House Democrats Are Contemplating Adding New Articles of Impeachment

 Article by Beth Baumann in "Townhall":

The Democrats' partisan impeachment push is getting even more interesting. It was revealed on Monday that House Democrats are considering adding additional articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Fox News reported. The revelation came about when a lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee Democrats filed a brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that they must have former White House Counsel Don McGahn testify before the Committee as part of their impeachment proceedings.

Democrats originally wanted to hear from McGahn as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia and whether or not President Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin. They wanted to know about the claim that Trump wanted to fire Mueller. When the White House invoked executive privilege, Democrats were quick to say this was an obstruction of justice.

According to the Democrats, McGahn's testimony could be vital for the House and could play a part in whether or not they decide to recommend new articles of impeachment.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly---including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the brief stated, noting that they still have “ongoing impeachment investigations.”

The brief did not go into detail about what new articles the House would consider. Even if the House declines to add additional articles, McGahn's testimony could be used in a Senate trial.

The Department of Justice argued that one of the Democrats' articles of impeachments are based on the very court case that the Court of Appeals was hearing, which is why they feel the case should be dismissed in its entirety.

"[T]he article of impeachment addressing purported obstruction of Congress relies in part on the judicial proceedings in this very case," the DOJ wrote. "Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial," which is why the court "should decline the Committee's request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction."

According to the DOJ, there is no need for the Court to expedite a decision before the January 3rd oral arguments. The Committee previously said they wanted the decision expedited so the House could continue their impeachment investigations. Now that the House has voted and approved their two articles of impeachment, expediting them is unnecessary.

Both sides are also fighting over another case. House Judiciary Committee Democrats are seeking grand jury information related to the Mueller investigation. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibit grand jury material from being released except for in special cases, which include judicial proceedings.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that the material is not relevant because the House's articles of impeachment are based on Ukraine, not the Russia probe.

“Neither article of impeachment adopted by the House, however, alleges high crimes or misdemeanors stemming from the events described in the Mueller Report. Accordingly, nothing appears to remain of the Committee’s alleged need for the grand-jury materials in the Mueller Report,” the DOJ wrote in their filing.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/12/23/house-democrats-are-contemplating-adding-new-articles-of-impeachment-n2558474

The Establishment Takes Aim at John Durham’s Reputation and Integrity

 Article by streiff in "RedState":

One of the standard media games played in Washington is to take a newcomer, whether it is an incoming President or a cabinet official or administrator that his being appointed to reform an agency or clean up a mess. The game goes like this. First the media builds up the newcomer. Partially it is to set a high bar for the next phase of the game and partially to convince the mark that the press is actually with him. Then we go onto “mistakes were made.” Here the media begins to publish a series of unflattering articles about missteps, about key constituencies that have their nose out of joint. There will be stories of ethical issues either in spending or awarding of contracts. Claims will be made that the newcomer’s strategy is nothing more than the old strategy. Complaints will be made about how slow things are moving. And, from there, we’re off to the “feet of clay” phase. In this part of the game the media will turn on the newcomer, they will show his real record was not as good as it was made out to be, that he took credit for things he didn’t do, that he has sold out and compromised himself in his new job and that he really needs to resign.

If you look carefully, this is the game that is being played with John Durham right now.

Shortly after Durham’s appointment was announced to unravel and expose the shenanigans behind the soft coup attempt against President Trump mounted by the FBI, CIA, and a cabal of Justice Department Officials he was lionized in stories like Barr’s pick to investigate the Mueller probe’s origins has a history of penetrating the FBI and Meet John Durham, The Man Tasked With ‘Investigating the Investigators’ and Connecticut prosecutor hailed as tough.

Last week, however, you had the warning delivered that Durham was not going to be up to the job.

Others, like Durham, are being tested by this moment. I’ve been proud to know John for at least a decade, but I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general’s findings. Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.

Even when you finish laughing–because that quote is from an op-ed written by Eric Holder, a man who is a pathological toady to those in power and an inveterate liar. A man who signed off on a criminal scheme to deliberately allow straw purchases of firearms known to be destined for use by Mexican narcotraficantes and which strategy resulted in the murder of one US Border Patrol agent and hundreds, if not thousands, of Mexican citizens–you are struck by the ominous nature of it. It is a warning and a prediction. That if Durham continues this project for Barr it is his reputation that will be trashed.

