Quote:

---

That puts a seated grand jury for Durham's purpose around June 20th through Mid-August.

Coincidentally, when CTH first discovered the totality of the background corruption story back in the third quarter of 2018, the targeted date for a determination of whether the DOJ was willing to address the scale of the internal corruption issues was mid-August.

Absent action by the DOJ to address the most explosive evidence that outlines the totality of fraud upon American voters by the corrupt DOJ and FBI interests; CTH began compiling all the data into a comprehensive brief on a specific aspect that cuts directly to the heart of the issues.

For the past month, all in phase-one, I have been sharing the contents of that evidence with anyone who can make a substantive difference. I have traveled to several states and briefed staff, principals and some select media. Every person briefed is stunned by the specific evidence compiled and how the dots were never connected; nothing is refuted.

---

drcrinum said:

---

Two minute video. Grenell is an impressive chap IMO.

---

Agree Grenell is impressive.

I don't understand the significance of the timing of Susan RIce's email. What would be the difference if she had written it any time before President Trump was sworn into office?

is it just that the email is a officially a Trump record?

nortex97 said:

---

Lack of a defensive briefing is the proof. McCarthy today:

---

Quote:

---

Closing para .....

Donald Trump and his campaign were never given a defensive briefing to warn of Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Clearly, that is because the Obama-Biden administration and the FBI baselessly theorized that Trump was the one conspiring with Russia. In the Russiagate narrative, as a candidate and then as the president, Trump was the perp, not the victim. They weren't looking to warn him. They were looking to nail him or, at least, to persuade the country that he just might be a Russian mole.

---

Good read. Yes, but proof of what crime? Picky I know, but it's my one small beef with McCarthy's excellent blogs ... he rarely provides his legal opinion on what specific federal crimes he thinks were committed.

benchmark said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Lack of a defensive briefing is the proof. McCarthy today:

---

Quote:

---

Closing para .....

Donald Trump and his campaign were never given a defensive briefing to warn of Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Clearly, that is because the Obama-Biden administration and the FBI baselessly theorized that Trump was the one conspiring with Russia. In the Russiagate narrative, as a candidate and then as the president, Trump was the perp, not the victim. They weren't looking to warn him. They were looking to nail him or, at least, to persuade the country that he just might be a Russian mole.

---

Good read. Yes, but proof of what crime? Picky I know, but it's my one small beef with McCarthy's excellent blogs ... he rarely provides his legal opinion on what specific federal crimes he thinks were committed.

---

I get it but I think that neglects the complexity of charging decisions. The issue is partially that so many people are involved, with a lot of plausible deniability for any given set, without a lot of documentary evidence of intent/mens rea. As such McCarthy doesn't delve into how/what will be charged, as it's not transparent given the public information, just the outrageous factual components and considerations as he sees them from, well, our public side of the investigation.

Massive RICO charges are certainly warranted, as are many espionage/corruption/false statements/obstruction/mishandling of classified information/false statements etc., but it is difficult to put any of that into a public column.

richardag said:

---

I don't understand the significance of the timing of Susan RIce's email. What would be the difference if she had written it any time before President Trump was sworn into office?

---

Confidentiality involving Presidential conversations, in this case recorded on government computers. Once she was no longer employed as a government employee/cabinet member, whatever she says/said cannot be subject to such confidentiality.

Quote:

---

I get it but I think that neglects the complexity of charging decisions. The issue is partially that so many people are involved, with a lot of plausible deniability for any given set, without a lot of documentary evidence of intent/mens rea. As such McCarthy doesn't delve into how/what will be charged, as it's not transparent given the public information, just the outrageous factual components and considerations as he sees them from, well, our public side of the investigation.

Massive RICO charges are certainly warranted, as are many espionage/corruption/false statements/obstruction/mishandling of classified information/false statements etc., but it is difficult to put any of that into a public column.

---

Plus he was at DOJ for over two decades. Accusing someone of a crime publicly by statute is only done by indictment under their policy. Hence, his reticence.

Now, when Mueller would come out with a long on narrative, short on facts and the law actual indictment, he would critically analyze what was actually charged and of even more import what wasn't charged. (Hint: they used the wrong statute.)

nortex97 said:

---

Massive RICO charges are certainly warranted, as are many espionage/corruption/false statements/obstruction/mishandling of classified information/false statements etc., but it is difficult to put any of that into a public column.

---

Notwithstanding all of the above, 'conspiracy to defraud the gov' has been my fav catchall - albeit hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Knowing what we all know now, I'm still surprised not many legal experts like McCarthy aren't going out on limb beyond obstruction and process crimes. Across the aisle and for comparison, the Lawfare wingnuts haven't been shy about their legal opinions.

Quote:

---

Picky I know, but it's my one small beef with McCarthy's excellent blogs ... he rarely provides his legal opinion on what specific federal crimes he thinks were committed.

---

For the last three years I've read him fairly religiously and never thought about the specificity of the crimes (little wonder I'm not a lawyer).

You used the word "picky", but not really. Gracias.

Quote:

---

Ms Hawg, I'll have to admit when I read your posts, the first thing I look for is whether you use the smiley face or the sad face. Here's to many smiley faces in the future!

---

Too funny! I'm the same way. When I see a smiley emoji I get all excited.

Quote:

---

Across the aisle and for comparison, the Lawfare wingnuts haven't been shy about their legal opinions.

