RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://stiltonsplace.blogspot.com/

By now you’ve heard the story of the Mormon family who had three women and six children massacred by drug cartel members while traveling through Mexico to attend a wedding. The story is heartbreaking…and a legitimate source for righteous anger.

To that end, President Trump has made the offer to Mexico to basically go to war with the cartels, using American troops to wipe this scourge from the Earth. Which is a very refreshing change from the way Barack Obama dealt with the problem by sending automatic weapons to the cartels.

We discussed this a lot at Hope n’ Change way back in 2011, but will serve up a refresher for those who have forgotten details…or never heard them.

“Fast and Furious” was a program administered by the ATF under attorney general Eric Holder’s direction and almost surely Barack Obama’s endorsement. The program helped smuggle more than 1700 weapons to Mexican criminals and drug cartels just “to see where they’d surface.”

Theoretically, this would provide valuable information which would allow the ATF to shut down the gunrunners. But unsurprisingly, “theory” went out the window, the program flew out of control, and the AK-47s and armor-piercing shells were used to murder dozens (if not hundreds) of people including a U.S. Border Patrol agent and a Customs Enforcement agent.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/04/reconstructing-justice-flynn-defense-submits-outstanding-sur-surreply-to-counter-prosecution/

In the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, his lawyer Sidney Powell previously filed a motion to compel (MTC) Brady material from the prosecution (here).  Because the MTC raised stunning, potentially game-changing, legal and ethical issues the prosecution requested the opportunity to file a surreptitious reply to the court; a “surreply”. (here)

Judge Sullivan directed the prosecution to file their surreply, and then granted the defense the opportunity to file a sur-surreply, a response to the prosecution’s last argument. Today Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed that response (full pdf below).

Having read thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands, of legal filings, motions and court documents presenting arguments of material consequence, this sur-surreply to the arguments of the prosecution is artful in its succinct intent of getting to the nub of it.

What makes this articulate reply to the court so effective, in addition to the declared truth within it, is how it is written to both Judge Emmet Sullivan and the public.  This is a motion deserving of a read by anyone who has followed the travesty of the Flynn inquisition in detail or in summary. Do not cheat yourself out of the enjoyment; read it.

The response to the prosecution argument cuts through the chaff and countermeasures and identifies the ridiculous and necessary schemes played by the prosecution, starting with their preposterous position that Flynn’s plea did not require the government to provide exculpatory, Brady, evidence.  Page One:

Flynn’s defense calls out the ridiculous.  The prosecution argues it had no obligation to tell the target about any material favorable to the defense while the prosecution was piling-on pressure to generate a plea agreement.   Then, once the plea was coerced, the prosecution claims they have no obligation to provide Brady material because the target signed a plea.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/11/02/suddenly-coincidences-involving-whistleblower-abound/

“The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkin’s, Jr. says this far more eloquently. “Democrats’ and the media’s astonishing and studied obliviousness to the bonfire they made of their own credibility with the Russia hoax. Unless I miss my guess, even many Trump-skeptical voters have no interest in giving victory to so corrupt an opposition.”

Eric Ciaramella, the alleged whistleblower, was a young man on a mission. This Ivy-league graduate, said to be fluent in Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic, a favorite among Obama Administration officials, was introduced to us by investigative reporter Paul Sperry on Thursday. Washington insiders, including the mainstream media, have known his identity for quite some time, and for obvious reasons, have remained silent. Even after Sperry outed him this week, we’re hearing crickets from those on the left. The conservative media, however, which understands that history is repeating itself, has gone into overdrive to expose the truth.

Here’s what we know about Eric Ciaramella (EC):

He submitted a whistleblower complaint on August 12th.

He is a registered Democrat.

He is a CIA analyst who specializes in Russia and Ukraine. He ran the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council (NSC) in 2016.

He was detailed over to the NSC in the summer of 2015 and worked for then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

He worked for former Vice President Joe Biden when he served as the Obama administration’s “point man” for Ukraine. He may have flown over to Ukraine with Biden on Air Force Two.

He worked for former CIA Director John Brennan and appeared to have been a highly valued employee.

