Archive for the ‘Devin Nunes’ Category

The Democrats have 2 major difficulties staring right at them. The first difficulty is their unwillingness to fight for the witnesses that they now insist are essential to a fair trial. Why didn’t Mssrs. Schiff and Nadler file a lawsuit to compel John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney to testify?

Please don’t tell us that it would’ve taken too much time. That excuse is forever discredited thanks to Emperor Pelosi withholding the Articles of Impeachment for a month. Most likely, they didn’t file that lawsuit because they knew that the court would rule against them. The court likely would’ve ruled that both people were covered by executive privilege.

The other difficulty Democrats have is explaining why they haven’t released all of the depositions from the Impeachment Committee hearings. The only deposition that hasn’t been released is Michael Atkinson’s testimony. Atkinson is the ICIG. He’s the guy that gave us the whistleblower. He’s also under investigation, according to Devin Nunes.

The Democrats’ other crisis is their unwillingness to let any Republican-called witnesses testify. What exculpatory evidence was hidden as a direct result of that decision? In the House Judiciary Committee mark-up hearing, Chairman Nadler refused to provide for a minority witness hearing, as required by House rules. When asked why he didn’t let Republicans call witnesses, Chairman Nadler said that they weren’t relevant.

One of the witnesses that Republicans wanted to call is the faux whistle-blower. Democrats insist he must remain anonymous. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says he can’t. The Constitution wins those fights.

What are Democrats hiding? Are Democrats trying to hide exculpatory evidence? They haven’t released the transcript of their behind-closed-doors deposition of ICIG Michael Atkinson. According to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Devin Nunes, Atkinson “is under active investigation.”

(Atkinson) is under active investigation. I’m not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don’t want that transcript out because it’s very damaging, Rep. Nunes said.

According to Sara Carter’s reporting, “Republican lawmakers asked Atkinson to explain who revised the complaint and for what reason.”

“And nobody in the media is calling for it,” [Ranking Member Nunes] told The Sara Carter Show. “You’d think they would be, but you know I’ve talked about it on television, John Ratcliffe’s talked about it on television. There’s very few of us that actually know what’s in the transcript, but, yeah, it’s a major problem.”

Atkinson is certainly relevant to this impeachment trial because he’s the person who helped the whistle-blower file his complaint. What are Democrats hiding in Atkinson’s deposition transcript? It must be something important. Inspectors general don’t get investigated over trivial things.

John Ratcliffe articulated the argument beautifully in this interview:

Everything you need to know about the House Democrats’ reply is found in the size of the Democrats’ response. While President Trump’s legal team’s first filing was 7 pages, the Democrats’ first filing is 111 pages. The Trump filing is sharp, concise and filled with substance. The Democrats’ filing appears to take a throw-the-spaghetti-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.

The first lie contained in the filing states “During a July 25, 2019 phone call, after President Zelensky expressed gratitude to President Trump for American military assistance, President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to ‘do us a favor though.’ The ‘favor’ he sought was for Ukraine to publicly announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political prospects.” This isn’t the first time that Democrats have used this lie. What was actually said is this:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. 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 weal thy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation … I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

It’s frightening that the Democrats said that President Trump called for an investigation into Joe Biden as a personal favor. That transcript is proof that Joe Biden’s name isn’t found anywhere in that paragraph. This isn’t a spin piece in Rolling Stone Magazine. This is a brief filed in the impeachment trial of President Trump. That dishonesty is enough to discredit the Democrats’ impeachment managers. Here’s another lie from the Democrats’ filing:

The second investigation concerned a debunked conspiracy theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 Presidential election to aid President Trump, but instead that Ukraine interfered in that election to aid President Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Chairman Schiff tried slipping that lie into the record during the open committee hearing. Devin Nunes slapped that down immediately, noting that the Intel Committee had put out a major report telling how the Russians had interfered in the 2016 election. Then Nunes stated that, in addition to the Russians interfering with the 2016 election, Ukraine tried interfering in that election, too:

In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country’s president to help.

In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly’s office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.

That’s the definition of interference. This isn’t some obscure fact that was uncovered by months of interviews and digging. It’s something that took less than a minute to uncover with a google search.

There’s an old saying that’s often attributed to Abraham Lincoln that’s applicable here. Lincoln supposedly said “If you want me to talk for an hour, give me 5 minutes. If you want me to talk for 5 minutes, give me an hour to prepare.” The principle is that it doesn’t take much preparation to talk for hours. If you wanted something concise, though, you’d need time to deliver maximum impact.

