of disease introduced by illegal aliens is through the roof. The cost to US taxpayers to pay for services for illegal aliens is exorbitant. It’s clear that a serious and real national security threat to the US is right on our southern border! I mean, how many more mass graves need to be discovered along the border or Americans killed by illegal aliens before sufficient moral outrage can be converted into political action? Here’s the latest grisly discovery.

I have covered the costs of illegal immigration in terms of crimes committed, law enforcement costs, and taxpayer-funded services rendered here. Enough is enough! Time to stop this open-borders insanity once and for all.

Enough of the combat training rotations to the Middle East! It’s long past time to hand off the combat force and security requirements in the Middle East to our allies in the region, as well as to the European Union, and redeploy US forces to the US-Mexico border. Use them as dispersed Rapid Reaction Forces to surge forward and support the Border Patrol and law enforcement efforts to help deal with large groups of illegals attempting to cross over and also to nail heavily-armed cartel assets, as appropriate.

The US should continue to provide command and control (C2), intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance (ISR) and logistics support to our allies in the Middle East, but draw down combat power drastically. A redeployment along the southern border with Mexico would help create a de facto wall of military force until the physical wall is completed. What better way to defend America than to shut down the invasion across our own southern border?

There are other benefits that would result besides shutting down the flow of drugs, illegal aliens, and human victims across the border. The monetary savings could be reprogrammed to revitalize US infrastructure or inner cities and/or replenish and modernize military hardware. And the human costs would be greatly diminished, too: far fewer deaths and injuries/amputations, less PTSD, reduced family separation, etc.

One would think that the benefits of closing the border would be obvious, but not to Democrats who only see new Democrat voters in the invading horde. House Democrats have shown us what their priorities are in terms of border security:

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has voted to fund efforts to “enhance the border security” of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia while moving to deny all funding to build walls, fencing or any other structures to enhance the border security of the United States. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants have their priorities. To them, borders on the other side of the world are more important than our own.

Read the rest here. Apparently not enough of them or their families have suffered from crimes committed by illegal aliens or fallen to opioids in order to have reality smack them upside the head and do the right thing. Fortunately, more and more Americans see through their anti-American perfidy and realize that they really don’t care about the safety and security of their constituents.

George Washington in his farewell address in 1796 warned Americans to “steer clear of foreign entanglements.” That would include seeming endless foreign wars in the Middle East on others’ behalf, too. I agree wholeheartedly, and I believe President Trump does, as well. And he’s bucking the Uniparty and moribund US foreign policy establishment in that regard, who are all in on foreign entanglements and the gravy train of nation-building expenditures that can be siphoned off into corrupt enterprises and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Time to stanch the loss of blood and treasure. Time to get out of the Middle East and shut down the US-Mexico border!

The end.

PostScript. Do you think that deploying the military to the border area is overkill? Here is one example of heavily-armed cartel sicarios operating with impunity there. It’s high time that they were met with overwhelming firepower – and resolve!

Brian Kolfage @BrianKolfage

Armed cartel members escorting migrants into the US where no wall exists. Migrants = Cartel cash cow.

And here is the latest travesty in which 21 people were killed over the weekend in a gun battle near the Texas border:

The “Dirty” Truth @AKA_RealDirty

At least 14 killed in Gun battle with the Mexican drug cartel near the Texas border in Villa Union, Mexico:

https://www.redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2019/12/03/time-pivot-middle-east-mexican-border/

 NOTE THE LICENSE PLATE !!!  At least 14 killed in Gun battle with the Mexican drug cartel near the Texas border in Villa Union, Mexico. The guys (Cartel Del Noreste; “CDN”) had their letters on the vehicles.

Sacrebleu! – USTR Lighthizer Announces 100% Countervailing Duties on $2.4 Billion of French Products

The synergy, flow and timing of the U.S. trade and economic team is just a marvel; a brilliant assembly of perfectly in-tune economic and trade professionals.

As President Trump touched down in the U.K. to attend the two-day NATO summit, United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer announces the completion of a Section 301 review of France’s Digital Services Tax (DST).

