June 8, 2019
I am quite annoyed with the Dems and Left Stream Media doing
their utmost to convict and/or impeach President Trump for crimes he did not
commit. In that spirit here are some articles that provide a vastly different
picture than the lies disseminated by the Left.
********************
EXCLUSIVE: Another Key Witness
Noted Over 100 Times in Mueller Report, Felix Sater, Is a Clinton and Loretta
Lynch Linked Deep State Spy
By Joe Hoft
June 7, 2019
Felix Sater is a deep state Democrat with ties to the
Clintons and the Mueller gang. He’s mentioned over 100 times in the
Mueller report but not one mention refers to these connections with Deep State
Democrats.
In March, the far left and dishonest Democrat leader Adam
Schiff announced that he had invited Felix Sater to provide a testimony before
Congress. Sater eventually did not testify as Schiff and his party
realized that Sater’s testimony would be detrimental to their Russia-Collusion
sham.
Schiff says on March 14 the House Intelligence Committee will hold a public hearing with Felix Sater, a former business associate of Donald Trump who worked to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow https://t.co/agQqNqP0Q7 pic.twitter.com/pfXSbvWi11— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 28, 2019
A few weeks before
Schiff’s announcement on Sater, far
Left Buzzfeed released another bogus report stating President
Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen was following President Trump’s orders to lie
about an unsupported story on Russia.
Mueller’s team in an attempt to prevent a leak
investigation into its operations came out 24 hours later and said the story
was false.
Now we know that the entire junk report was provided to
Buzzfeed by Clinton and Mueller lackey, Felix Sater.
FELIX SATER, REALLY?— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 1, 2019
House Dems have scheduled him to testify in public on March 14 2019
Prepare for a lot of smoke and mirrors but it will really be yet another nail in the “Collusion” coffin
THREAD pic.twitter.com/hyTC32mXiO
Paul Sperry reported that the individual behind the Buzzfeed
fake news story lying about President Trump was none other than Sater, a deep
state dirt-bag close to the Clintons and Mueller and his gang of crooks:
BREAKING:Buzzfeed's "Deep Throat" source is Felix Sater, the crook-turned-asset/informant groomed by Clinton admin & handled by EDNY Loretta Lynch & Mueller attack dog Weissmann & the Source E of pee tape/other apocrypha for Clinton dossier Mueller using as Russiagate case theory— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) January 25, 2019
Sperry was right. Sater was seen in pictures with Bill
Clinton – (see above). Sater has also been pictured with far left media reporters
pushing the Trump-Russia collusion fairy tale:
Most shocking is Sater’s connections to the Clintons and
the Mueller gang of corrupt and criminal attorneys and investigators.
It was reported that Sater’s
connections began in 1998 [emphasis added]:
Sater pleaded guilty to
racketeering in December 1998. But instead of being sentenced, Sater, like 16
other defendants in the case, signed a cooperation agreement with the US
government, and his entire case file was sealed.
Signing Sater’s cooperation
agreement for the Department of Justice was Andrew Weissmann, then an
assistant US attorney and now a key member of the special counsel’s team.
Mueller himself would be the FBI director for most of the time Sater served as
a source.
The US attorney who oversaw
Sater’s pump-and-dump case was Loretta Lynch, later the attorney general
under President Barack Obama. While the Senate was considering
her confirmation, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked Lynch about how her office handled
Sater’s fraud case. In a written response, she said:
“The defendant in question,
Felix Sater, provided valuable and sensitive information to the government
during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998.
For more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors providing information
crucial to national security and the conviction of over 20 individuals,
including those responsible for committing massive financial fraud and members
of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially sealed.”
To the government, he was no
longer Felix Sater; in public he was referred to as John Doe, while in hundreds
of pages of FBI interview reports, his code name was “The Quarterback.”
None of this stopped the Mueller gang from using Sater as
a material witness in their Russia collusion sham.