The exact same complaint resurfaces today in a lengthy piece on Durham and his career.

That wall of silence cracked this month when Mr. Durham, serving in the most politically charged role of his career, released an extraordinary statement questioning one key element of an overlapping investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz.
Mr. Horowitz had found that the F.B.I. acted appropriately in opening the inquiry in 2016 into whether the Trump campaign wittingly or unwittingly helped Russia influence the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor. In response, Mr. Durham, whose report is not expected to be complete for months, released a caveat-laden rebuttal: “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened.”
The statement seemed to support comments made half an hour earlier by Mr. Barr, who assailed what he called “an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign,” based “on the thinnest of suspicions.” Mr. Durham’s decision to go public in such a politically polarized environment surprised people who have worked with him. They found it out of character for him to intervene in such a high-profile way in an open case.

Get all of that? Broke his silence. Issued an “extraordinary statement” that seemed to contradict the IG report. The “extraordinary statement” supported a statement made by Attorney General Bill Barr.

You don’t have to be a particularly astute observer of Washington politics to see where this is going. People are afraid of Durham because he is leading an aggressive criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia Hoax. He’s leading a criminal investigation because crimes have been committed. The IG Report, itself, documented several federal offenses not the least of which was this Clinesmith clown falsifying a document to get FISA warrant issued on Carter Page. Durham’s reputation of being unafraid of going after crooked federal agents, both CIA and FBI, combined with Barr’s willingness to let him go wherever the trail leads, makes him an existential threat to the power structure James Comey and John Brennan put in place in their agencies.

When his report is finally released one thing is for sure. The media will do everything it can to paint Durham as a tool of Trump and Barr, a good man who was corrupted by a corrupt administration and targeted hardworking FBI and CIA agents to better serve his political masters.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/12/23/establishment-takes-aim-john-durhams-reputation-intergity/

The Impeachment Itself Will Have an Asterisk, and Nancy Pelosi ‘Is Certainly Asking for a Quid Pro Quo’’

Elizabeth Vaughn reporting for RedState

On Wednesday night, House Democrats achieved their long-sought dream of placing an asterisk next to President Trump’s name in history books. Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr told the hosts of “Fox & Friends” on Saturday that the impeachment itself will come with an asterisk.

Starr argued that “It’s an impeachment with a footnote or with an asterisk.* By the way, it never went over to the Senate, which I think means that it’s a bit of a phony impeachment. She appears to be intruding into the power of the Senate which is ironic in the extreme, isn’t it? So, I think there is an abuse of House power in the way that this process unfolded in the House and riding rough-shod over minority rights and, ultimately, the rights of the president…Now she’s trying to essentially tell the Senate how to do its business…and it’s just wrong constitutionally.”

Host Ed Henry asked Starr if Pelosi’s decision to hold onto the articles of impeachment until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offers better terms for a Senate trial is a quid pro quo.

Starr smiled broadly and replied, “Exactly, I said hey it’s attempted extortion. It certainly is asking for a quid pro quo…great point.”

It’s ironic that the Democrats’ latest attempt to impeach the President was based upon accusing him of perpetrating a quid pro quo and they are now publicly demanding a quid pro quo. As pundits constantly say, the Democrats always accuse Republicans of things that they themselves do.

Henry questioned Starr about possible paths forward for McConnell. He asked if McConnell should appoint managers and move ahead with a Senate trial without having received the impeachment articles. Starr said, “McConnell is doing it in exactly the right way. I gather he’s going to say, ‘We’re going to go forward with the business in the Senate and not play games.'”

Starr was also asked if he agreed with Harvard Law professor and impeachment inquiry witness Noah Feldman’s opinion that in order for this impeachment to be valid, the House must send the articles over to the Senate. Starr responded, “an impeachment is an impeachment.” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who also testified at the impeachment inquiry hearing, agrees. Turley wrote on Friday, “Trump stands impeached.”

______________________

* Here is what the note relating to the asterisk might look like:  

When it became apparent to Democrats that candidate Donald Trump posed a threat to a Hillary Clinton victory, high-ranking, pro-Hillary, anti-Trump Obama administration officials initiated a disinformation campaign in which they sought to discredit him. Driven by irrational hatred, they promoted a false narrative that he was colluding with Russian leaders to win the election. 