After determining the value of the French tax on U.S. internet services at $2.4 billion; Lighthizer announcesa 100%  countervailing duty on a carefully selected $2.4 billion in French imports.

Obviously the agenda for the bilateral NATO meeting between U.S. President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron just changed.  LOL, you have to love Team USA.

Oh, but wait, wait… it gets better….

We have to remember, THIS $2.4 billion U.S. tariff against France would be on top of the $7.5 billion (per year) countervailing duty recently won from the Airbus subsidy case in the WTO…. and by law France cannot retaliate.

Oh my, President Trump strolls into the NATO bilat with Macron while holding a $10 billion legally justified countervailing tariff position.  How’d ya like ‘dem grapes?

Remember those stunts Macron pulled at the G20 meeting in France when he first showed up unannounced at the hotel for lunch to discuss “climate issues“; and then invited the Iranian Foreign Minister to a goofy external bilat; trying to set-up/pressure POTUS?

Oh comeuppance thy time is now.

Washington, DC – The U.S. Trade Representative has completed the first segment of its investigation under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and concluded that France’s Digital Services Tax (DST) discriminates against U.S. companies, is inconsistent with prevailing principles of international tax policy, and is unusually burdensome for affected U.S. companies.

Specifically, USTR’s investigation found that the French DST discriminates against U.S. digital companies, such as Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. In addition, the French DST is inconsistent with prevailing tax principles on account of its retroactivity, its application to revenue rather than income, its extraterritorial application, and its purpose of penalizing particular U.S. technology companies.  A report available on USTR’s website sets out the findings of the investigation.

“USTR’s decision today sends a clear signal that the United States will take action against digital tax regimes that discriminate or otherwise impose undue burdens on U.S. companies,” Ambassador Robert Lighthizer said. “Indeed, USTR is exploring whether to open Section 301 investigations into the digital services taxes of Austria, Italy, and Turkey. The USTR is focused on countering the growing protectionism of EU member states, which unfairly targets U.S. companies, whether through digital services taxes or other efforts that target leading U.S. digital services companies.”

USTR is issuing a Federal Register notice explaining that, for the reasons set forth in the report, the French DST is unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdens U.S. commerce. The notice solicits comments from the public on USTR’s proposed action, which includes additional duties of up to 100 percent on certain French products.

The notice also seeks comment on the option of imposing fees or restrictions on French services. The list of French products subject to potential duties includes 63 tariff subheadings with an approximate trade value of $2.4 billion.  The value of any U.S. action through either duties or fees may take into account the level of harm to the U.S. economy resulting from the DST. (more)

Macron: “No matter what I try, he just keeps winning”…

May: “Oh, Emmanuel you don’t have to tell me. If you only knew”…

Macron: “What is this, this mysterious power, he has?”..

May: “I hear they call it MAGA something-or-other”…

Macron: …{{{heavy sigh}}}

May: “You need to call Justin now. He’s picking us off one by one”…

An Idiots Guide to Response on Political Twitter

by Carpe Donktum via Threadreader

Trump Tweets this Picture: 

MAGA: THIS IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HORSE THAT WAS EVER CREATED

LIBS: YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL, THE HORSE DESERVES BETTER

CNN BREAKING NEWS: President Trump tweeted a horse that was probably thinking bad thoughts, our panel discusses after the break.

MSNBC: President Trump tweeted a picture of an Arabian horse, clearly a dog whistle to his Islamophobic base

Feminist Twitter: Why does the horse have to be a male? This is just another example of Trumps war on women.

Huffington Post: How Stallions are hurting transhorses

BLM Twitter: Why the horse gotta be black tho?

SPLC: Horses have long been a symbol used by White Supremacists to symbolize strength, Nazis are applauding today.

PETA: Horses are not here for your amusement Cheeto Hitler, did you get consent before you captured its soul?

Brian Stelter: President Trump tweeted this photo of a horse and did not credit the photographer. Every single day this president defies the norms and attacks the free press, thumbing his nose at decency.