Apparently, it doesn’t take much time to put together the BS that the Democrats included in this filing.

For those who haven’t figured this out, Devin Nunes is tenacious. He’s the House Intel Committee’s pit bull. If he sinks his teeth into a subject, he’ll get to the bottom of that subject. Right now, Rep. Nunes has ripped a chunk off of Michael Atkinson’s flesh. FYI- Atkinson is the inspector general for the Intelligence Community.

Appearing on The Ingraham Angle last night, Rep. Nunes told her “From the time that the whistleblower first came forward, to the IG, where the forms didn’t match, it wasn’t urgent, didn’t have any firsthand knowledge, the form later changed, then it was backdated, … then we had to hear from the whistleblower and then we didn’t have to hear from the whistleblower.”

That sounds more than suspicious. First, how do you insist that it’s urgent to protect this CIA snitch because he’s got hearsay evidence? That’s what Atkinson said that the whistleblower’s complaint contained “allegations of ‘urgent concern,’ and should ‘be shared with lawmakers.'”

Since when has third-hand hearsay testimony been thought of as an “urgent concern”? That might be of urgent concern to a Page Six gossip writer but it’s trash to a watchdog for the intelligence community of the United States. Devin Nunes explains why he’s digging into this issue in this interview:

“You have to either believe he is in on it or he is incompetent,” he said, adding Atkinson’s October 2019 response letter could be characterized as him being indeed “incompetent.” “If he’s incompetent … we need to have evidence of your incompetence. … We are not going to take your word for it that, ‘Oh, we made a mistake’,” he added.

There’s no reason to think that IG Atkinson isn’t corrupted. Why would so many changes get made to the complaint? Why would they change forms, then backdate one set of forms?

It’s worth mentioning that Rep. Nunes has a sterling reputation within the intelligence community, especially after the Horowitz Report vindicated Rep Nunes. Amongst House Democrats and the Democrats’ MSM protectorate, he’s vilified. People that deal with facts and verifiable proof respect Mr. Nunes.

Now that Rep. Nunes has started investigating Mr. Atkinson, the Democrats have a new headache to deal with. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

Adam Schiff finally got what he wanted. House Democrats finally impeached President Trump. The fact that President Trump is the first president impeached without committing a crime isn’t important to Schiff. The fact that he was impeached with just hearsay testimony and a purely partisan vote is immaterial to Schiff, too.

What Schiff wanted was President Trump impeached. If Chuck Todd had told him that the only way to impeach President Trump was for Schiff to admit that he’d met space aliens, Schiff would’ve done that without hesitating. This award isn’t an honor in the traditional sense. It’s simply admitting that Adam Schiff figured into many of 2019’s biggest stories.

The bad news for Chairman Schiff is that his ‘contributions’ to this year’s biggest stories weren’t positive contributions. Chairman Schiff’s contribution to President Trump’s impeachment was historic but it wasn’t positive. Making up the things that Chairman Schiff accused President Trump of saying to President Zelenskiy is, in my opinion, the lowest moment in the history of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, chairmen. That ‘honor’ comes with an asterisk in that it’s the worst thing that’s happened during a hearing.

Another ‘contribution’ that Chairman Schiff made was in the Horowitz Report. Specifically, the darkest contribution by the HPSCI chairman has made is what’s said by Rep. Devin Nunes:

“After publishing false conclusions of such enormity on a topic directly within this committee’s oversight responsibilities, it is clear you are in need of rehabilitation, and I hope this letter will serve as the first step in that vital process,” Nunes wrote to Schiff on Sunday.

“As part of your rehabilitation,” Nunes added, “it’s crucial that you admit you have a problem – you are hijacking the Intelligence Committee for political purposes while excusing and covering up intelligence agency abuses.”

Schiff is the first chairman of the HPSCI to be recommended to seek “rehabilitation” and to admit he’s got a problem. This happened after the Horowitz Report said that the Nunes Memo got pretty much everything right about the FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page. The Schiff Memo, meanwhile, contradicted pretty much everything in the Nunes Memo. Here’s the claims made in the Schiff Memo:

  1. FBI and Justice Department officials did not omit material information from the FISA warrant.
  2. The Justice Department ‘made only narrow use of information’ from former British spy Christopher Steele’s discredited anti-Trump dossier to obtain the warrant on Mr. Page.
  3. In subsequent FISA renewals of the wiretap warrant, DOJ provided additional information that corroborated Mr. Steele’s reporting.
  4. The Page FISA warrant allowed the FBI to collect ‘valuable intelligence.’
  5. ‘Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, as the [the GOP-Majority] claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias.’
  6. The FBI conducted a ‘rigorous process’ to vet Steele’s allegations and the FISA application to wiretap Mr. Page explained the FBI’s reasonable basis for finding Steele credible.
  7. Steele’s prior reporting was used in criminal proceedings.

