Thank you, Para and sjtill.
Well said.

So Grassley and Johnson sent another letter to the DOiJ inquiring about their previous questions re the Ukraine helping the DNC in the 2016 election.

"Grassley: It's Time to Follow Up on My July 2017 Letter About the DNC and Ukraine"

In a letter intended for Attorney General William Barr, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-TX) ask for a renewed investigation into the “brazen efforts by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign to use the government of Ukraine for the express purpose of finding negative information on Trump."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...rmine-trump-n2553912

So will Barr respond by Oct 14th or has the DOiJ already ran the letter through the shredder like they did with all of the criminal referrals he sent?

Huge mistake. He could’ve got around those “rules”.

“WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that Senate rules would require him to take up any articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump if approved by the House, swatting down talk that that the GOP-controlled chamber could dodge the matter entirely…”

https://apnews.com/f1b464aec99348bd9f31c81fd4d80e5d

Pipe Smoker, what's your political background?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Pipe Smoker, what's your political background?

Conservative. Donated $1K to Trump 2016. Will donate at least $1K to Trump 2020.

Donating money doesn't make you an authority on Senate procedures.

What gripes my bowels is that if something similar had happened under BHO's watch, we'd have heard nothing. Nothing to see here, executive privilege...move along. The double standard is so blatant.

Just venting...

Wearing my Trump 2020 t-shirt today. Gets more compliments than sneers even here in Oregon.

Unusual times necessitate patriots to take unusual actions under the law. This not legal advice for any particular action but a recognition of a certain wisdom vested in each American under the law.

Some situations necessitate breaking the law and that action is illegal but rather than excused, the guilty have a complete defense.

What we face is unprecedented. A Deep State is making up rules and procedures to nullify an election. The system seems incapable of addressing the problem while deep state actors seemingly violate the laws to destroy separation of powers.

For instance, there are leaks and novel legal theories used such as the president must prove his exoneration.

I don't know when the line is crossed, necessitating the Republicans to take action to counter the lawlessness - even if their counter-actions were technically against the law.

Is there ever such a time? - maybe. Leaks, for instance, no longer seem against the law. Counter leaks may be similarly justified and necessitated to counter the illegal acts that have been routine for decades.

"The necessity defense has long been recognized as Common Law and has also been made part of most states' statutory law. Although no federal statute acknowledges the defense, the Supreme Court has recognized it as part of the common law. The rationale behind the necessity defense is that sometimes, in a particular situation, a technical breach of the law is more advantageous to society than the consequence of strict adherence to the law. " LINK

The origins of the alleged whistle blower hearsay complaint is now hidden behind a screen of protections. What if it was written by Schiff or Media Matters or a foreign source such as a George Soros acolyte?

Wouldn't the electorate and Congress members need to know that given the years of Democrat efforts to take down President Trump?

It would, potentially, put this entire affair in a clearer light.

Before this new "revelation," the Dems. were stymied by the law in their efforts. Simple for them: they're changing and breaking the law to make this new effort possible.

quote:

Originally posted by rat2306:
What gripes my bowels is that if something similar had happened under BHO's watch, we'd have heard nothing. Nothing to see here, executive privilege...move along. The double standard is so blatant.

Just venting...

This is all true. And it's because the corrupt press gives the Left political cover.


...

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Huge mistake. He could’ve got around those “rules”.

“WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that Senate rules would require him to take up any articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump if approved by the House, swatting down talk that that the GOP-controlled chamber could dodge the matter entirely…”

https://apnews.com/f1b464aec99348bd9f31c81fd4d80e5d

I suspect that you are correct that Mitch McConnell *could* change or get around the rules. I’d be shocked if he isn’t fully cognizant of that. However, I believe that he has been around long enough to fully understand the political calculus and to weigh whether doing so is going to help more than it hurts. My guess is that his understanding of that calculus is far better than mine, and perhaps even better than yours.

Ukraine Mystery: Schiff Staffer Made August Visit for Think Tank Backed by Hunter Biden’s Old Employer

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...bidens-old-employer/

A staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a trip to Ukraine last month sponsored and organized by the Atlantic Council think tank.

The Atlantic Council is funded by and routinely works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The Schiff staffer, Thomas Eager, is also currently one of 19 fellows at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Congressional Fellowship, a bipartisan program that says it “educates congressional staff on current events in the Eurasia region.”