Following Clinton’s stunning defeat, their efforts to entrap the newly elected President grew bolder. Ultimately, the duplicitous Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, took the drastic measure of appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the allegations against the President. A 22-month investigation failed to find evidence to support any of the charges.

Afraid Trump might win reelection and desperate to find a reason to impeach him before that happened, Democrats concocted another fraudulent conspiracy, that he had engaged in a quid pro quo with a foreign leader. Because Democrats held the House majority, the vote to impeach the President passed. Not a single Republican voted for impeachment.

Here’s how I hope this note ends:

Following President Trump’s acquittal by the Senate, he won re-election in a landslide that November. Several high-ranking Obama administration officials were indicted and convicted for their roles in the scandal.

Chairman Lindsey Graham -vs- Maria Bartiromo – Impeachment, Spygate and Lessons in Can-Kicking

credit: sundance at CTH

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham appears on SMF with Maria Bartiromo to discuss House Speaker Nancy Pelosi withholding articles of impeachment from the Senate.

Senator Graham does a good job explaining the fraudulent visible reasons, purposes and strategy for establishing the House obstruction article; however, Graham completely overlooks the hidden motive for withholding it/them.

Moving to “spygate” Bartiromo points out Special Counsel Mueller never investigated the “dossier”; however, Bartiromo misses that Rosensteins’ second scope memo in August 2017 specifically empowered the research of (ie. use of) the dossier for his probe.

*POINT: In my opinion, this is the reason why the DOJ (AG Bill Barr) will not release the scope memos…. Barr is protecting DAG Rosenstein and his good friend Robert Mueller.

Lindsey Graham goes on to discuss the background surveillance on the Trump campaign; and outlines questions he has and potential witnesses before his committee.  Pause for a moment in this part of Graham’s interview, and notice how the answer to every question is within the declassification documents we have discussed. We know where the answers are.

Amid the twists and turns many people have forgotten about the material congress asked President Trump to declassify a year-and-a-half ago.  Additionally there has been some material cited that just seemingly slipped away without follow-up.  Consider:

• Whatever happened to the forty pages of Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe text messages that Catherine Herridge noted nine months ago?  Herridge only published four of the pages in March 2019.
• Why are the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages still redacted two years after their original release (December 1st, 2017)?
• Where’s the release of the Susan Rice inauguration day memo to the file?
• Why didn’t the DOJ/FBI release all of the Bruce Ohr 302’s without redaction?  Will those fully unredacted 302’s be part of the IG report release?
• Where’s the unredacted David Archey FBI declarations that were previously ordered to be released by a DC judge?
• The Mueller investigation ended 9 months ago.  Why are we still not able to see the  unredacted three authorization memos that Rosenstein gave to the special counsel on May 17th, August 2nd and October 20th, 2017?

Those simple questions (and releases) are in addition to the original list that congress provided to President Trump back in the summer of 2018.  A declassification list that DAG Rod Rosenstein asked President Trump not to release until after the Mueller investigation. Again, the Mueller investigation ended nine months ago; President Trump authorized AG Bill Barr to declassify the material six months ago on May 23rd.

This was the original list from congress in the summer of 2018:

• All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (FBI) (ODNI).
• All of the Bruce Ohr 302’s filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI) [Without redactions]
• All of Bruce Ohr’s emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI). All supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI) [Without redactions]
• All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
• All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA)  Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA). [AKA ‘Bucket Five’]
• All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
• The originating CIA “EC” or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)

Additionally, since the 2018 list was developed, more information surfaced about the underlying material.  This added to the possibility of documents for declassification:

♦ The August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to expand the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation. Also the October 20th, 2017, third scope memo that expanded the investigation again, and targeted additional people including Michael Flynn’s family. The Scope Memos are keys to unlocking the underlying spy/surveillance cover-up. [SEE HERE and SEE HERE]

♦ The July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation originated from a scheme within the intelligence apparatus.  The CIA operation  created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey.  [The trail is found within the Weissmann report and the use of Alexander Downer – SEE HERE]

♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016.  [The trail was memorialized by James Comey – SEE HERE]  Release and declassify the declarations of FBI Agent David Archey that describe the purpose of the Comey memos:

♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulentsearch queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr? Daniel Richman?]  This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer – SEE HERE]

♦ Did anyone question former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why did John Carlin quit immediately thereafter?