It isn’t just anybody who can get excoriated in an official government investigation. What’s more is the fact that this same politician got excoriated for needing to seek rehabilitation to fix his frequent prevarications:

For his lack on honesty, Adam Schiff is this year’s Man of the Year.

Never have so many been this wrong this often as this year. This was a difficult year for Democrats, especially the institutions that support them. Let’s start with the most obvious perpetrators. The Agenda Media, aka the MSM, had the worst year in their history. If they had played a drinking game with their most-used words, they would’ve been sloppy drunk from Mid-February onward. Pundits like Carl Bernstein, John Brennan, Don Lemon, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Mika Brzezinski, Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson, Juan Williams and others still wouldn’t be sober.

Similarly, if people got paid $50 each time a pundit used words of phrases like the walls are closing in, worse than Watergate, Russian collusion, constitutional crisis, existential threat or obstruction of justice, they’d be wealthy. Additionally, imagine the money we could’ve made just this month on the phrases national security, violated his oath, this isn’t about politics; it’s about patriotism or this is a solemn moment for our country.

Democrats have hit a new high for hitting lows. Never before has a president been impeached without committing a crime. Never before has a president been impeached with prosecutors introducing just hearsay evidence. Never before has a president been impeached without the president’s legal team being able to call a single witness.

Nixon’s legal team got to call witnesses to present a defense. Clinton’s legal team got to call witnesses to present a defense. President Trump’s team wasn’t allowed to call witnesses or present a defense.

In February, 2018, then-Chairman Devin Nunes issued a memo about FISA abuse that he’d discovered. The DC media immediately criticized Chairman Nunes for being President Trump’s shill on Capitol Hill. Shortly thereafter, Adam Schiff published a memo that insisted that Chairman Nunes’ memo got everything wrong. This year, Michael Horowitz, the DOJ IG, published the Horowitz Report. The Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9. Horowitz testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11.

One thing that the Horowitz Report clarified was that then-Chairman Nunes got virtually everything right in his published memo. Another thing that IG Horowitz’s report stated was that Chairman Schiff got virtually every major statement wrong. Further, the media still hasn’t admitted that Nunes got it right. Finally, they’ll never admit that Nunes isn’t President Trump’s shill.

The great news is that President Trump has rendered the MSM impotent. The MSM used to tell the people that they were stupid. Enter President Trump. Suddenly, President Trump is telling Jim Acosta that he’s “a rude, terrible person”:

Saying that the MSM underperformed is like saying that Adam Schiff isn’t trustworthy. The reaction from the masses is, putting it gently, predictable.

Though President Trump just got impeached by a bunch of vitriol-filled House Democrats, there’s lots for Republicans to be thankful for. Because Republicans dealt with adversity after adversity after adversity, starting with President Trump, and because Republicans learned from him month-by-month, Republicans end the year stronger than they started the year.

First, this goes far beyond RNC fundraising and Trump rallies, though those are certainly signs of GOP vitality. Anyone who’s watched Nancy Pelosi’s post-impeachment press conference or any of Joe Biden’s debate performances couldn’t possibly mistake them for the vitality displayed at a Trump rally. How can you watch this video, then think that Speaker Pelosi is well?

Here’s the transcript:

We are, we have, I have… When we bring the bill, which is just so you know, there’s a bill made in order by the Rules Committee that we can call up at any time in order to send it to the Senate and to have the provisions in it to pay for the, for the impeachment. And then the next step, and the eh, que, uh… uhl … … whatever you want to call it, the qu uh, the trial.

But I digress from the topic at hand. The topic at hand is how strengthened Republicans are. Throughout the year and before, Republicans rose up and fought back. During the Kavanaugh fight, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins stepped forward. They became leaders. Thanks to their leadership, Judge Kavanaugh got confirmed and became Justice Kavanaugh.

A year prior to the release of the Mueller Report, Devin Nunes questioned the validity of the opening of the counterintelligence investigation. Shortly thereafter, Adam Schiff put out his own report that essentially said that everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. When the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019, the Nunes Memo was totally vindicated while the Schiff Memo was rendered total trash. The fight between then-Chairman Nunes and current Chairman Schiff is over. Schiff lost in a trouncing.