Rachel Maddow: This horse, we found him, and we have his tax returns.

Buzzfeed: Ten reasons that Arabian Horses are the worst.

Newsweek: Horse praised by Trump is tied to a Russian Oligarch who once saw Putin at the Olympics.

Bill Kristol: It's time the republican party realized that Trump is just a horse trader and his tweets prove it. #Impeach

Elizabeth Warren: This is a mockery of my people, they depended on horses, not for something pretty to look at, but to survive. We need to tax the rich to buy the poor their own horses.

Biden: I had a horse just like that when I was in the pony express with Obama.

The Daily Beast: Trump's "Horse Picture" linked to Antisemitism, here is the horses address and social security number.

The New York Times: SOURCE says the Horse is the power behind the throne, Trump sits in his office watching gorilla channel all day.

Bernie Sanders: Whats with a horse? You should have a horse. I should have a horse. We should ALL HAVE HORSES. The fat cats, they don't want us to have them, but together, WE ARE GOING TO GET THEM

Boot Edge Edge: My husband has a horse like that, we're gay married. Did you know?

Tom Steyer: I love horses they are awesome I want to save the horses we should all love horses I have supported horses my whole life I am running for president long pause because I have lots of money.

Kamala: That horse should be in jail, and I'm just the cop to do it.

CNN again: UPDATE, evil horse subpoenaed in Impeachment Hearing set for Wednesday.

Adam Schiff: Based on evidence I have seen, this horse was part of an irregular channel of communication between the WH and Ukraine. Feed was likely exchanged for rides, a quid pro quo.

Pelosi: This horsh that Tump tweefted, is a clear *hiccup* shignal that he is unqualitied for the othfice of the presidentury

AOC: Cows are bad, but horses are like literally the devil. This guy... a cosmopolitan? coming right up... like doesn't care about the environment AT ALL

Hannity: Tonight we are going to expose what the Destroy Trump Media doesn't want you to know about this noble horse, later we talk to the great one about horse pedigree

Juan Williams: Come on, this horse is clearly a call back to what Trump thinks was a better time... Slavery

Meghan McCain: How dare Trump tweet a picture of this horse, such a beautiful, noble creature, like my father John McCain. *Sobbing*

ABC: This footage shows the Horse firing upon the Kurds.

CBS: Hero Horse or Horse Nazi? Coming up at 10 after Primetime Placeholder 5

Kanye: Yo. That's a horse.

MSM in Unison: Kanye has gone crazy again

Don Lemon: He... tweeted... a horse. I would say this was a new low for this white house... but I... would... be... lying. There has never been a white house... this.. racist.

Bloomberg to literally no one: I want to buy that horse and ride it to the white house!

Eric Swalwell: We have a president that just tweets things like this and... doesn't... think... about the consequences. It's time someone took the reigns *fart* and lead this country

Hillary Clinton: It's times like these that I wish that I could tell every little girl in America that they can have a horse, but in Trump's America this is not the case. #WildHorsesCantStopWomen

Planned Parenthood: Horse Abortion is Horsecare

Comey: *Picture of him in a field*

Washington Post: Trump Horse sent homophobic tweets in 2008 #CancelHorses

Clapper: Throughout history, the men and women of the Intelligence community has been the bridle that steered this country away from danger. President Trump with his every action endangers this nation.

LeBron James: Chinese horses are better.

Elon Musk: I redesigned the horse and it is way cooler than that.

Everyone in Unison: Throw a ball at it

Elon Musk: uhhh naw.

Greta: I shouldn't be here, YOU HAVE STOLEN MY DREAMS

Ben Rhodes: Uhhh I... I can't even.. uhh... thats alot to process.

Amy Klobuchar: I am not nervous, I am just naturally shaky.

Tulsi: That is a pretty horse, I don't agree with your politics but that is a nice horse

MSM in unison: TULSI IS EVIL

Acosta: I am down here at the border and I am not seeing any horse crisis as the president has claimed. *Karate chops staffer*

RussiaGaters: Remember that Putin had his picture taken on a horse, comrade Trump is signaling his boss that he is ready to receive orders.