♦ The Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent, and likely based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified. The creation of the Steele Dossier was the cover-up operation. [SEE HERE]  What version of the FISA application will be released (if at all)?

♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place.  The current redactions were made by the people who weaponized the intelligence system for political surveillance and spy operation.  This is likely why Page and Strzok texts were redacted!

♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s without redactions.  And FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And did anyone get a deposition from this Pientka fella?] Bruce Ohr is the courier, carrying information from those outside to those on the inside.

Yes it is good the FISA investigation report was released on December 9th. However, if all the underlying documents are not declassified; exactly as CTH has warned for over a year; the information therein is now subject to interpretation and/or manipulation.

There is a lot of material the public is aware of; and if the DOJ IG doesn’t release the underlying material then what exactly was the purpose of AG Bill Barr asking President Trump for the declassification authority?…..

Accountability requires transparency.

Frustrating as HECK !!

Rep. Jeff Van Drew on the Moment He Decided to Leave the Democratic Party: 'And That's When I Knew'

Elizabeth Vaughn reporting for RedState

Newly minted Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew (NJ) joined Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on Sunday morning to discuss why he left the Democratic Party. He told Bartiromo he had been unhappy with the Party’s shift to the left, but the key moment came when a Democratic county leader ordered him to vote for impeachment. (Video below.)

Here’s what he had to say.

The party is moving further and further to the left, where there is discussion of it being a socialist party. And I am a proud capitalist. I believe in hard work. I believe that we can give people opportunity, but that they also, when they get that opportunity, have to work hard to achieve success. You can’t give them success.

But the final sign for me was oddly enough actually in my home county when one of the county chairmen came to me and said, ‘I have to speak with you.’ I said, ‘Sure.’ He said, ‘I just want to let you know that you have to vote for impeachment … If you don’t, you’re not going to be able to run in my county.’

For all the years that I have worked so hard and tried to give so much, not only to the party, but to everybody….it all boils down to one vote, that I may have my own individual opinion on one vote and that is not going to be allowed? I’m going to be punished for that? And that’s when I knew.

The freshman Congressman was one of two House Democrats to vote against impeachment.

Prior to winning a seat in Congress, Van Drew served as a New Jersey state senator from 2008-2018. He told Bartiromo that, throughout his time in politics, Republicans have often supported him, in both his state senate elections and in the race for his current seat in Congress. Before entering politics, Van Drew had been a dentist.

His seat had been held by former Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo for 24 years. LoBiondo retired leaving an open seat.

NJ-2 is definitely a mixed bag. Trump won this district in 2016 by 4.6 point margin. Obama won in both 2008 and 2016.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew speaks out for first time since switching parties https://t.co/gCSQTPT4ky @CongressmanJVD@SundayFutures @FoxNews

— Maria Bartiromo (@MariaBartiromo) December 22, 2019

No Christmas mass at Notre-Dame for the first time since Napoleon

December 23, 2019
PARIS (Reuters) – For the first time in more than 200 years, worshippers will not be able to attend Christmas mass at Notre-Dame cathedral, still being restored after a devastating fire.
“There won’t be a midnight mass at Notre-Dame. The last time this happened was during the French Revolution. Since 1803, there have always been Christmas masses at Notre-Dame,” a Paris diocese spokeswoman told Reuters.
The April 15 fire caused the roof and spire to collapse although the main bell towers and the outer walls were saved, along with religious relics and priceless works of art.
“It’s painful because we would have liked to celebrate Christmas at Notre-Dame but, at the same time, there is also hope: we’re pressing ahead with the rebuilding, for example this huge crane which will help remove this damn scaffolding,” said Monsignor Patrick Chauvet, the cathedral’s senior administrative cleric.
He was referring to the metal scaffolding, erected before the blaze for maintenance work, that melted in the fire and had to be disentangled from the cathedral’s structure before it could be removed.
“Christmas is the celebration of hope. Let’s be patient, four more years”, Chauvet added, inviting those who used to come to Notre-Dame for Christmas to go to nearby Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois, one of the oldest churches in Paris.
Archbishop of Paris Michel Aupetit, who would normally say Christmas mass in Notre-Dame, will this year officiate at the Grüss Circus in the Bois de Boulogne, the diocese said.
 Notre-Dame, which dates back to the 12th century, features in Victor Hugo’s novel “The Hunchback of Notre-Dame”. It was also there that Napoleon was crowned Emperor in 1804.

https://www.oann.com/no-christmas-mass-at-notre-dame-for-the-first-time-since-napoleon/

Marc Short -vs- Chuck Todd

Marc Short, Chief of Staff to Vice President Mike Pence, appears on Meet The Press with Chuck Todd to discuss what the White House expects from a Senate impeachment trial.