In the Mueller report Sater
is mentioned in the text and footnotes more than 100 times! The
Mueller team introduces Sater in the report as a New York based real estate
adviser:
In the late summer of 2015, the
Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project
in Moscow. In approximately September 2015, Felix Sater, a New York based real
estate advisor, contacted Michael Cohen, then-executive vice president of the
Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald J. Trump.
Not once in the Mueller report does the Mueller gang
refer to Sater’s connections with the Clintons, Loretta Lynch or with Andrew
Weissmann, the suspected drafter of the Mueller report.
Today John Sullivan from the Hill released information that
another key witness referred to as a
Russian is not even Russian:
In Mueller’s report, Ukrainian
businessman, Konstantin Kilimnik — the so-called Russian who Paul Manafort
shared internal polling data with (gasp) isn’t a Russian, he’s actually as a
“sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on
Ukrainian and Russian matters, reported Solomon.
It looks like Kilimnik is not the only source the Mueller
team used to frame President Trump!
The entire Clinton-Mueller cabal is coming undone. The
Mueller Report is a joke as more and more lies are unveiled in the Democrats’
attempted coup to remove President Trump from office.
Hat Tip D. Manny
++++++++++++++++
Trump-Russia Hysteria: Oh Look,
Another Glaring Omission In The Mueller Report
By Matt Vespa
Jun 07, 2019 6:10 PM
Bob Mueller Source: AP
Photo/Carolyn Kaster
The House Democrats’ ongoing debate about whether to push
for a full-blown impeachment proceeding may be dominating the news, along with
President Trump’s visit to the UK, but the Mueller report isn’t going away,
especially after more tidbits about the investigation itself are coming to
light. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is gone. His investigation is over. And
yet, we have stories about key witness’s child porn charges being ignored.
The Federalist’s Sean Davis did not mince words. He feels that the Mueller
report that debunked Russian collusion showed that the special counsel and his
team of die-hard Democrats tried to prove that there was such a
conspiracy. For two years, they dug and found nothing. Now, after
being unable to give Democrats the impeachment ammunition the needed, Mueller,
in his exiting presser, all but gave the green light to start such proceedings.
It’s that presser that many saw this whole investigation as nothing more than a
political hit job and a perversion of a basic tenet of our legal system:
innocent until proven guilty. Granted, a lot of us already knew there was no
collusion.
I mean after the 456th bombshell on this story
that had zero evidence to back it up—because there was none—the writing was on
the wall months ago. The liberal media continued to peddle it, however, because
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and the Left is desperate to get rid of the
president. As for the FBI, well, did they even verify the Trump dossier that
was compiled by ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele and used reportedly as credible
evidence to secure
a FISA spy warrant against Carter Page, a former foreign
policy adviser for the Trump campaign? Based on these glaring errors in the
report, don’t bet the mortgage on it.
Also, the State Department knew this document, funded by the Democrats and the
Clinton campaign, was biased political opposition research. John Solomon of The
Hill has been doing excellent work tracking the sordid details of this
investigation. So, while the focus is on the DOJ/FBI for their alleged misdeed
with this investigation, the State Department could be yanked into this storm:
Donald Trump’s campaign, it sat
buried for more than 2 1/2 years in the files of a high-ranking State
Department official.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Kathleen Kavalec’s written account of her Oct. 11, 2016, meeting with FBI
informant Christopher Steele shows the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded British
intelligence operative admitted that his research was political and facing an
Election Day deadline.
And that confession occurred 10
days before the FBI used Steele’s now-discredited dossier to justify securing a
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA warrant to surveil former Trump
campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign’s ties to Russia.
And now we have this omission about a Russian who was
actually a State Department intelligence source, though he’s portrayed as some
nefarious Kremlin operative working with Paul Manafort. Solomon detailed this
“deception by omission” in a lengthy piece (via The Hill) [emphasis mine]:
In a key finding of the Mueller
report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump
campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.