Eager’s trip to Ukraine last month was part of the fellowship program and included nine other House employees. The bi-partisan visit, from August 24 to August 31, was billed as a “Ukraine Study Trip,” and culminated in a meeting with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

The dates of the pre-planned trip are instructive. Eager’s visit to Ukraine sponsored by the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council began 12 days after the so-called whistleblower officially filed his August 12 complaint about President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee reportedly reached a tentative agreement in recent days for the so-called whistleblower to testify.

The complaint surrounds Trump’s request for Ukrainian assistance in investigating possible corruption related to the Burisma company and Joe and Hunter Biden.

Also mentioned by Trump during the phone call with Zelensky are questions about CrowdStrike, the outside firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.

CrowdStrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

Eager did not immediately return Breitbart phone and email requests for comment.

The email request inquired whether Eager, during his trip sponsored by the Atlantic Council, personally held any meetings in Ukraine related to the whistle blower complaint filed about two weeks before the visit.

Besides funding from Burisma, the Atlantic Council is also financed by Google Capital, billionaire activist George Soros’s Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and the U.S. State Department.

As Breitbart News reported last week, Google, Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint alleging Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 presidential race.



Schiff’s signature appears on the required post-travel disclosure form filed with the House Committee on Ethics documenting the visit to Ukraine. The form signed by Schiff says that Eager’s trip to Ukraine was paid for by the “Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.”

The form bearing Schiff’s signature (above) describes the visit thusly:

Series of meetings and visits with gov’t officials, party officials, civil society and private sector reps in Ukraine to learn about ongoing political and military issues, including conflict in the East.

The costs for Eager’s visit listed on the form are $2202.91 for transportation, $985.50 for lodging, and $630.15 for meal expenses.

Geysha Gonzalez is the Atlantic Council officer listed on the form. She is deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Speaking to Breitbart News, Gonzalez confirmed that Eager started his one year fellowship with the organization in January and that Eager is still a fellow.

Gonzalez said the pre-planned trip was part of the fellowship program, which also includes a full year of round tables and other educational events. She said it was not within her portfolio to comment on issues of funding from Burisma or other donors.

The itinerary of the trip shows a meeting with Poroshenko as well as discussions with local activists, politicians and residents.

Besides Eager, nine other Congressional staffers were listed as participating in the visit. Republicans were represented by Laura Detter, legislative assistant to Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Zachery Laven, legislative assistant to Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Michael McCabe, legislative assistant to Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Sarah Miller, legislative assistant to Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL).

McCain adviser and dossier

The Atlantic Council’s Gonzalez is also one of eleven members of the rapid response team for the Ukrainian Election Task Force, which says it is working to expose “foreign interference in Ukraine’s democracy.”

Another member of the team is David J. Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain who served at the McCain Institute for International Leadership as senior director for human rights and democracy.

Kramer revealed in testimony that he held a meeting about the anti-Trump dossier with a reporter from BuzzFeed News who he says snapped photos of the controversial document without Kramer’s permission when he left the room to go to the bathroom. That meeting was held at the McCain Institute office in Washington, Kramer stated.

BuzzFeed infamously published the Christopher Steele dossier on January 10, 2017 setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.

The Washington Post reported last February that Kramer received the dossier directly from Fusion GPS after McCain expressed interest in it.

In a deposition taken on Dec. 13, 2017 and posted online earlier this year, Kramer revealed that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about whether the anti-Trump dossier was being taken seriously.

In one case, Kramer said that he personally provided a copy of the dossier to Obama National Security Council official Celeste Wallander.

In the deposition, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December 2016 to meet about the dossier with Wallander and Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry’s State Department.

Burisma and Atlantic Council

Besides funding the Atlantic Council, Burisma also routinely partners with the think tank.

Only four months ago, the company co-hosted the Council’s second Annual Kharkiv Security Conference.

Burisma further co-hosted a U.S.-Ukraine Business Council event with the Council last year in Washington, DC. David Kramer of the dossier episode is a senior adviser to the Business Council.

Busirma and the Atlantic Council also signed a cooperative agreement to develop transatlantic programs with Burisma’s financial support reportedly to focus “on European and international energy security.”

Burisma advertises that it committed itself to “15 key principles of rule of law and economic policy in Ukraine developed by the Atlantic Council.”

Common Funding Themes

There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint about Trump and CrowdStrike.

One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor to the Democratic Party.

CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Zelensky. Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC’s allegedly hacked server.

On behalf of the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.

CrowdStrike founder Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. and Burisma.

Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist George Soros’s Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and the U.S. State Department.

Google, Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint alleging Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 presidential race.

The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower’s document and released by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower’s own claims, as Breitbart News documented.

One key section of the so-called whistleblower’s document claims that “multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov.”