Oddly, something about Short’s demeanor seems to neutralize the traditional partisan gibberish Toady is famous for.  There’s still a lot of pontification, but Short does a great job cutting through Toad’s burping noises.

Boeing fires CEO Muilenburg to steady spiraling 737 MAX crisis

December 23, 2019
By Ankit Ajmera and Tim Hepher
(Reuters) – Boeing Co <BA.N> ousted Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg as the world’s biggest planemaker sought to control an escalating crisis that has seen it halt production of its best-selling 737 MAX jetliner following two fatal crashes.
The sacking comes as Boeing struggles to mend strained relations with the regulators it needs to win over to get the grounded 737 back in the air, and seeks to regain trust with passengers and airline customers around the world.
Chairman David Calhoun will take over as CEO and president, effective from Jan. 13, the company said, adding that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence.
The company’s shares, which have dropped more than 20% over the past nine months, rose nearly 4% in early trading.
The decision capped a week of dramatic setbacks for Boeing, from a decision to halt production of the 737, a public slap-down from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a ratings downgrade and an embarrassing space launch glitch on Friday.
One source close to Boeing said the company needed to turn the corner and regain its stride as it faces what is widely seen as the worst crisis in its more than 100-year history
The 737 MAX has been grounded since March after two crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people within five months.

One source close to Boeing said the company needed to turn the corner and regain its stride as it faces what is widely seen as the worst crisis in its more than 100-year history
The 737 MAX has been grounded since March after two crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people within five months.
It has been by far the biggest crisis of Muilenburg’s tenure at Boeing, where he started as an intern in 1985, rising through the company’s defense and services ranks to the top job in 2015.
Boeing said this month it would stop production of the jets in January, and the crisis also threatens to hit the U.S. economy with House representative Rick Larsen calling the decision “a body blow to its workers and the region’s economy.”
A senior industry source called the sparse wording of Boeing’s statement on the 34-year veteran “brutal”.
Speculation that Muilenburg would be fired had been circulating in the industry for months, intensifying in October when the board stripped him of his chairman title – although he had also twice won expressions of confidence from Calhoun.
PHONE CALL
A Boeing official said the board deliberated over the weekend and decided to fire Muilenburg in a phone call on Sunday.
Aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group said the appointment of Calhoun, who previously served as head of Blackstone Group’s private equity portfolio operation, would provide short-term stability, but not the long-term “emphasis on engineering” the company needs.

“Calhoun is respected in the industry,” Aboulafia said. “But long-term, does he bring the right tool kit? Private equity leans companies out. That’s not Boeing’s problem right now.”
Board member and former airline boss Lawrence Kellner will become non-executive chairman of the board effective immediately, the company said.
Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith will serve as interim CEO during the brief transition period.
Boeing – which has taken flak from the FAA for appearing to pressure the regulator by predicting when the planes would return to the air – pledged full transparency, including “effective and proactive communication” with regulators.
Analysts at British-based Redburn said the CEO sacking suggested Boeing’s relationship with the FAA was “at its nadir and should improve from here”.
Muilenburg is a lifelong Boeing engineer who fought a rising tide of public and regulatory scrutiny to try to steady the company during the crisis, but who failed to overcome a stilted public image.
In keeping Muilenburg in the job as long as Boeing has, the company was ignoring elements of the classic crisis communications playbook used by other companies, said Paul Argenti, a professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business.
“You want to bring somebody from the outside to bring fresh perspective to ‘save the day,'” Argenti said. “He should have been gone a long time ago. He is part of the problem.”

https://www.oann.com/boeing-ceo-departs-as-737-max-crisis-deepens/

Sen. Doug Jones Says He’ll Vote Against Impeachment if ‘Dots Aren’t Connected’

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState

This impeachment thing isn’t getting any better for the Democrats. The Senate trial has not even started yet, but at least one Democratic lawmaker indicated that he’s not on board the “remove Trump from office no matter what” train. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) made an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” explaining that the case against Trump isn’t quite as clear cut as House Democrats insist. 

