Saturday, November 02, 2019

I doubt Speaker Pelosi will allow much of a delay regarding the impeachment proceedings.

November 1, 2019
By Alexander Nazaryan and Michael Isikoff

Washington — Even as House Democrats on Thursday (click hereratified an impeachment resolution against President Trump, a federal judge has potentially slowed the brisk pace of the inquiry by declining to rule on whether a key witness needed to testify before the House of Representatives.

Instead, he gave all relevant parties several more weeks to prepare their arguments. That raised the prospect that public hearings on the president’s conduct could drag on into the Christmas holiday season, a scenario many in the Democratic leadership had once hoped to avoid.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sought to make impeachment a quick, tightly controlled affair. On Friday, she told Bloomberg News that she expects public hearings to begin this month, though she added that there is still no fixed timetable and that the case against the president “has to be ironclad.”

The decision in question came in the chambers of Richard Leon, a judge in D.C. federal district court, in a case known as Kupperman v. House of Representatives....

Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Adam Schiff are ready to release transcripts beginning as early as next week. Both Pelosi and Schiff are aware of this case before Judge Richard Leon.

Speaker Pelosi said a very interesting thing.During her speech from the US House floor when speaking to the legislative body she stated, "There will be no more court proceedings." It raises questions about the efficacy of this case before Judge Leon. Will the US House withdraw from the case realizing they are moving forward with or without Kupperman or will the proceedings continue in anticipation of a decision of the case in the next few weeks while other evidence is introduced.

The US House Judiciary Committee may be interested in presenting their case even if the impeachment has already run its course. This is a matter of precedent with the Executive Branch stating it has grounds to stop Kupperman from giving testimony to the US House regarding impeachment. It appears to me while Mr. Kupperman is a human being and not recorded tapes, the verbal testimony falls under the same precedent as with Nixon. I am not a lawyer or a judge.

I was pleased to hear this from the reporting below from FOX News. I thank Judge Andrew Napolitano for addressing the essence of the problems Senate and House Republicans face regarding overwhelming evidence and personal conflicts with loyalty to the party. This is an adjustment they need to face to realize their oath is to the US Constitution and not the president.

In many, many ways this is a trial of the clarity of the oath of office and whether or not those words carry the brevity that they were meant to carry to protect the US Constitution and hence the USA as a country. No one is taking this lightly, even the US House took some time to struggle with these facts. 

November 1, 2019
By Alexandra Hutzler

Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano (click here) said that the proof of President Donald Trump's potentially impeachable offenses is largely undisputed and that congressional Republicans have no credible line of defense to protect him.

Napolitano reflected on the ongoing impeachment probe in an editorial published by Fox News on Thursday. The judicial analyst warned Republicans to be "careful what they ask for" going forward because of the overwhelming evidence against the president.

"Their defense of the president has addressed process, not proof," Napolitano wrote. "The proof is largely undisputed, except by the president himself. It consists of admissions, testimony and documents, which show that Trump sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2020 presidential election."

He added that it's a "mouthful of facts to swallow in one bite, but the legal implications are straightforward and profound."...

Trump should not have survived the Special Counsel investigation. He was guilty of abuse of power for self serving priorities then.

What did Ukraine's Anti-corruption Bureau say when it received the "black ledger" back from the presidential offices? It would seem that while Joe Biden was fighting the good fight to remove corruption from Ukraine, the Trump White House inflicted it's own brand of corruption, self-serving priorities of Trump.

Cybersecurity is Guiliani's cover, but, in reality he was working with Trump to undermine the Special Counsel investigation. Guiliani assisted Trump to try to liberate Paul Manafort from his criminal wrongdoings.

This is the first time Trump blackmailed the President of Ukraine, the most recent whistleblower account is the second with a different president. President Poroshenko had to hide the "black ledger" in an office of the president rather than the Anti-Corruption Bureau where they belonged in order to receive his first shipment of Javelin missiles (click here). What is even more peculiar, at least to me, is the missiles are that of Raytheon Corp. and today Espers is Secretary of Defense. Why did he agree to serve? Protecting company patents from Russia?

I think this is modus operandi for Trump. He estranges every leader; except Putin who is all too willing to be Trump's No. 1; to bring pressure to THEIR CHOICES when needing the USA's alliance. And Guiliani is the go-between, sorry, facilitator. This is the second known act for Guiliani in taking on an unelected or appointed role of the "Covert State Department/"Hand Grenade." How many more don't we know about? Guiliani literally blew up any and all appropriate measures by the people serving in this administration and replaced it with blackmail.


October 31, 2019
By David Ignatius

After being (click here) named an “informal” Cybersecurity Advisor to President Trump in January 2017, Giuliani entered into a “cybersecurity” contract with the Ukrainian government — personally enriching himself while appearing to use his position of influence to help advance Ukraine’s foreign policy goals

...Trump survived (click here) his first effort to solicit foreign political help in his appeals to Russia for damaging information about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. But soon after Trump was cleared of “collusion” by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, he seemingly went at it again — this time demanding political dirt from Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a condition of delivering military assistance to Kyiv....

...What led to Trump’s first meeting on June 20, 2017, with Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko? Ukraine had hired the lobbying firm BGR Group in January 2017 to foster contact with Trump, but nothing had happened . . . and then the door opened. Why?

On June 7, less than two weeks before Poroshenko’s White House meeting, Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had visited Kyiv to give a speech for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, headed by a prominent Ukrainian oligarch. While Giuliani was there, he also met with Poroshenko and his prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, according a news release issued by the foundation.

Just after Giuliani’s visit, Ukraine’s investigation of the so-called black ledger that listed alleged illicit payments to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was transferred from an anti-corruption bureau, known as NABU , to Poroshenko’s prosecutor general, according to a June 15, 2017, report in the Kyiv Post. The paper quoted Viktor Trepak, former deputy head of the country’s security service, saying: “It is clear for me that somebody gave an order to bury the black ledger.”...