‘Abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of Congress’ are not high crimes or misdemeanors, bribery or treason:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/12/abuse-of-power-and-obstruction-of-congress-are-not-high-crimes-or-misdemeanors-bribery-or-treason/

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That is Article II, Section 4 of the Federal Constitution, outlining what a case for impeachment is supposed to consist of, namely, crimes. Therefore, without a crime there cannot be an impeachment. And yet, that is precisely the Articles of Impeachment House Democrats have now put to the floor of the House of Representatives, outlining vague charges of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” Neither of these are crimes, articulable under a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. They can be found nowhere in the criminal code. They are not bribery. And they are not treason. Gerald Ford once famously argued that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers them to be at a moment in history.” And yet that is not what the framers had in mind at all. In fact, they anticipated that after being removed from office for a crime (and only a crime), that the removed President would then face prosecution. In the Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote on the impeachment provision, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Meaning if it is not conduct that would punishable by law, then it cannot be punishable by impeachment, constitutionally. What do you think?

The FBI knew Carter Page was a CIA agent reporting on Russians in Aug. 2016, but hid it from the FISA court to get spying warrant on Trump:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/12/the-fbi-knew-carter-page-was-a-cia-agent-reporting-on-russians-in-aug-2016-but-hid-it-from-the-fisa-court-to-get-spying-warrant-on-trump/

Former Trump foreign policy campaign advisor Carter Page was a U.S. agent who reported on Russians to the CIA, not a Russian agent, a memorandum the FBI received as early as Aug. 2016 shows according to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report detailing abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) including spying on the Trump campaign in 2016. But the Crossfire Hurricane team investigating the Trump campaign on false allegations they were Russian agents kept the extent of that relationship hidden from Department leadership and the FISA Court and instead used Page’s Russian contacts — that were for the purpose of gathering U.S. intelligence — as evidence that he was a Russian agent. More than anything, it was Page’s contacts with Russians, including a trip to Moscow in the summer of 2016 to deliver a commencement address at the New Economic School, that enabled the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016 to go forward that might have otherwise never been approved. How could such a key fact be omitted when applying for government surveillance on allegations of treason?

The FBI did not interview sources of Steele dossier that falsely accused Trump of being a Russian agent until Jan. 2017, after FISA warrant was renewed:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/12/the-fbi-did-not-interview-sources-of-steele-dossier-that-falsely-accused-trump-of-being-a-russian-agent-until-jan-2017-after-fisa-warrant-was-renewed/

The FBI did not begin the process of validating information from former British spy Christopher Steele that was used as the basis for false Justice Department and intelligence agency allegations that President Donald Trump and his campaign were Russian agents until Jan. 2017 when it began interviewing Steele’s sources, months after spying warrants had already been obtained on the campaign and renewed after the election. And yet, per Horowitz, the FBI’s “receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.” Without Steele, they had nothing. And without his sources, he had nothing. But here’s the real kicker. Even with all of these discrepancies and contradictions, that if known at the time might have stopped the spying dead in its tracks and meant there was no FISA application, Horowitz remarkably finds that the FISA applications were all allowable under the law. Hearsay is allowed. Political gossip is allowed. They might as well use rubber stamps. Probable cause is whatever the agents and their supervisors believe it is. Meaning the problem is FISA itself and the weak standards of evidence used to obtain top secret surveillance on American citizens. What do you think?

Pelosi and Schiff conduct warrantless surveillance on Nunes, Solomon, Sekulow and Giuliani:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/12/pelosi-and-schiff-conduct-warrantless-surveillance-on-devin-nunes-john-solomon-jay-sekulow-and-rudy-giuliani/

It appears that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) managed to get AT&T and Verizon to cooperate with a Congressional subpoena to provide phone records of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the committee for Republicans, and journalist John Solomon. And since the phone carriers are the keepers of the records, so the thinking goes, they can waive the rights to those records. Or can they? 18 U.S.C. Section 1039(b)(1) states very clearly that phone carriers can only turn over records with a customer’s permission: “Except as otherwise permitted by applicable law, whoever, in interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly and intentionally sells or transfers, or attempts to sell or transfer, confidential phone records information of a covered entity, without prior authorization from the customer to whom such confidential phone records information relates, or knowing or having reason to know such information was obtained fraudulently, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” There is an exception to that, under 18 U.S.C. Section 1039(g), but it applies only to the executive branch: “This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.” Nowhere in the statute does it mention Congress as being one of the exempted bodies—and Congress ought to have known—it wrote the law. Did Schiff break the law?

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning discusses Congressional plans to reform failing multiemployer pension plans, and the need for structural reforms as a cost of any federal intervention.