This was allegedly to follow up on Trump’s call with Zelensky in order to discuss the “cases” mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower’s narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.

Even though the statement was written in first person – “multiple U.S. officials told me” – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

That footnote reads:

In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.

The so-called whistleblower’s account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does so to:

Write that Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko “also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters.”
Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani “had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani.”
Bolster the charge that, “I also learned from a U.S. official that ‘associates’ of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.” The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, “I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.”

The OCCRP report repeatedly referenced is actually a “joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine.”

BuzzFeed infamously also first published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.

The OCCRP and BuzzFeed “joint investigation” resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals.

The so-called whistleblower’s document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.

Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

Together with Soros’s Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are “disputed.”

Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute’s so-called news fact-checking project is openly funded by not only Soros’ Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National Endowment for Democracy.

CrowdStrike and DNC servers

CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky.

According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people…The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

In his extensive report, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not “obtain or examine” the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked by Russia.

The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server and shared details with the FBI.

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the FBI registered “multiple requests at different levels,” to review the DNC’s hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a “highly respected private company”—a reference to CrowdStrike—would carry out forensics on the servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.

A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official was quoted by the news media as saying.

“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier,” the official continued.

Biden, Ukraine and Burisma

Ukraine in 2016 removed a key prosecutor probing alleged corruption involving Burisma, the same firm paying Hunter Biden. Joe Biden two years later admitted to personally threatening to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless the prosecutor in question, Viktor Shokin, was removed.

Biden publically boasted about his role in the removal of Shokin during a panel discussion sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.

“I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t…” Biden said.

“They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, … we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ … I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

After it was revealed that Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings in 2014, ethics experts were quoted by the news media as raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Joey D 9/30/19

No description provided

I need to buy and wear some more 'Trump 2020' gear. I have a ballcap on the rear deck of my car facing outwards; not enough. I think a couple shirts are in order. We all need to fly the colors in public a bit more. Stand up and be counted, and encourage others to do the same!

We've faced the issue of corrupted sources before in our history.

The "silver platter" doctrine was once in effect where if a state police officer, for instance, illegally obtained evidence, the state could serve it on a "silver platter" to the feds so the feds could pursue a federal criminal action instead.

That way, the feds could say, "Gee. We didn't seize it illegally. The State did so we have clean hands."

Not so fast. That created a system that permitted police to ignore people's rights. The Supreme Court wasn't enamoured with that approach.

Isn't that what the Dems. are trying here? Make up new rules to allow hearsay whistle blowers to base their allegations on illegally obtained leaks?

This will not pass muster or the smell test. I don't know why someone has not sought injunctive relief to out the hoax.

What they're trying to do is advance a tainted illegal leak and then play innocent about their effort to avoid the law when their culpabilility is all over them like cheap perfume..

With whistleblower ‘protection’ fake news, media does Trump another favor

https://nypost.com/2019/09/30/...trump-another-favor/

Even on its own terms, the media’s Get Trump project has proved a monumental failure. If the blob of blue-checkmark Twitterati wanted to help President Trump portray the latest impeachment push as a partisan witch hunt, they couldn’t have done a better job than they are now.

Consider the latest example: On Sunday, CBS’ venerable “60 Minutes” program reported on Twitter that “the government whistleblower who set off the impeachment inquiry of President Trump is under federal protection because they fear for their safety.” The explosive news seemed to vindicate his opponents’ darkest fantasies about the president: Of course Trump would physically threaten a whistleblower, much as the Corleone family would deal with a snitch.

“The whistleblower is being protected from the executive branch of his or her own government,” fretted Aaron Rupar of Vox. “That’s not quite right,” The Atlantic’s David Frum chimed in. “The whistleblower is also at risk from the private citizen supporters the president incites to violence.”

And so on until — oops: As Politico reported, “an attorney for the whistleblower in the Trump-Ukraine scandal said Sunday that CBS’ ‘60 Minutes’ had ‘completely misinterpreted’ a document from his legal group, after the news outlet tweeted that the whistleblower was now under federal protection.”

It turns out the lawyers had merely asked Joseph Maguire, the director of national intelligence, for “appropriate resources to ensure [their client’s] safety.” That’s emphatically not the same thing as the whistleblower enjoying federal protection.

Why does the difference matter? To claim, as CBS did, that the whistleblower is under protection suggests that some federal agency had already assessed his security needs and determined that he faces significant enough threats to justify such protection. A request isn’t the same thing as a request granted.