Jones indicated that there are “gaps” in the House’s case and that he would not vote to convict unless they were closed. He said:

“What I’m trying to do, because quite frankly I didn’t sit in front of the TV set the entire time the last two or three months, I have been trying to read this. I have been trying to see if the dots get connected. If that is the case, I think it’s a serious matter, I think it’s an impeachable matter. But if those dots aren’t connected and there are other explanations that I think are consistent with innocence, I will go that way too.”

Like several members of the House, Jones is a moderate and is occupying a vulnerable seat in the senate. Recent polls have shown that voters in crucial House districts might not support Democratic candidates if they support impeachment. Jones might be in a similar situation. 

The senator indicated that he wanted the Senate to call former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify in order to “fill in the gaps,” and stated that President Trump should allow them to give their testimony. The president previously indicated that he would like both Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to testify before the Senate. However, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that he does not intend to call any witnesses. 

A recent poll shows that Jones’ seat is not too secure. According to the study, 34% of Alabama voters supported Jones’ re-election with 48% opposing it. Moreover, only 39% favored impeachment while 54% were against it. 

It seems that at least some Democratic members of the Senate are not too keen on removing Trump from office based on the House Democrats’ findings, which are based almost entirely on hearsay. It is not likely that they are willing to jeopardize their positions for a clearly partisan effort to remove the president. If other Democratic senators share Jones’ concerns, then it seems the impeachment effort is just another Quixotic endeavor to attack the president. 

Senator Ted Cruz Discusses Pelosi Withholding Impeachment Articles and “Spygate” Fraud

Maria Bartiromo shares an earlier interview with Senator Ted Cruz after the House passed two impeachment articles.   Senator Cruz is questioned about the impeachment fraud and the latest revelations in the 2016 election surveillance known as “spygate”.

LOL… “Welcome to the party pal“… Wait til Cruz finds out he too was a campaign target as outlined by the FBI instructions to Patrick Byrne; I digress.   Within the interview Cruz actually does a good job of outlining a brief cocktail party-length explanation of corrupt FBI conduct toward the FISA court.  WATCH:

“Political Espionage” – During the 2016 election season, Butina’s useful purpose appeared to be the reason the FBI in Washington DC enlisted Patrick Byrne as a handler, giving Butina specific instructions and introductions to Republican presidential candidates.

Once those candidates were contacted the FBI’s background surveillance transferred to the republican politicians, including persons in/around the Trump orbit.  Mr. Byrne stated several times that FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and persons working on his behalf, were the FBI officials directing the engagements.

Byrne claims he was asked to participate in an FBI intelligence operation and to introduce, and/or facilitate the introduction of, Ms. Butina to the campaigns of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

In December of 2015 Mr. Byrne said he became suspicious of the FBI motives because he warned FBI officials of the potential that his efforts, his reputation and those who trust him, may result in Butina gaining entry into campaign confidences. The FBI agents told Mr. Byrne that was exactly the intent.

People high up in the FBI wanted Ms. Butina to gain deep access into the Trump campaign. Mr. Byrne became suspicious of a corrupt political motive, but didn’t say anything at the time.

In/around Feb or March 2016 Byrne was told to focus Ms. Butina’s attention to the campaign of Donald Trump and to diminish any attention toward Rubio or Cruz.

Later in June & July (2016), FBI agents requested Mr. Byrne to focus on developing a closer romantic relationship with Ms. Butina and to use his influence to target her to closer proximity with the Trump family and Trump campaign.

It was within these June and July 2016 engagements where FBI agents were apologetic about the requests and specifically mentioned their instructions were coming from three principle FBI officials Byrne described as “X, Y and Z”. Later Byrne identified FBI Director James Comey as “Z”.  Mr. Byrne said the specific instructions were coming to the agents from Special Agent Peter Strzok as he relayed the requests of those above him [X, Y and Z (Comey)].  (read more)

“Criminal Conspiracy”

Lies Law Professors Tell

 Article by Rob Natelson in "Townhall":

The expert panel on impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee consisted of four law professors—not one of whom was a conservative or a Trump supporter.