In June 2017, then-National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster appointed EC to be his personal aide.

I have a degree in Political Science, and I am a card-carrying Libertarian. I’ve been studying politics and political history for the past 30 years. My specialty is U.S. Presidents. That said, I hope that the House of Representatives impeaches Trump. Let me tell you what will happen next!

The House can pass articles of impeachment over the objections of the Republicans and refer to the Senate for trial.

2. The Senate will conduct a trial. There will be a vote, and the Republicans will vote unanimously, along with a small number of Democrats, to not convict the President. Legally, it will all be over at that point.

3. However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President’s attorneys will have the right to subpoena and
question ANYONE THEY WANT! That is different than the special counsel investigation, which was very one-sided. So, during the impeachment trial, we will be hearing testimony from James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Glenn Simpson, Donna Brazille, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, and a whole host of other participants in this whole sordid affair and the ensuing coverup activities. A lot of dirt will be dug up; a lot of truth will be unveiled. Finger pointing will occur. Deals will start being made, and suddenly, a lot of democrats will start being charged and going to prison. All this, because, remember, the President’s team will now, for the first time, have the RIGHT to question all of these people under oath – and they will turn on each other. That is already starting.

4. Lastly, one more thing will happen, the Senate will not convict the President. Nothing will happen to Trump. Most Americans are clueless about political processes, the law, and the Constitution. Most Americans believe that being impeached results in removal from office. They don’t understand that phase 2 is a trial in and by the Senate, where he has zero chance of conviction. Remember, the Senate is controlled by Republicans; they will determine what testimony is allowed — and *everything* will be allowed, including: DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to fix the election in favor of Hillary, the creation of the Trump dossier, the cover up and destruction of emails that very likely included incriminating information.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/31/impeachment-sifting-the-serious-from-the-silly/

There are people for whom the very fact that President Trump breathes in oxygen and breathes out carbon dioxide constitutes an impeachable offense. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who is running the impeachment inquiry that got approved by the House Thursday, is one of these people.

Is he going to run a fair inquiry? What are you, crazy? As the “impeach-him-for- breathing” crowd would reply, where in the Constitution does it say Schiff has to be fair?

Meanwhile, there are those for whom the only thing that would constitute a high crime and misdemeanor justifying Trump’s removal from office would be if he switched parties and joined the Democrats — if that! The president was on to something when he said he could shoot a guy on Fifth Avenue and not lose supporters.

For both of these camps, any factoid that seems to cast White House behavior in a problematic light is now fed through a filter — and either automatically added to the impeach file by the impeachers or to the witch-hunt pile by the defenders.

It might be worthwhile to try to tease out what actually belongs where.

Here’s how I separate out the two.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/28/calling-pelosi-and-schiffs-bluff/

President Trump has repeatedly slammed the secret impeachment hearings in the Capitol basement as a “kangaroo court.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi got the message. On Monday, she announced the full House will vote to formally launch impeachment proceedings that will be out in the open, instead of in the dark.

Democrats have been trying to suggest they have the goods on Trump. But fact is, none of the witnesses they have called so far have any firsthand knowledge of presidential wrongdoing.

Behind closed doors and with no media allowed, House Democrats have tried to put on the ­appearance of a legal proceeding. At the end of each session, they leak what they claim happened. The media are all too willing to play along, printing the Democratic pols’ claims as if they were fact.

“Powerful testimony from multiple State and national security officials,” The Hill reports, adding up to a “scathing picture of Trump and his allies withholding nearly $400 million in security aid from Ukraine.”

Politico called the testimony of Bill Taylor, the acting envoy to Kiev, “explosive” — though Taylor’s prepared statement merely ­regurgitated what other State ­Department bureaucrats had told him. His source was the rumor mill. It’s called hearsay.

The New York Times reports “a rapidly moving investigation securing damning testimony.” That’s hardly the case. But soon the jig will be up. No matter how many “witnesses” Democrats parade into their hearings, it won’t matter if they have no firsthand knowledge. Even the Times concedes that to ­impeach a president, the House needs proof “tying him directly” to wrongdoing.