As for the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats outnumbered Republicans. This committee provides additional proof that quality is more important than quantity. Justice is chaired by Jerry Nadler, where his chief ‘assistants’ are Zoe Lofgren, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hakeem Jefferies and Eric Swalwell. Meanwhile, Doug Collins could call on talented people like John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, Ken Buck, Matt Gaetz and Tom McClintock.

Much needs to be said in praise of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. They both showed leadership at the most important times. Sen. McConnell helped confirm dozens of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. Most recently, Sen. McConnell totally obliterated Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff. To be fair, though, Devin Nunes pretty much softened Schiff prior to Sen. McConnell finishing Schiff off. Here’s how Sen. McConnell addressed Article 2 of impeachment:

“What it really does is impeach the president for asserting executive privilege, a two-century-old constitutional tradition.” Presidents beginning with Washington have invoked it and courts repeatedly have recognized it. The House requested extraordinarily sensitive information—exactly the type of requests against which presidents from both parties have asserted privilege.

“It’s not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up,” McConnell said. “That’s not a constitutional crisis! It’s a routine occurrence. Separation of powers is messy—by design. Here’s what should have happened — either the president and Congress negotiate a settlement or the third branch of government, the judiciary, addresses the dispute between the other two.”

During the Nixon impeachment inquiry, it was discovered that President Nixon told the FBI that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters. That’s a legitimate constitutional crisis. It isn’t an impeachable offense when a president asserts privilege. In fact, that’s how the Constitution is supposed to work. When there’s a dispute that can’t resolved through negotiations, the judicial branch should settle the dispute:

“Nobody made Chairman Schiff do this,” McConnell said of Schiff’s decision to forego court assistance to overcome the president’s lack of cooperation with the probe. “In Nixon, the courts were allowed to do their work. In Clinton, the courts were allowed to do their work.” But these House Democrats, he added, “decided that due process is too much work.”

McConnell further challenged House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s attempt to bully the executive branch out of asserting executive privilege. He quoted Schiff saying, “any action that forces us to litigate … will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”

Saying that a perfectly constitutional solution takes too much time is proof that Democrats were in too much of a hurry. That’s a political consideration. That isn’t a constitutional argument.

As Republicans approach a new year, there are lots of things to be thankful for. 2019 wasn’t a perfect year for the GOP but it was a strong year.

It’s understatement to say that Devin Nunes has taken more ill-deserved grief than any other congressman in recent history. In her latest article, Kim Strassel highlights then-Chairman Nunes’ efforts to root out FISC corruption and Judge Rosemary Collyer’s inaction.

It all started with a letter from then-Chairman Nunes to Judge Collyer. In that letter, Nunes wrote “‘the Committee found that the FBI and DOJ failed to disclose the specific political actors paying for uncorroborated information’ that went to the court, “misled the FISC regarding dissemination of this information,” and ‘failed to correct these errors in the subsequent renewals.'” That letter was dated Feb. 7, 2018.

According to the article, “Mr. Nunes asked the court whether any transcripts of FISC hearings about this application existed, and if so, to provide them to the committee.” What he got for his troubles is “a dismissive letter [from Judge Collyer] that addressed only the last request. The judge observed that any such transcripts would be classified, that the court doesn’t maintain a ‘systematic record’ of proceedings and that, given ‘separation of power considerations,’ Mr. Nunes would be better off asking the Justice Department. The letter makes no reference to the Intelligence Committee findings.”

Being the persistent fact-finder that he is, Nunes “tried again in a June 13, 2018, follow-up letter.” In that letter, Nunes wrote that Congress “uncovered evidence that DOJ and FBI provided incomplete and potentially incorrect information to the Court” and that “significant relevant information was not disclosed to the Court.”

It’s worth remembering that then-Ranking Member Schiff published a competing ‘everything-is-fine’ memo. That memo has now been discredited. Here are some of the main claims from the Schiff Memo:

FBI and DOJ officials did not “abuse” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.

In fact, the DOJ and FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government. DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA’s probable cause requirements.

Thanks to the DOJ IG report, we now know that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered the initial email from the CIA that said Carter Page was one of their sources to say that Page wasn’t a CIA source. IG Horowitz made a criminal referral on Clinesmith. Back to Ms. Strassel’s article:

Mr. Nunes asked Judge Collyer to “initiate a thorough investigation.” To assist her, the same month he separately sent FISC “a classified summary of Congress’s findings and facts” to that point. The letter was signed by all 13 Republican members of the Intelligence Committee.