Trump to reporters in front of Marine One:

What about the horse? I saw a horse, it was beautiful, did you see it? It was a great big beautiful horse and I thought, what a great horse, I should take a picture. So I did. No conspiracy, you people are so crazy. Its a horse! 

Epstein: I didn't kill myself.

FIN

President Trump slams French President Macron over comments on NATO

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:46 AM PT — Tuesday, December 3, 2019

President Trump blasted his French counterpart’s recent comments on NATO as “very insulting to a lot of different forces.” During a meeting with the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday, he said Emmanuel Macron was “very disrespectful” in regards to the French leader saying the organization was experiencing “brain death.”
The president went on to say France is not doing well economically, and called Macron’s remarks a very tough statement to make when there is such difficulty in his country. He also said Macron is probably more dependent on NATO than any other member nation.
“Nobody needs NATO more than France and, frankly, the one that benefits really the least is the United States, we benefit the least, we are helping Europe,” said President Trump. “…But I think nobody needs it more than France, and that’s why I think that when France makes a statement like they made about NATO, that’s a very dangerous step for them to make.”
Meanwhile, President Macron stood by his comments. However, both leaders did agree the U.S. had over-invested into NATO and were not paid back appropriately.
“I know that my statements created some reactions, I stand by them,” said Macron. “When you look at what NATO is and should be, first of all this is a burden we share, and President Trump just reminded you some figures and it is perfectly true that the U.S. over invested decade after decade and it is number one by far.”
 Despite the mutual agreements, the presidents disagreed on the current situation regarding fight against ISIS. The French president commented the fight was far from over, and discussed the need for a universal definition of terrorism. President Trump remarked the U.S. had made considerable strides against terrorist forces, and even went as far as offering Macron a selection of ISIS prisoners in U.S. custody.

https://www.oann.com/president-trump-slams-french-president-macron-over-comments-on-nato/

Democrats Signal Defeat on Impeachment

Bonchie reporting for RedState

After a merciful week of good food and very little news on the impeachment front, the Sunday shows rushed to make us all wish for the sweet meteor of death’s arrival again.

One new report was shared on ABC News and showed the Democrats are beginning to signal defeat on impeachment.

ABC News’ Rick Klein: Democrats “frustrated” with continued public opposition to impeachment pic.twitter.com/KUrhBpoyzk

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) December 1, 2019

Worse, the report also quoted Democrats as saying they are ready to “get it over (with) and move on.” Democrats in swing districts can feel their electability slipping away as the process has become more and more blatantly political. They want this done and over with, preferably with a fast acquittal in the Senate. If the Democrats as a whole thought they were making political hay out of impeachment, the last thing they’d want to do is rush it to its conclusion. Yet, that’s exactly what’s happening.

After initially showing a desire to draw it out, Adam Schiff closed up shop after just eight public witnesses. He then kicked it over to the Judiciary Committee to debate whether to draw up articles of impeachment. Pro-tip: if you are counting on Jerry Nadler to save this process, just quit now.

This entire impeachment fiasco has once again been a lesson in Twitter not being real life. People can argue inside baseball all they want. In the end, most Americans do not want to remove a duly elected President over what seems to be standard fare, even if you think it’s “wrong” (as so many virtue-signaling righties on social media let us know hourly). The country wasn’t asleep when Obama illegally released five terrorists for what was clearly a political stunt, or when he sold the Middle East to Iran to help his “legacy.” Republicans didn’t impeach him for it.

Democrats are frustrated but they should have seen this coming. The idea that screaming “Watergate!” over and over was a recipe for success was always a pipe dream. Chuck Todd getting emotional doesn’t move public opinion. The best thing they can do now is wrap this up and take their loss. Hopefully, the far left in their party doesn’t let them.

Catherine Herridge Highlights Fundamental Problem With Whistleblower’s Story With Just One Pic

Nick Arama reporting for RedState

CBS Senior Investigative Reporter Catherine Herridge broke news last week about the whistleblower trying to justify why he didn’t tell the ICIG about his contact with the congressional staff of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). 