The whistleblower’s safety concerns may be legitimate. Or they might be politically motivated, aimed at shielding him and his claims from scrutiny. After all, as the intelligence community inspector general noted, the whistleblower has a “political bias” in favor of one of Trump’s rivals. It isn’t unreasonable to suspect that a political actor might use unfounded concerns about “safety” as a shield and a sword.

By jumping the gun and misreporting the whistleblower’s request, CBS disserved its audience. The outlet also lent more credence to the Trumpian belief that the Democratic-media complex will play dirty if it means getting their man. Add this to the New York Times’ all-but-retracted story about a new accuser against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh; MSNBC’s retracted story about Trump’s financial arrangements with Russian oligarchs; BuzzFeed’s debunked story about Trump suborning perjury; ABC’s retracted story about Trump ordering a subordinate to make contact with the Kremlin during his campaign; and on and on.

Take in this enormous pile of fake news, and it soon becomes clear that the media are their own worst enemy — and Trump’s unwitting best friends.

The reports that AG Barr is meeting w foreign govt officials is very good news.

Wash Post :

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...s-in-2016/ar-AAI4Q6S

Attorney General Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016

that's good because there was a coup attempt and foreign govts were a part of it

Attorney General William P. Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials seeking their help in a Justice Department inquiry that President Trump hopes will discredit U.S. intelligence agencies’ examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the matter.

Barr’s personal involvement is likely to stoke further criticism from Democrats pursuing impeachment that he is helping the Trump administration use executive branch powers to augment investigations aimed primarily at the president’s adversaries.

if Mifsud was a CIA trap the whole thing blows up in the DEMs face

The direct involvement of the nation’s top law enforcement official shows the priority Barr places on the investigation being conducted by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, who has been assigned the sensitive task of reviewing U.S. intelligence work surrounding the 2016 election and its aftermath.

Current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in re-examining what they view as conspiracy theories and baseless allegations of misconduct.

cause they are guilty of treason and prefer not to get caught

Barr has already made overtures to British intelligence officials, and last week the attorney general traveled to Italy, where he and Durham met senior Italian government officials and Barr asked the Italians to assist Durham, according to one person familiar with the matter. It was not Barr’s first trip to Italy to meet intelligence officials, the person said. The Trump administration has made similar requests of Australia, these people said.

more confirmation of the speculations that some parts of UK, Italy and Australia were part of the coup attempt

David Laufman, a former Justice Department official who was involved in the early stages of the Russia probe, said it was “fairly unorthodox for the attorney general personally to be flying around the world as a point person to further evidence-gathering for a specific Justice Department investigation,” and especially so in Barr’s case.

also "unorthodox" for DoJ and FBI to attempt to overturn a presidential election with profound lies and counterintel ops against a presidential candidate, president elect, and a sitting president. Laufman was possibly involved in the FISA warrant abuse

I think this great news. Barr isn't going to make historic charges against federal agencies w/o being sure his powder is dry

If I may. Lets take a step back for a few minutes and relish where we are right now, and how we felt on Jan 20, 2017.

Impeachment? Bring it on.

quote:

...The impeachment proceedings President Trump now confronts — for a single telephone call to a head of state raising issues entirely appropriate to the functions of his office — are merely another round in the Democrat/media elites' continuous efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.

In short, having utterly failed with their Russia collusion fantasy, the president's enemies have moved on to an entirely ordinary and appropriate telephone call.

The president's defense in the Senate, accordingly, must engage, spotlight, scrutinize and expose the entire course of odious conduct by the president's corrupt attackers, from their first spinning of the Russia collusion hoax,through the latest chapter in their attempted coup.

Everything will be relevant in the Senate trial, and everyone, no exceptions, should be subpoenaed and interrogated under oath. That means Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and the entire gang behind the coup.

That includes Strzok, his girlfriend Lisa Page, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and whatever Deep State apparatchiks lied to the FISA judge to enable a spying operation on the Trump campaign and transition team — a crime without precedent and one that massively outweighs anything that could credibly be alleged against President Trump.

Here is the most important benefit of this broad and aggressive approach to the president's defense: in confronting all those who have ceaselessly sought to reverse the 2016 election, President Trump's legal team this time will have a critical tool thus far denied them: the power to subpoena any and all persons, including all those who were elbow-deep in the Russia collusion hoax. Unlike during the feeble and tedious investigation conducted by the Washington elite's chosen operative, Robert Mueller, every single such person will be sworn and aggressively, publicly interrogated under penalty of perjury, by formidable trial counsel.

I like the way this guy thinks.

https://www.americanthinker.co...l_in_the_senate.html