But hundreds of pages of government
documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 —
describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State
Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
Why Mueller’s team omitted that
part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not
known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia
conclusions face increased scrutiny.
[…]
Kilimnik was not just any
run-of-the-mill source, either.
He interacted with the chief
political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times
a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages
back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via
emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.
The FBI knew all of this, well
before the Mueller investigation concluded.
Alan Purcell, the chief political
officer at the Kiev embassy from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that State
officials, including senior embassy officials Alexander Kasanof and Eric
Schultz, deemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset that they kept his name
out of cables for fear he would be compromised by leaks to WikiLeaks.
[...]
Three sources with direct knowledge
of the inner workings of Mueller’s office confirmed to me that the special
prosecutor’s team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well
as Kilimnik’s intelligence reports to the U.S. Embassy, well before they
portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged
Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia
investigation.
Kasanof’s and Purcell’s interviews
are corroborated by scores of State Department emails I reviewed that contain
regular intelligence from Kilimnik on happenings inside the Yanukovych
administration, the Crimea conflict and Ukrainian and Russian politics. For
example, the memos show Kilimnik provided real-time intelligence on everything
from whose star in the administration was rising or falling to efforts at
stuffing ballot boxes in Ukrainian elections.
Those emails raise further doubt
about the Mueller report’s portrayal of Kilimnik as a Russian agent. They
show Kilimnik was allowed to visit the United States twice in 2016 to meet with
State officials, a clear sign he wasn’t flagged in visa databases as a foreign
intelligence threat.
The emails also show how
misleading, by omission, the Mueller report’s public portrayal of Kilimnik turns
out to be.
For instance, the report makes a
big deal about Kilimnik’s meeting with Manafort in August 2016 at the Trump
Tower in New York.
By that time, Manafort had served
as Trump’s campaign chairman for several months but was about to resign because
of a growing controversy about the millions of dollars Manafort accepted as a
foreign lobbyist for Yanukovych’s party.
Specifically, the Mueller report
flagged Kilimnik’s delivery of a peace plan to the Trump campaign for settling
the two-year-old Crimea conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
“Kilimnik requested the meeting to
deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the
Special Counsel’s Office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of
eastern Ukraine,” the Mueller report stated.
But State emails showed Kilimnik
first delivered a version of his peace plan in May 2016 to the Obama
administration during a visit to Washington. Kasanof, his former handler at
the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, had been promoted to a top policy position at
State, and the two met for dinner on May 5, 2016.
[…]
So Kilimnik’s delivery of the
peace plan to the Trump campaign in August 2016 was flagged by Mueller as
potentially nefarious, but its earlier delivery to the Obama administration
wasn’t mentioned. That’s what many in the intelligence world might call
“deception by omission.”
Yeah, sounds like “deception by omission” indeed. I’ll let
you debate among yourselves, but this sounds like another example that the
Mueller team tried to twist the fact in order to prove that Trump-Russia myth
was real. At the same time, while the staff was loaded with liberal Democrats,
I see that as a positive. There was nothing to this investigation and that fact
that only partisan lefties were digging and still found nothing only adds more
credibility to the conclusion: no collusion. There’s no way to pivot away from
this. No wonder why Attorney General Barr is investigating the investigators
who conducted this circus.
+++++++++++++++++++
Judicial Watch: FBI
Docs Show Notes about Meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General
about Clinton Emails are ‘Missing’ and CD Containing Notes Is Likely ‘Damaged’
Irreparably
JW Press Room
JUNE 07, 2019
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced
today that the FBI released 277
pages of redacted records in response to a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show the FBI failed to produce information
from an August 2015 meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about
Hillary Clinton’s email server. The FBI claimed that notes are “missing” and
the CD containing notes from meeting is likely “damaged” irreparably.
The records, which were posted on the FBI’s website, are the
32nd release of documents in response to a Judicial Watch
2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.
