akm91 said:

---

What does it mean impeach Vindman? He's not an official that went through senate confirmation.

---

Destroy his credibility.

akm91 said:

---

What does it mean impeach Vindman? He's not an official that went through senate confirmation.

---

Legalese - discredit his testimony.

Thanks! Obviously not an lawyer here

A tidbit from Levin's show early this evening. This sounds interesting: Fusion GPS was paying people to go into Ukraine & dig up dirt...from Ukrainian sources.

I don't know if true, but someone did ask the person who tweeted it and they say it is real. Still don't know though.

I think Vindman is going to be destroyed when he testifies tomorrow.

will25u said:

---

I don't know if true, but someone did ask the person who tweeted it and they say it is real. Still don't know though.

---

Obvious shop if you blow up the picture:

(I have seen some shops in my time, and you can tell by the pixels)

Definitely a shop and I noticed the title first thing.

I thought to myself, "That is not the normal title I have seen on other reports."

Also, this investigation should be a bit thicker, I hope.

What the f....

Remind me please, what is the FISA bill that he's trying to push through?

that's the point

MooreTrucker said:

---

Remind me please, what is the FISA bill that he's trying to push through?

---

Quote:

---

The House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The committee was considering whether to renew several FISA provisions, including roving wiretap authority, business records authority, and the "lone wolf" provision, which were set to expire at the end of 2019. Representatives from the Justice Department, FBI, and National Security Agency provided testimony on their agencies' use of the provisions and urged lawmakers to reauthorize the programs.

---

From C-Span. Re-authorization before it expires.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-official-sues-politico-targets-schiffs-role-in-impeachment

Quote:

---

.....A White House official on Monday sued Politico and one of its reporters over stories and tweets that he says falsely accuse him of "lying, deceit and unethical conduct."

Kash Patel, the National Security Council's senior counterterrorism director, is seeking more than $25 million in damages in the suit filed in Virginia. We have reached out to Politico for comment.

The lawsuit also names Natasha Bertrand, a Politico reporter and MSNBC contributor, as well as Politico owner Robert Allbritton. The allegations, which center on what the president was told about the situation in Ukraine, go to the heart of the case for impeachment.

While Politico is the nominal target of the suit, it represents an aggressive attempt by a presidential aide to put Adam Schiff's handling of the impeachment inquiry itself on trial. Describing the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee as "a demagogue with an axe to grind against the president," Patel portrays Schiff as running roughshod over rules and interviewing witnesses "to create click-bait headlines and soundbites to feed to his co-conspirators and media sympathizers."...
.....
Schiff is a major target. The suit, which includes its share of Trumpian language, says the defendants "acted in concert" with the congressman or his aides to further the impeachment probe. The alleged purpose was to "destroy Kash's reputation" as a lawyer and presidential aide to further "Schiff's baseless Ukrainian quid pro quo hoax.".....

---

Perhaps this is a better way to go after Schiff, the Leaker.

Evelyn Farkas is running for Congress in a NY district Dem Primary.

Quote:

---

Perhaps this is a better way to go after Schiff, the Leaker.

---

Quote:

---

The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, commonly known as the Westfall Act, accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties.

---

LINK

Schiff is immune from a direct suit.

Quote:

---

House Democrats are investigating if President Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller, according to CNN.
The House chamber's general counsel told a federal court Monday they are probing whether Mr. Trump was dishonest to the special counsel in his written answers that were handed over during the investigation into alleged Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign and election interference.
"Did the President lie? Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?" Douglas Letter, the House general counsel, reportedly said.

CNN reports the comments were made at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. in a legal fight over the House gaining access to Mr. Mueller's grand jury material

---

LINK

On another front:

Quote:

---

The House Oversight and Reform Committee told the Supreme Court on Monday that it would not oppose President Trump's request for an administrative stay of an appeals court ruling granting House Democrats access to his financial records.

The panel said in a letter to the high court that it would not oppose a 10-day administrative stay while the justices decide whether to take up Trump's appeal. The committee also said it would file a response to Trump's motion by Friday.

Trump's lawyers had asked the Supreme Court last week to hear their case after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the House committee could subpoena the president's accounting firm for eight years of financial records.

Trump's legal team had filed for an emergency stay because the appellate court's ruling was set to go into effect on Wednesday.

The president's appeal to the nation's highest court is part of a broad legal effort to keep his tax returns and other financial records out of the hands of Congress and other investigators.

His lawyers have asserted broad claims of immunity from law enforcement investigations as well as congressional subpoenas that may set the stage for the Supreme Court to decide unresolved questions about presidential power.

---

The Hill

I find Committees' argument that the subpoena is tied to legislation to be very spurious. Even with deference given to them, its a very weak connection IMO.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps this is a better way to go after Schiff, the Leaker.

---

Quote:

---

The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, commonly known as the Westfall Act, accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties.