Was spying on the Trump campaign in 2016 adequately predicated? That’s for Attorney General Barr to decide.
http://dailytorch.com/2019/12/was-spying-on-the-trump-campaign-in-2016-adequately-predicated-thats-for-attorney-general-barr-to-decide/

There were tons of red flags that could have and should have been raised about the DNC-funded Steele dossier and the false allegations against President Donald Trump and his campaign that they were Russian agents, which was ultimately debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. And yet, perhaps the worst possible outcome now would be a self-serving conclusion from the inspector general is that FISA was not violated, and that the investigation was well-grounded, even though the allegations into Trump were made up by his political opponents, was based on false information and produced nothing. That would mean that it is the law itself that is broken. On the other hand, we know that in October that the investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham has been expanded into a criminal probe. So, there’s a contradiction, and perhaps a disagreement within the Justice Department over the conduct by the Obama administration in its last few months, when it obtained court-ordered spying on the Trump campaign, the opposition party, in an election year. That is why, here, the inspector general’s opinion is interesting, but not the final word on this question. It is the Attorney General ultimately who will make the determination. Were laws broken or not? If this spying based on false allegations was not prohibited by FISA, it needs to be, or else FISA shouldn’t be reauthorized. If nobody goes to jail for putting the country through this nightmare, it will happen again. What do you think?

Machiavelli and Hamilton both predicted the administrative state coup against President Trump:

http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/machiavelli-and-hamilton-both-predicted-the-administrative-state-coup-against-president-trump/

When President Donald Trump began running for President in 2015, little did he or the nation know (although Niccolo Machiavelli and Alexander Hamilton might not have been surprised) that Trump was about to be elected and that he would have to contend with unprecedented sabotage by the administrative state — via intelligence agencies and the Justice Department — that sought to falsely frame he and his campaign as Russian agents even though it was not true with little to no oversight by the either the elected Congress or President, and then afterward sought to remove him when he did not pursue the policies they liked. Both Machiavelli and Hamilton had warnings that excessive factionalization of the executive are dangerous to a nation and, lasting too long ,can lead to corruption of the civil society as a whole and loss of liberty. Now that it is upon us, the question is what is to be done about it?

John Bolton believes presidents can rescind treaties without the Senate, but objected to President Donald Trump pausing military aid to Ukraine, a non-treaty partner:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/john-bolton-believes-presidents-can-rescind-treaties-without-the-senate-but-objected-to-president-donald-trump-pausing-military-aid-to-ukraine-a-non-treaty-partner/

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton has a long history of encouraging presidents to terminate treaties without going to the Senate for approval under the President’s inherent powers to conduct foreign affairs under Article II of the Constitution, vesting of executive power solely in the President. But he took issue with President Donald Trump briefly pausing and reviewing military and other foreign assistance to Ukraine on the grounds the President lacked legal authority. The funding included $250 million in military assistance and another $141 million in other foreign aid via the State Department to Ukraine. According to a Nov. 9 report from Bloomberg.com: “shortly before Sept. 9, Bolton had relayed a message to the State Department that the funding could go ahead. It’s not clear whether Bolton, who resigned from the job a week later, did so with Trump’s approval. Bolton’s handling of the funding struck officials in the White House as violating protocol and caught Mulvaney by surprise, according to another person familiar with the matter.” Did the President approve the transfer? When it comes to the execution of foreign affairs powers, employees of the executive branch must act in accordance with the President’s policies, or else it is they, and not the President, who are the ones acting above the supreme law of the land, the Constitution’s Article II vesting of executive power in the President. What do you think?

Justice Dept. Inspector General report on FISA abuse against the Trump campaign will include criminal violations by Obama administration:
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/justice-dept-inspector-general-report-on-fisa-abuse-against-the-trump-campaign-will-include-criminal-violations-by-obama-administration/

The worst possible outcome of the spygate scandal, where the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, the opposition party, in an election year on false charges they were Russian agents, would be that no laws were broken, and thus there won’t be any criminal accountability. Because it would mean the law designed to prevent this sort of abuse is toothless. But laws were broken. In October we learned that the investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham had been expanded into a criminal probe. Now CNN has reported on Nov. 21 that there is at least one criminal referral coming from the Horowitz report: “An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN… The finding is expected to be part of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the FBI’s effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.” Are we finally about to see justice?

Sondland: ‘No one told me directly that the aid [to Ukraine] was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.’
http://dailytorch.com/2019/11/sondland-no-one-told-me-directly-that-the-aid-to-ukraine-was-tied-to-anything-i-was-presuming-it-was/

“No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.” That was U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 20, destroying the concept that $250 million of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine was ever being leveraged by President Donald Trump in exchange for investigations being pursued by Ukraine against Burisma Holdings. Sondland had previously testified on Nov. 4 that he “presumed” military assistance to Ukraine was “likely” being conditioned by the administration when he spoke to a Ukrainian presidential aide on Sept. 1, but that he “did not know… when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended…” So why is there an impeachment inquiry into conditioning military aid to Ukraine on investigations?