1:16-cv-02046). Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after
the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request for:
·
All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.
·
All records of communications between any agent,
employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding,
concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes,
but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee,
or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the
President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign
of Hillary Clinton.
·
All records related to the meeting between
Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.
Included in the documents are February 2019 FBI electronic
communications documenting the damaged CD and the missing
notes from the August 3, 2015, meeting between FBI special agents and the ICIG
about Clinton’s server:
For reference, Special Agents (SAs)
[redacted] have been gathering and copying materials from the captioned case
located in the Washington Field Office (WFO) CI-13 Workbox in response to a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) tasking from Information Management Division
(IMD; formerly known as Records Management Division).
On or about February 6, 2019, SAs
[redacted] opened [redacted]-CYBER-1A27, which contained a CD with a crack on
it (a damaged CD). SA [redacted] attempted to copy the damaged CD at the WFO
Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) self-service area, but was not able to
do so. SA [redacted] spoke with FBI information technology specialists on the
ground floor of WFO regarding the damaged CD, who indicated it was unlikely the
CD could be copied.
The electronic communication regarding the missing “Notes
from Meeting” says:
On or about February 4, 2016,
Special Agents (SAs) [redacted] attempted to locate [redacted] 1A4, described
as “Notes from Meeting” acquired by [redacted] (see referenced serial). The SAs
looked through all case materials in the CI-13 file and workbox area, however
they were not able to locate this item.
SA [redacted] inquired with
Supervisory Intelligence Analyst (SIA) [redacted] regarding the item, as he was
previously the IA assigned to the case. SIA [redacted] contacted [redacted]
regarding the item, who indicated he remembered handing over his case notes to
SA [redacted] (see attached email).
On February 6, 2019, SA [redacted]
contacted SA [redacted] regarding the notes. SA [redacted] explained he
documented all relevant case materials before leaving the case and did not
retain any notes or other case materials.
As such, WFO CI-13 considers the
item missing and will enclose this document into 1A4 as a placeholder until the
missing item is located.
The email referred
to in the electronic communication on the missing “Notes from Meeting” reads as
follows:
From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
CC: [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]
Subject: RE: MYE Serial #??
Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:43:14 AM
To: [Redacted]
CC: [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]
Subject: RE: MYE Serial #??
Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:43:14 AM
I actually remember turning over my
original notes for the file for this (it was right at the beginning of the
case). I gave them to [redacted] who was running the file then. The only
question will be whether or not I kept a copy for myself. I’ll look and see
what I have.
Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said during a
hearing with Strzok that in 2015 ICIG investigator Fred Rucker
advised Strzok of an “anomaly” on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through the
private server. The forensic analysis found that all of those emails except
four – over 30,000 – “were going to an address that was not on the distribution
list.” It was later reported that
it was a “Chinese state-owned company” that hacked Clinton’s server. The ICIG
referred the Clinton email investigation to the FBI on July
6, 2015, just under a month before the meeting for which the notes
were “lost.”
The document production contains emails between
Justin Cooper (the former close aide to Bill Clinton, who helped set up Hillary
Clinton’s email system) and Huma Abedin regarding an attempted breach of the
Clinton email server. On January 9, 2011, Cooper emailed Abedin: “I had to shut
down the server Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i
didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to. I will restart it in the
morning.” Despite Abedin’s having explicitly warned Sullivan and Mills that
Clinton’s unsecure non-government server had been attacked, the documents
contain handwritten
FBI notes of Abedin’s 2016 FBI interview in which she told
agents she didn’t recall any hacking attempts.
“The Obama FBI was frantic to target then-candidate Trump
while magically losing or destroying important evidence in the sham
investigation of Hillary Clinton’s illicit email system,” said Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton. “This new information underscores the need for a fresh,
unbiased investigation into the Clinton email scandal.”