But on Monday Herridge tweeted out a picture of the form that the whistleblower, who is believed to be Eric Ciaramella, was required to fill out and swear to be true. 

Herridge highlighting the areas that the whistleblower was required to fill out, requiring “a detailed accounting of who is aware of the complaint” and noting they were blank. She also noted his excuses as to why he didn’t identify that he’d informed Schiff’s staff in the area marked “Congress.”

That leaves a mighty big hole. 

His excuses seemed particularly weak, that he just asked “guidance on a procedural question,” “no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed,” and it wasn’t clear the “way the form question was worded.” 

It was obviously clear what the form wanted. It was also clearly more than just “guidance on procedure” that he discussed with Schiff’s staff. 

As prior reports note, Schiff and therefore his aide clearly knew at least the outlines of the the case and the concerns, so for the whistleblower to suggest that no “substance” was discussed is nonsense. 

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

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

On top of that, Schiff lied about the contacts during September interviews about the matter, telling Americans that he had not been contacted by the whistleblower, a lie for which the Washington Post gave him four Pinocchios. 

Combine those together and it doesn’t look good.

Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department for Emails, Texts of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson

 Article in "Judicial Watch":

Seeks All Atkinson Communications Regarding Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Twenty-Fifth Amendment and/or Presidential Impeachment, Including Emails and Text Messages with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and His Staff

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for communications records of Michael K. Atkinson – former Assistant Attorney General in DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) from 2016 to 2018 and currently Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) – regarding Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment and/or presidential impeachment; and for all emails and text messages with Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and members of Schiff’s staff.

The suit was filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to an October 1, 2019, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-03566)). Judicial Watch seeks:

• All emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts) and text messages sent to or from former Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General Michael K. Atkinson regarding Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and/or presidential impeachment.
• All emails and text messages between former Senior Counsel Atkinson and Representative Adam Schiff or any member of Mr. Schiff’s staff.
• All travel requests, travel authorizations and expense reports of former Senior Counsel Atkinson.
• All calendar entries of former Senior Counsel Atkinson.
• All SF50s and SF52s of former Senior Counsel Atkinson.
•  

The NSD falls under the direct supervision of the assistant attorney general.

During Atkinson’s tenure at NSD, he was senior legal counsel, first to NSD head John Carlin (Robert Mueller’s former chief of staff when Mueller directed the FBI) and later to acting NSD head Mary McCord. McCord accompanied then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to see White House Counsel Don McGahn regarding Michael Flynn.

During the period Atkinson was legal advisor to Carlin and later McCord, the FISA court found there was “significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data,” otherwise known as spying, under the Obama administration. Additionally, during this period, DOJ-NSD was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit on Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which included former FBI officials Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Page was the intermediary between FBI Counterintelligence and DOJ-NSD.

Since becoming Inspector General, Atkinson also has come under scrutiny for his handling of the so-called “whistleblower” complaint raising concerns about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, which became the basis for the ongoing impeachment proceedings against Trump:

• Atkinson changed the standing practice of requiring whistleblowers to present firsthand information in order to have their complaint considered both “credible” and “of urgent concern” for submission under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.
• After receiving the complaint and a recommendation from Atkinson that it be referred to Congress, the DNI refused to forward the complaint because, based on an opinion of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, “The complaint submitted to the ICIG does not involve an ‘urgent concern.’” In testimony before Congress, Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, said the complaint was essentially “hearsay” and not “corroborated by other folks.”
• After the existence of the whistleblower was leaked to the press, Atkinson told Congress he was unaware the whistleblower had first gone around him to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his staff with his complaint before submitting it to the IG’s office.
•  

After listening to Atkinson testify about the whistleblower behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee on October 4, ranking Republican committee member Republican Devin Nunes (R-CA) said of him:

[The ICIG is] either totally incompetent or part of the deep state, and he’s got a lot of questions he needs to answer because he knowingly changed the form and the requirements in order to make sure that this whistleblower complaint got out publicly. So, he’s either incompetent or in on it … he’s either a quack or he’s lying … and he’s going to have more to answer for, I can promise you, because we are not going to let him go; he is going to tell the truth about what happened.