---

LINK

Schiff is immune from a direct suit.

---

I am not a lawyer, but within the Westfall Act it states:

"28 U. S. C. 2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," 2679(d)(1), (2)."

I guess the Attorney General would be William Barr in this case? Could William Barr investigate Bag of Schiff to determine whether he was acting "within the scope of his office". I vote Barr begin issuing subpoenas to bag of Schiff and his staff.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I find Committees' argument that the subpoena is tied to legislation to be very spurious. Even with deference given to them, its a very weak connection IMO.

---

Agree, the legitimate legislative purpose is quite thin here.

Some more on that Patel suit.

That doesn't sound like defamation to me. Weird.

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps this is a better way to go after Schiff, the Leaker.

---

Quote:

---

The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, commonly known as the Westfall Act, accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties.

---

LINK

Schiff is immune from a direct suit.

---

I am not a lawyer, but within the Westfall Act it states:

"28 U. S. C. 2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," 2679(d)(1), (2)."

I guess the Attorney General would be William Barr in this case? Could William Barr investigate Bag of Schiff to determine whether he was acting "within the scope of his office". I vote Barr begin issuing subpoenas to bag of Schiff and his staff.

---

There was a DC Circuit Court of Appeals case that held the Westfall Act applied to Congressman Murtha who defamed a soldier during the Iraq War. Wuterich v. Murtha.

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps this is a better way to go after Schiff, the Leaker.

---

Quote:

---

The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, commonly known as the Westfall Act, accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties.

---

LINK

Schiff is immune from a direct suit.

---

I am not a lawyer, but within the Westfall Act it states:

"28 U. S. C. 2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," 2679(d)(1), (2)."

I guess the Attorney General would be William Barr in this case? Could William Barr investigate Bag of Schiff to determine whether he was acting "within the scope of his office". I vote Barr begin issuing subpoenas to bag of Schiff and his staff.

---

There was a DC Circuit Court of Appeals case that held the Westfall Act applied to Congressman Murtha who defamed a soldier during the Iraq War. Wuterich v. Murtha.

---

Bummers.

But just having Barr nosying around to ensure bag of Schiff and staff were acting "within the scope of his office" would be glorious.

I know this won't happen, but I dream.

There is also the speech and debate clause, although that is the underpinning for the Westfall Act. In any event, a suit against Schiff directly is an uphill climb.

aggiehawg said:

---

There is also the speech and debate clause, although that is the underpinning for the Westfall Act. In any event, a suit against Schiff directly is an uphill climb.

---

so the guy doing all the shady stuff (that everyone knows is shady stuff) is untouchable?

ruddyduck said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

There is also the speech and debate clause, although that is the underpinning for the Westfall Act. In any event, a suit against Schiff directly is an uphill climb.

---

so the guy doing all the shady stuff (that everyone knows is shady stuff) is untouchable?

---

For what he says, essentially yes. Is he engaged in a conspiracy? Yes but is that conspiracy designed to commit a criminal act? At the moment, the answer to that is no.

I won't get into the sedition argument right now because his speech is otherwise protected.

ETA: Wait, let me rephrase that. We currently have no way of knowing just what Schiff and his former NSC aides were up to with this "whistle blower" stuff. It is possible that they solicited the commission of a crime in the set-up of that scheme.

aggiehawg said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Remind me please, what is the FISA bill that he's trying to push through?

---

Quote:

---

The House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The committee was considering whether to renew several FISA provisions, including roving wiretap authority, business records authority, and the "lone wolf" provision, which were set to expire at the end of 2019. Representatives from the Justice Department, FBI, and National Security Agency provided testimony on their agencies' use of the provisions and urged lawmakers to reauthorize the programs.

---

From C-Span. Re-authorization before it expires.

---

I think that may be a feint, like dipping your shoulder before throwing a jab.

Passing that legislation could delay that report, or even make the charges go away, especially if the report's findings refer to "current law". And it certainly would protect the Deep State players.

And if the delay pushes the report out into next year, the Dems would have time complete their bogus impeachment "inquiry" and vote IMPEACH! Thus, of course, putting the cry "This is retribution!" into their dual DNC / MSM pronged counterattack.

This is not real, in my opinion.

If Vindman took the 5th when asked to whom he gave classified information, would that justify revocation of his security clearance? Is that maybe why Schiff won't let the Rs ask those questions in the hearing?

drcrinum said:

---

---

Meaning the report will be out the week after Thanksgiving.

aggiehawg said:

---

ETA: Wait, let me rephrase that. We currently have no way of knowing just what Schiff and his former NSC aides were up to with this "whistle blower" stuff. It is possible that they solicited the commission of a crime in the set-up of that scheme.

---

This. Schiff (or his NSC staff) was almost certainly involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime (Vindman/whistle-blower leak) ... but very unlikely someone will rat or was dumb enough to leave a paper trail.