In a related case, Judicial Watch recently obtained documents from
the DOJ showing that on August 5, 2016 – a month after Comey’s exoneration of
Clinton – FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok and Jonathan Moffa were
notified by a FBI assistant general counsel from the national security law
branch that several FBI 302 interview reports were in need of processing:
Today [Redacted] brought over
additional 302s from the WFO [Washington Field Office]. Are those supposed to
go through the redaction process for production to DOJ on Monday? We’re trying
to figure out what needs to be completed this weekend.
Page responded by writing to
Strzok, Moffa and others that four FBI 302 reports of interviews related to the
Clinton “Midyear
Exam” investigation had never even been written:
[Redacted] to the best of my
knowledge, yes they will when Pete identified for [redacted] the DOJ edits that
needed to be made to the 302s [redacted] discovered that there were four (I
think) 302s that had never been written. What I don’t know is whose 302s they
are but unless Pete or Jon are able to respond in short order, I would throw
them on the pile for redactions. Thanks so much.
Additionally, Judicial Watch recently filed a
lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence for details of a meeting with the FBI regarding national security
threats associated with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “private”
email system.
+++++++++++++++++
“The Supreme Court will nix a House Impeachment”
June 7, 2019
President Donald Trump can and will successfully apply to
the Supreme Court the moment the US House of Representatives passes any
Impeachment resolution, if that occurs. Legal luminaries such as Professor Alan
Dershowitz wrote an article positively treating President Trump’s Supreme Court
Impeachment claims. Other constitutional scholars and articles have
hysterically panned President Trump’s likely Supreme Court Gambit.
Both sides have referenced the 1993 impeachment case of
“Nixon v. US” as their legal authority. No, not that “Nixon” as in President
Richard M. Nixon of Watergate fame, but one Walter L. Nixon, Jr. a disgraced
Federal judge who was actually convicted by a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt”
of two separate counts of making false statements before a federal Grand Jury,
and actually sentenced to prison.
Walter Nixon refused to “resign” his federal judgeship, and
was collecting a federal judicial salary in prison. So, the government had to
“impeach” him to stop his federal paycheck. The Judge Nixon Supreme Court
majority’s legal reasoning is actually the very legal basis for President
Trump’s applying to the Supreme Court, and defeating his Impeachment: not on
the House “procedures” of Impeachment, but on the substance of the
constitutional term of art “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The Nixon v. US case involved claims by the then-Judge Nixon
that the Senate’s impeachment “procedures” were somehow infirm, and therefore,
the Senate’s finding him guilty of impeachment was infirm. The specific details
of Judge Nixon’s claims about the Senate’s procedures aren’t really important
for purposes of this article. What is important is that Judge Nixon only
claimed the Senate’s impeachment procedures were infirm, not that the substance
of the charges against him were somehow not “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Since, Judge Nixon was actually found guilty by a federal jury that he was
“beyond a reasonable doubt” guilty of making false statements to a Federal
Grand Jury, Judge Nixon’s actually adjudicated felony crimes clearly hurdled
the definitional constitutional requirement of “high crimes.”
In President Trump’s case, President Trump will not seek the
Supreme Court’s adjudication of a veto over the House’s impeachment procedures.
Rather, President Trump will attack the likely legally lightweight factually
alleged claims as not raising to the substantive level of “high crimes and
misdemeanors.”
And it is on the turn of the very question of Impeachment
“procedure” as opposed to Impeachment “substance” that the Supreme Court, based
on Nixon v US, will find the definitional substance of “high crimes and
misdemeanors” “justiciable” and rule for President Trump, and void a House
impeachment.
To understand the coming Trump v. House-based legal
arguments better, one has to look a little deeper at the actual US Constitution
itself. The key aspect of the US Constitution itself that will be determinative
for a Trump v. House Supreme Court determination is not the Impeachment
procedures that are empowered to the Congress in Article 1, or the “Legislative
Article” of the Constitution.