Rep. Adam Schiff has yet to release Atkinson’s testimony.

“Mr. Atkinson has been a key Deep State official involved with questionable and abusive investigations of President Trump,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “As Adam Schiff keeps Atkinson’s testimony on the impeachment attack on President Trump secret, Judicial Watch goes to court for transparency under the law.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-justice-department-for-emails-texts-of-intelligence-community-inspector-general-michael-atkinson/

Fusion GPS Chiefs Spin Hard Before the Horowitz Report

Julie Kelly for American Greatness

Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch might try to equate the Steele dossier with the Pentagon Papers, but it’s more likely their efforts will go down as the biggest con job in American history.

There are a few bombshells tucked in the new book authored by Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, co-owners of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm responsible for the most infamous dossier in American political history.

Here’s one that—as far as I know—hasn’t been disclosed until now: Before Fusion hired Christopher Steele in 2016 to produce his sketchy dossier on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Steele hired Fusion to help him with a client at odds with a key figure in the Trump camp. The London-based operative, misleadingly portrayed in the press as a mere former British intelligence officer, needed help investigating the Trump advisor for his client.

The campaign advisor? Paul Manafort.

Steele’s client? Vladimir Putin-tied oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

“Weeks before Trump tapped Manafort to run his campaign, Christopher Steele had hired Fusion for help investigating Manafort,” Simpson and Fritsch write. “The matter had nothing to do with politics and was a typical commercial assignment.” Fusion and Steele’s firm “inked a small deal to research Manafort’s finances for Steele’s client.

The Fusion chiefs insist that Steele had been hired by an “unidentified client” to find out whether Manafort had stolen millions of dollars from him. That anonymous client—Deripaska—also happened to be in trouble with the U.S. government for money laundering.

“[Steele] did not disclose the ultimate client for the job, and Fusion didn’t press the issue,” Simpson and Fritsch explain unconvincingly.

That means Glenn Simpson represented not one but two Russian tycoons in 2016: At the same time Fusion was helping Steele on behalf of Deripaska, Simpson also was representing Prevezon, another company owned by a Putin-tied Russian also under investigation by the Justice Department for money laundering. (Prevezon paid a fine of $5.8 million in 2017 to settle the case.)

But wait, there’s more! Fusion’s investigation into Manafort’s finances on behalf of Steele’s Russian client just happened to coincide with Fusion’s dirt-digging into Team Trump, particularly Manafort, Trump’s short-lived campaign manager.

Steele hired Fusion. Fusion hired Steele. They both represented Russian interests as they accused the Trump campaign of treasonous ties to the Kremlin. It was just happenstance, Simpson claimed. “As with the Deripaska case, the coincidence of two work streams coming together would fuel wild conspiracy theories and color congressional inquiries into the whole of the Trump investigation.”

Egregiously Dishonest Spin

There are a lot of coincidences described in Fusion’s book, “Crime in Progress: Inside the Steele Dossier and the Fusion Investigation of Donald Trump. The obvious purpose of the book is to provide Democrats, NeverTrump, and the news media with ammunition to debunk allegations of wrongdoing contained in a long-awaited report on potential FISA abuse.

A lengthy investigation, conducted by Michael Horowitz, the inspector general for the Justice Department, is done. His findings are scheduled to be released to the public next Monday. Horowitz is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11.

At issue is the way James Comey’s FBI used the Steele dossier as evidence to convince a secret court to allow the government to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Nearly two years ago, a memoauthored by then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) detailed how Comey misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by presenting unverified political opposition research as legitimate intelligence to accuse Page of being a foreign agent.

Further, Comey withheld from the court the identity of the dossier’s financial backers: the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, working through a politically-connected law firm, hired Fusion to dig up Russian related dirt on Trump. (Simpson explained how that pass-through allowed Fusion to escape congressional inquiries under the guise of attorney-client privilege.)