---

I really wouldn't call the blather they put out as actual "legal opinions" as they are largely untethered to any actual law and/or based upon made up "facts."

And I too don't like to use the sad face so much. In my defense, throughout the many threads about both the George Floyd case and the Rayshard Brooks shooting, posters were getting upset with me for pointing out inconsistencies and discrepancies between the evidence as it developed and the narrative and charges being (falsely) propagated by the authorities. So I would use the sad face to signal I was not happy about the situation at all but was just connecting the dots as I saw them.

The overcharges in both cases were and are untenable based on the evidence I have seen and read. Full stop.

Thank you for the response.

akm91 said:

---

Need to add a whole host of others to that list.

Interesting that haven't heard a peep from Schiff for brains lately.

---

Just guessing, but I have the impression AS rubbed a lot of people (incl. Dems) in the wrong place during the Impeachment. Too much "Oh, oh...look at me, look at me" on his part. Sort of "soiled his pants" when it failed and everyone still smells it when he's around.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/08/07/lets-clear-up-a-misconception-there-is-no-doj-policy-restricting-indictments-prior-to-an-election/

Good read. Thanks for posting that. Learn something new everyday.

On to SCOTUS?

Quote:

---

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the House's subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn, ruling that Congress has the right to enforce its subpoenas in court.

The 7-2 decision from the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses an earlier ruling from a divided three-judge panel that declared that congressional subpoenas were essentially unenforceable.

"The Constitution charges Congress with certain responsibilities, including to legislate, to conduct oversight of the federal government, and, when necessary, to impeach and remove a President or other Executive Branch official from office," Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the majority opinion. "Possession of relevant information is an essential precondition to the effective discharge of all of those duties."

---

Quote:

---

Although the ruling is a clear victory for congressional Democrats, it does not mean that McGahn will be sitting for testimony anytime soon. The majority decision did not address the Trump administration's claim that White House officials are immune to congressional subpoena, so even if McGahn does not appeal the ruling, the two sides will still have more to litigate before the D.C. Circuit.

Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, didn't say whether the administration would appeal the ruling.

The circuit court on Friday also ruled that the House has standing to sue Trump over his diversion of Pentagon funds to border wall construction.

"While we strongly disagree with the standing ruling in McGahn, the en banc court properly recognized that we have additional threshold grounds for dismissal of both cases, and we intend to vigorously press those arguments before the panels hearing those cases," Kupec said in a statement.

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn last year as part of an effort to follow up on the former special counsel's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That investigation eventually morphed into President Trump's impeachment by the House and acquittal by the Senate.

---

Quote:

---

The ruling, which can be appealed to the Supreme Court, affirms that Congress has the power to investigate the president and his branch of government and holds that the authority is especially important during impeachment proceedings.

"To level the grave accusation that a President may have committed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' the House must be appropriately informed," Rogers, who was appointed to the appeals court by former President Clinton, wrote in the opinion. "And it cannot fully inform itself without the power to compel the testimony of those who possess relevant or necessary information."

All seven of the judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents, and both dissenters were appointed by Republicans. Two judges, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were appointed by Trump and worked in his White House, recused themselves from the case.

The two judges who dissented Thomas Griffith and Karen Henderson, both appointed by former President George H.W. Bush argued in separate opinions that the courts should not be mediating disputes between Congress and the president.

"The majority's decision will compel us to referee an interminable series of interbranch disputes, politicizing the Judiciary by repeatedly forcing us to take sides between the branches," Griffith wrote. "I cannot join the court's expedition into an area where we do not belong and can do no good."

---

Of course.

The Hill

Really gives you faith in the judicial system /sarcasm.

Nothing happens until after the election: irrelevant. Trump legal strategy won again.

JJMt said:

---

I'm of two minds on this. The Obama administration simply ignored Congressional subpoenas and Congress had no means of enforcing its own subpoenas. It's sort of gaping whole in the Constitutional separation of powers concept. Or am I wrong or poorly informed, as I am all too frequently?

---

There is a method to enforce Congressional subpoenas but the same have to be directly tethered to a "legitimate legislative purpose."

Or in the alternative, material to a formal impeachment hearing.

Pelosi's lawfare lawyers messed up on the "formal" impeachment hearing resolution they passed. It instead skirted the issue. Why the House keeps trying on the Mueller Report grand jury material*. The impeachment resolution never stated it was actually for articles of impeachment, in the first instance. Oversight on POTUS foreign policy (Executive realm) is limited. The whole Ukraine President conversation based impeachment was a sham.

*Mueller fully intended to illegally leak grand jury material through his report. That was the intention all along. Only the DC Circuit issued the McKeever decision and Bill Barr was confirmed as AG and that was stopped.

Way back, I said the Dems should be careful what they wish for. The Trump administration cannot disclose a prior administration's privileged documents. If a subpoena is held valid, that subpoena applies to everything.

I'm not sure Trump cares which way this decision goes. He does care that law is in place so he can't be manipulated into giving up what hurts him without also producing what helps him.

Steve King, R-NY
Paul Ryan
Condi Rice
Robert Gates
John McCain
Ben Sasse
Marco Rubio
John Cornyn

Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Trey Gowdy, Chris Cristie, Sessions,

So little fish it is.

will25u said:

---

---

LOL. He only gets a target warning after the interview when he is being brought up to the grand jury. He's free to take the 5th in any interview. What happened to Flynn should be evidence enough of that.