But rather President Trump will challenge the House under
the constitutional Impeachment definitional substance of “high crimes and
misdemeanors” found in Article 2, or the “Executive Article” of the US
Constitution. As we will see, this Legislative Article 1 versus Executive
Article 2 distinction will be determinative in the Supreme Court’s ultimate
finding for President Trump.
In Nixon v. US, Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for the
majority stated the legal standard for the Nixon v US decision as:
“A controversy is nonjusticiable—i. e., involves a political
question—where there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of
the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially
discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it . . . .” Baker v. Carr,
369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962).” Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224, at 228 (1993)
This sounds complicated, but it isn’t. It means to be a too
hot potato “political question” for the Supreme Court to rule on, the issue has
to be either
1) One where the US Constitution specifically relegates the
issue at issue as one solely of one of the three branches of government, or,
2) One where the claimed constitutional issue is susceptible
to meaningful legal interpretation. President Trump will satisfy both of these
Nixon “political question” prongs, and will defeat the House on its impeachment
definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
On the first Nixon “solely one branch” constitutional prong,
unlike Nixon v US, where Judge Nixon solely raised a question on just the text
of an Article 1 “Legislative” Article procedural constitutional infirmity,
President Trump will be raising an Article 2, “Executive” Article substance
constitutional infirmity of the House definition of the Article 2 “high crimes
and misdemeanors.”
By the very definition of President Trump’s claim, the
Supreme Court will have to look outside of the text and constitutional
authority of the Legislative Article 1, and into the heart of the powers and
obligations of the Executive Article 2.
Therefore, by definition, President Trump’s case “textually
demonstrates” it is not solely a Legislatively based Article 1 issue, but
really an Article 2 Executive question. Therefore, President Trump will not
satisfy the first Nixon prong for being characterized as a “political
question.”
On the second Nixon “judicially discoverable” constitutional
prong, President Trump will receive help from a very unlikely source: the
Democrat majority House Judiciary Committee of 1974. The Democratic House
Judiciary Impeachment Report of 1974, issued in the wake of the Nixon Watergate
scandal, was issued under the Democrat Chairman Peter Rodino, Jr. and entered
into the record by the Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California. The report stated
that:
“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art,’ like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’
“The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed,
not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when
they adopted them,” Chief Justice Marshall wrote of another such phrase:
“It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of
that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum
of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the
framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those
from whom we borrowed it.57”
Therefore, the Democrat House Judiciary is on record as
stating that “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a “term of art”, and hence, is
completely susceptible to “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
resolving” its meaning. And secondly, the Supreme Court has already ruled on
similar questions because, “The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must
be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers
meant when they adopted them.” Hence, the House Committee has stated that the
Supreme Court “must” construe legal “terms of art” found in the US
Constitution. Thirdly, they specifically cite Chief Justice Marshall for
finding that a constitutional “term of art” “judicially discoverable” and
capable of “manageable standards.”
In conclusion, President Trump has only begun to fight, and
fight he will. Be prepared for many other legal claims that will throw the
House Democrats into hysteria and will surely win President Trump a second
term.
Author: Mark
Langfan is Chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI). He
specializes in security issues, and has created an original, educational 3D
Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the
dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by U.S.
lawmakers and can be seen at www.MarkLangfan.com.
___________________
EXCLUSIVE: Another Key Witness Noted Over 100 Times in
Mueller Report, Felix Sater, Is a Clinton and Loretta Lynch Linked Deep State
Spy
___________________
Trump-Russia Hysteria: Oh Look, Another Glaring Omission
In The Mueller Report
Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news
and political commentary and analysis.
___________________
Judicial Watch: FBI Docs Show Notes about
Meeting with Intelligence Community Inspector General about Clinton Emails are
‘Missing’ and CD Containing Notes Is Likely ‘Damaged’ Irreparably
_________________
“The Supreme Court will nix a House Impeachment”