Fusion’s book is pure spin. It’s an egregiously dishonest attempt to legitimize a document that most pundits now agree is garbage. None of the dossier’s core accusations have been validated; it was a sloppy disinformation campaign from start to finish.

But that won’t stop Simpson and Fritsch from continuing to back their shoddy work. “A handful of documents in recent times have bent the course of history deeply enough to merit their own sobriquet,” they solemnly write. “The Pentagon Papers. The Warren Report. The Starr Report. Time will tell whether the Steele dossier . . . deserves to take its place among them.”

There Are No Coincidences 

Any criticism of the dossier, Fusion, or Steele is waved away by the authors with one word: Coincidence.

It was a coincidence that Nellie Ohr, hired by Fusion to work on its anti-Trump project, is married to Bruce Ohr, a former top official at the Obama Justice Department who greenlighted the counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign.

It was just a coincidence that the FBI formally opened that investigation one day after the Ohrs had breakfast with Christopher Steele on July 30, 2016 in Washington, D.C. to discuss his anti-Trump work. One of the targets of the FBI’s probe, coincidentally, was Paul Manafort, the lobbyist targeted by both Steele and Simpson.

It was a coincidence that Simpson met with Natalia Veselnitskya, the so-called Russian lawyer, both before and after the infamous Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 that Trump foes insist represented “collusion” between the campaign and the Russians.

Further, it was just a coincidence that Veselnitskya worked for Prevezon, the same Russian company Fusion was repping. “The meeting marked a shocking overlap of events, one of those truly hard to fathom coincidences,” Simpson and Fritsch confess.

It was just a coincidence that Simpson and Fritsch, who describe themselves as nonpartisan, traveled to the Democratic National Convention in July 2016 just as the party was being rocked by the release of damaging internal emails that showed how the organization helped Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Simpson and Fritsch met with top news organizations and editors, including the New York Times’ Dean Baquet, to (successfully) change the story to Trump-Russia election collusion.

It was just a coincidence that Fritsch lives in the same suburban D.C. neighborhood as Jonathan Winer, an Obama State Department official who also (inexplicably) is friendly with Steele.

“One evening in late September [2016], Fritsch went to Winer’s house with a copy of all the reports Steele had produced to date,” the duo write. “Fritsch allowed Winer to read them and take notes for the express purpose of making [Secretary of State John] Kerry aware of the substance of Steele’s reporting.”

It was just a coincidence that Simpson met in early 2017 with Dan Jones, a former staffer to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and that they began “kicking the idea” about how to fund Fusion’s anti-Trump propaganda machine. In short order, Jones just happened to form a nonprofit and coincidentally enlist the help of former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta to raise money. Shockingly, the team found several Silicon Valley billionaires eager to help finance their “public interest project,” which raised $7 million in 2017 to smear Trump.

It was just a coincidence that, in 2018, Fusion happened to get involved in congressional races, allegedly for the first time, and happened to pick one race in a solid Republican district on the other side of the country that happened to be represented by Nunes, the firm’s nemesis in the House. Fusion just happened to get the Democrats’ 660-page opposition research book to “topple” Nunes and helped spread false allegations about Nunes before the midterm election. (He won anyway.)

The Patriotism of Scoundrels

While Simpson and Fritsch take cheap shots at their detractors, including one vile attack on a former contractor suffering from Parkinson’s disease, Simpson is portrayed as “Captain America,” the title of one chapter, for his heroic efforts to “protect the republic at all costs.”

Steele is described as an American patriot even though he’s British. After Senate Republicans sent the Justice Department a criminal referral on Steele, the British operative complained to Simpson. “I’ve served my country loyally for twenty years and only did what I thought was right. This is how I am thanked? These people have no shame.”

The Fusion GPS founders might try to equate the dossier with the Pentagon Papers, but it’s more likely their efforts will go down as the biggest con job in American history. The dossier will bend “the course of history,” just not in the way Simpson, Fritsch, and Steele hope. No amount of self-aggrandizing spin can salvage them now.