Unfortunately, the panel reflects the faculty imbalance in our law schools. Because of this imbalance (and a lot of sloppy faculty scholarship), law students often are subtly indoctrinated in a leftist vision of the law without anyone realizing it is happening.

For example, when I began teaching constitutional law, I surveyed the available constitutional law course books. What I found was a waste dump of pedagogical malpractice—but one that reflects how most constitutional law courses are taught.

For example, most of the books treated constitutional law as essentially beginning in 1803 when the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. They paid little attention to the 600-year Anglo-American foundation that supports the Constitution and contributes much of its meaning.

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall announced that the Court would not apply an unconstitutional statute. Because of how constitutional law is treated, students sometimes get the idea Marshall made this up—an activist judge’s power grab. In fact, the idea that courts should strike down unconstitutional statutes was discussed at length during the colonial era. It was discussed and welcomed during the debates over the Constitution’s ratification.

This is only one example of how Marshall is misrepresented in many constitutional law courses—as a sort of a modern-style “big government,” activist justice (that’s supposed to be a good thing.) In fact, he wasn’t.

On average constitutional law texts devote two thirds of their coverage to less than two percent of the Constitution. The favored portions are (1) the First Amendment and (2) two sections of the Fourteen Amendment. Why these portions? Because, I think, they are provisions in which liberals are obsessively interested: They include lots of cases about race, gender, abortion, and porn.

Imbalance occurs in other courses as well. For example, a common narrative is that during the 19th Century—the evil age of wicked laissez faire capitalism—the courts were very anti-consumer. If a product or a house was defective and the consumer learned about it after purchase, then supposedly the judges just said “tough luck.” More precisely, they said it in Latin: caveat emptor—“Let the buyer beware.”

Supposedly they stuck it to the consumer because they were free market ideologues and/or in the pockets of big business. They favored business by shafting the public.

After I became a law professor I investigated this story and learned it was a crock.

Actually, caveat emptor was only part of a larger saying: Caveat emptor qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit. Loosely translated, it means “Don’t buy stolen goods.” More precisely, it means that if you purchase something when you should know the seller really doesn’t have clear title, then you can’t cut off the real owner.

The original caveat emptor rule had nothing to do with physical defects at all.

When I started reading 19th Century cases involving defective products, I learned the courts actually treated the parties very fairly. If the seller was guilty of fraud or misrepresentation, the seller lost and had to pay the buyer. If the defect was hidden, the buyer also generally won. In that case the courts said the seller had given the buyer an “implied warranty of merchantability”—an unspoken guarantee of quality. If the defect was not exactly hidden but someone in the buyer’s position wouldn’t have noticed the defect, then the buyer still won. Another implied warranty of merchantability.

The buyer lost if the defect was obvious at the time of sale or the buyer didn’t examine carefully what he was buying when he bought it. In that case, a judge might utter, “Caveat emptor.”

But a whole generation of law students has been trained to think that the 19th Century courts were heartless tools of malicious capitalists, and that enlightened reform came only with the virtuous 20th Century “progressives.”

Does this kind of indoctrination have real world consequences? You bet it does. Law school is the only time when most attorneys undertake full-time education. Many carry their law school experiences with them throughout their professional careers. Law school affects how they serve clients and argue to judges and juries. It probably affects how they vote. If they become judges, it may affect how they decide cases.

Fortunately, some lawyers overcome the damage, but many never do.

So if you want to reform in our overly-activist judicial system, insist on more balance and better scholarship in our law schools.

https://townhall.com/columnists/robnatelson/2019/12/23/lies-law-professors-tell-n2558414

President Trump Praises Tulsi Gabbard, and This is How a Productive Washington Would Look

Alex Parker reporting for RedState

Speaking at Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit Saturday (where Rudy talked about the mafia whacking him — see here), President Trump hailed Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Tulsi got quite the attention for her vote during the House’s impeachment Wednesday — she notedly bucked the party line of “Please undo the 2016 election by any means necessary” — that would be, “Yes” — by going the far less popular route of “Present.”

A Present proclamation is certainly no revolution, but grading on a curve, it definitely made a statement. She stood alone, as 229 Dems gave the Thumbs up to Article 1 (Abuse of Power) and 228 affirmed Article 2 (Obstruction of Congress).

And it’s a move Donald appreciated.

