Boxing Day Russiagate

Even the day after Christmas, the usual suspects are still at work. Sundance from CTH has an interesting (and slightly contradictory) pair of posts; first, Understanding Why There’s No FBI Whistleblowers Outlining Institutional Corruption…. (the quick answer is that "There’s no-one for them to blow the whistle to…", followed by Against all Odds – Three FBI Officials Quietly Working to Reveal the Truth…. I recall a long time ago, John Solomon said that a couple, maybe three FBI agents came to him, and told him he was on the right track, and to keep digging, too. He's being widely reviled on the left for it too; I just googled his name and the first link was to a Media Matters article naming him the misinformer of the year. A high honor, indeed.

Sundance also has Source Identified – IG FISA Report Identifies One Confidential Human Source Leading to Audit of FBI Activity… He's claiming that Patrick Byrne, the controversial former CEO of Overstock, who claims to have directed Maria Butina to target Trump officials at the behest of FBI officials, maybe even Peter Strzok, was the trigger for IG Horowitz' special report on the misuse of confidential humans sources that arose from his investigation into the origins of the FBI probe into alleged (and never demonstrated) collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

A Twitter thread unrolled, IG Horowitz: “No Political Bias.” Riiiiiight and Robert Curry at AmGreat thinks Michael Horowitz Conned the American Public I think that's an overstatement. Michael Horowitz can't see what's in people hearts, only on their paper work and text. It only takes rudimentary intelligence not to leave a paper trail ala Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Kevin Clinesmith.

And speaking of Kevin Clinesmith, the FISA Court Has Not Ordered FBI to Check FISA Applications Beyond One Lawyer. The Horowitz report has even the FISA court in CYA mode (Breitbart). Don't turn on the lights, 'cause we don't want to see!

Streiff at Red State is rounding out the year with a Look at All the Media Figures Who Lied to Us About the Carter Page FISA Warrants and the Steele Dossier and at the Epoch Times Ivan Pentchoukov has Year in Review: 20 Notable Spygate Developments of 2019. A fair list. ET is trying to go pay, so if you've used your monthly views, switch to a browser you rarely use.

On the shampeachment front, Mitch tells Nancy You Keep Holding on to Impeachment Papers and I’ll Keep Confirming Judges (Sister Toldjah, Redstate). William Gensert at AmThink doesn't think much of Pelosi's Ploy either, as even Democrats Debate Whether Trump Has Been Impeached (the Dersh from Gatestone Institute).

My own view is that in the public eye, President Trump has been impeached by a partisan vote and he is now entitled to be acquitted, even if the Senate vote is as partisan as the House vote. The partisans who voted his impeachment along party lines in the House, have no principled argument against a party-line acquittal. The Democrats devised the partisan rules of engagement in the House. They can't suddenly demand a change in those rules because they are a minority in the Senate.

So there are only two constitutionally viable alternatives: either Pelosi must announce that Trump has not been impeached; or the Senate must initiate a trial. Preserving the status quo indefinitely — Trump remaining impeached without having a trial —is unconstitutional and should not be tolerated by the American people.

And from DaWire, Dershowitz Meets Trump At Christmas Dinner, Fueling Speculation Of Joining Trump’s Legal Team. And, via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 12.25.19, Weasel Zippers: Dershowitz Says Senate Doesn’t Need to Wait On House Before Doing Impeachment Trial. Another Law Prof thinks No Need for a Trial in the Senate, Articles of Impeachment ‘On Their Face Are Defective’

Blakeman argues the articles are on their face defective and a trial is unnecessary.

In my opinion, a trial is unnecessary. The House articles, on their face, are defective. Both fail to meet the constitutional threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This would negate a trial but does not give the president any formal “acquittal,” after a trial on the merits of the articles, which would prove the president’s innocence. While this would be true in a traditional criminal judicial proceeding, it is not the case in a political trial. No matter how the Senate deals with the articles of impeachment, Democrats and Republicans will put their own political spin on the outcome. Since the House articles of impeachment were voted strictly on party lines, and the country is so divided on the whole impeachment process, in my opinion, a trial is less important.

He suggests the avenue that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appears to be pushing, shut it down immediately then go after everyone in separate Senate Judiciary investigation.

I believe the Senate can have its cake and eat it too. The Senate can dismiss the articles of impeachment on a procedural motion. Then, when the dust settles, the Senate Judiciary Committee through its chairman, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), could hold hearings to show what a “witch-hunt” the House process was. He can, in effect, conduct his own trial to “acquit” the president through Senate hearings. This would allow hearings to be conducted at the exact time that Democrats are seeking their party’s nomination for president — one of whom could be called to testify.

And from Katie Pavlich at Town Hall, Gowdy: Pelosi Has No Constitutional Authority to Dictate the Rules of a Senate Impeachment Trial, which won't prevent her from trying. Politics is what you can get away with.

Twitchy has fever dreams, Straightforward from here! Vox sounds pretty convinced that impeachment could ultimately lead to President Nancy Pelosi

If Trump is removed from office, Mike Pence would become the next president.

But according to the Presidential Succession Act, if he and Trump both go down simultaneously, @SpeakerPelosi is next in line.

Read more: https://t.co/rMj1YPtrwJ pic.twitter.com/EY7XCHaWVD

— Vox (@voxdotcom) December 24, 2019

You think Senate Republicans will go along with that? Even if Lisa Murkowski ‘Disturbed’ by ‘Total Coordination’ Vow between McConnell, Trump on Impeachment (Breitbart), they aren't going to hand the keys to Nancy. From atop Da Hill, Senators seek to weaponize Clinton trial in Trump impeachment. Hypocrisy from Senators? Why, I never would have suspected that!

From LI, Merry Christmas, Donald! Democrats’ Christmas “Gift” for Trump: A Scarlet “I” for “Impeached”. Lots of opportunity for ugly sweaters to be made.

If public humiliation is indeed a large part of the impetus behind the drive to vote to impeach Trump, so far most of the public doesn’t appear to be seeing it as much of a humiliation for him. Perhaps the left thinks that if they say often enough that Trump is wearing a badge of shame as a result of their impeachment vote, it will come true. Meanwhile, impeachment will have to serve as a sort of revenge fantasy for them.

At AmSpec, E Donald Elliott takes a stand against  Against Impeachment for Thought Crimes
"Why the Senate should dismiss rather than acquit." But, Orange Man Bad!