Here’s what he had to say, starting with Russia Madness:

“They knew a few days into the Russian witch hunt that it was nothing. It didn’t exist. Did you the see the other day? Crooked Hillary came out … she said that Jill Stein from the Green Party, she said Jill Stein was a Russian agent. Now, I don’t know Jill Stein, I’m sure she’s a fine woman, but I know she’s not a Russian agent.”

Hillary had, as you know, also accused Tulsi of being a Russki (check out a potent quote by Tulsi about that here):

“Then she said Tulsi Gabbard is a weapon of Russia. … [I] don’t know [her], but I know one thing: She is not an agent of Russia.”

The alleged spy explained her ballot-cast in a Thursday statement:

Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party. I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.

I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor. Tragically, that’s what it has been.

Hey — being reasonable amid our current political absurdity?!–

Gabbard went on to say Trump’s conduct hadn’t been “perfect.”

And as for Dems:

On the other side – The President’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

Honestly, she kind of blew me away with some of this, found in the video below:

“The point of politics should not be about doing maximum damage to your opponents just to win… So my stance yesterday — my vote — was opting out of this Zero Sum Game mindset… My Present vote was not passive. It was an active protest against the terrible fallout of this Zero Sum mindset that the two opposing political parties have trapped America in. There’s no winning here. Everyone is losing. Our country is losing.”

Great — if she truly means it.

I would guess Donald Trump came into office with the intention of getting things done — he’s a businessman, and that’s taking care of business. I assume he didn’t run for office just to partake in an 8-year partisan stalemate; he vied for the Oval Office in order to work with Congress and make things — to his way of thinking — better.

A party-line plug-of-the-ears isn’t helpful when there are national problems to address.

It sounds like Trump’s ready to work with Tulsi; he offered praise at Turning Point:

“[Democrats] lost all credibility because we know that Tulsi Gabbard – and I give her respect – she didn’t vote the other day. I give her a lot of respect. Because she knew it was wrong, she took a pass.”

Wow. How do we get more of this — reasonable people being open to one another? It’s what we need, if virtually anything worth doing is to be done.

Dem Reveals Partisan Reason for Pelosi Sitting on the Articles, But Brit Hume Levels Him With Response

Nick Arama reporting for RedState

We’ve already seen how nakedly partisan the Democratic impeachment effort has been against President Donald Trump. Both in the effort since he was elected and the vote that didn’t have one Republican. Indeed, it was the opposition to impeachment which was bipartisan. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi upped the ridiculousness by holding onto the Articles of Impeachment, making it clear this is all about political manipulation. 

Now, Rep. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has confirmed that with a new tweet.

So basically Whitehouse just admitted it’s not about “the Constitution,” high-minded principles or wearing black, being “solemn, or whatever, but simply what it’s always about – their TDS and how they think they can get back at Trump, as always. With a fig leaf that “Mitch McConnell said stuff.” 

As Brit Hume points out however, McConnell is basically laughing that Pelosi has put herself in this position.

Here’s the problem with this whole approach. This doesn’t give them any leverage for Republicans who don’t want to have impeachment anyway, as Mitch McConnell explained. He doesn’t get what leverage they think they have by doing it. It only makes Democrats look worse and more partisan. 

Philly-area investment advisor Rich Weinstein is the guy who busted Jonathan Gruber and Obamacare with the video where Gruber confesses they depended on not being transparent, saying “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the America voter, or whatever.”

Weinstein predicted on November 11 that Pelosi would hold the Articles and not pass it along to allow Trump to be acquitted.

He wrote an open letter to Trump basically saying let her wallow in the mess she’s put herself in, just keep appointing judges and move along, don’t allow it to be a distraction. 

If the whole point was to put a smear on Trump, please the base but not actually move to remove because Pence and just leave it sitting as a point of distraction, it appears to be backfiring more on the Democrats with polls growing against impeachment, Trump approval rising and Trump now leading in battleground states. It allows Trump to point to the unfairness of it all as a rallying cry. Meanwhile Pelosi’s own Democratic expert is calling out her actions, saying Trump is not really impeached until she passes the articles, her actions are not in keeping with the Constitution and that she’s denying the president a fair trial. 

Right now Pelosi just seems to be digging herself a bigger hole, while McConnell and Trump are smiling about it. and just saying it proves their points. 

HT: Twitchy