Judge Collyer blew him off. Her letter on June 15, 2018, is four lines long. She informs Mr. Nunes she’s received his letter. She says she’s also received his classified information. She says she’s instructing staff to provide his info to “the judges who ruled on the referenced matters.” She thanks him for his “interest” in the court.

With Judge Collyer throwing the FBI under the bus and with the FBI feeling like it’s getting the short end of the stick from rubberstamp FISC judges, the odds of a major fight between the FISC and the FBI seems likely.

Frankly, the FISC judges seem disinterested. In fact, they don’t seem terribly interested in the details of their cases. That type of attitude is frightening to anyone who appreciates civil liberties. These FISC judges seem indifferent at best.

Finally, it’s apparent that the reputation that the Agenda Media attempted to give Devin Nunes is undeserved. Nunes, unlike Jim Comey and Adam Schiff, was vindicated.

Politicians and pundits are pummeling Speaker Pelosi for yesterday’s impeachment vote. The New York Post’s cover nick-named Ms. Pelosi the “Swamp Mistress” before saying that it’s her funeral. That last shot referenced her wearing a black dress to highlight the solemnity of impeaching President Trump.

Swamp Mommie wasn’t happy when Democrats started applauding President Trump’s impeachment:

Speaker Pelosi would’ve joined in the Democrats’ applause if she were honest with the people. It’s just that the applause got in the way of her solemnity charade that nobody bought.

The contrivance factor was just too thick:

Wearing a funereal black dress, she stood next to a cardboard American flag and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. I would have counted her more honest if she had pledged her allegiance to a Democratic donkey.

Between the black dress and the constant repetition of how Democrats didn’t have a choice and how Democrats did this out of loyalty to the Constitution, it was painfully obvious that there wasn’t a sincere gesture until Democrats started applauding.

At any rate, by last Sept. 24, with the 2020 election fast approaching and her icy relationship with Trump now a bonfire, Pelosi suddenly flip-flopped on impeachment. Her ostensible reason centered on the unverified claims of an anonymous whistleblower regarding Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine. The call, she was assured by the media and Rep. Adam Schiff, would amount to a smoking gun.

“The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of betrayal of his oath of office and betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” she declared.

It felt like a fill-in-the-blank speech, one she had on the shelf ready to go as soon as she had an excuse to use it. Twenty-four hours later, Trump released the transcript of the Ukraine call and it was benign in comparison to her inflammatory accusation. If only Pelosi had waited another day.

Throughout this national ordeal, Pelosi has been portrayed as the adult in the room, the moderate who held back AOC + 3. Pelosi held back AOC + 3 as long as she could but, in the end, they were just too strong. As for Pelosi the moderate, that’s pure BS.

[Democrats] resembled Grade B actors performing for the cameras, their rehearsed references to oaths, prayers, the Founding Fathers, the rule of law, checks and balances and the Constitution itself all sounding contrived. Rather than reflecting actual gravitas, the words were trotted out to create the appearance of it.

There was a display of gravitas yesterday. Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, Republicans had strong replies for the Democrats’ frequent smart-alecky jabs. Often, those sharp replies came from battle-tested veterans like Doug Collins, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, John Ratcliffe, Louie Gohmert and Jim Sensenbrenner. It’s painfully obvious that Republicans, not Democrats, were the party of gravitas.

Michael Mukasey dropped a bombshell when he appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday Morning Futures show. During the interview, which lasts 6:00, Mukasey was asked “I want to ask you about what took place last week where Adam Schiff had phone records of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, John Solomon, a journalist, Devin Nunes, we’ll speak momentarily ranking member intel committee, not only get those phone records and let the public that he had not phone records. Everybody was speculating why did Rudy Giuliani call the White House. Why did John Solomon call Rudy Giuliani? Which, really, you’re allowed to make a phone call.”

Mukasey replied “There are statutes, part of the criminal code that restrict the ability of anybody to get those records and they list who can get them under what circumstances and that doesn’t include Congress. It is for law enforcement, for law enforcement purposes, or if the company wants to disclose them to save somebody’s life or prevent serious injury they can do that. Those are the only circumstances. A Congressional committee, as far as I know, has no authority to subpoena that information.

The conversation continued like this:

MARIA BARTIROMO: Are you saying that was a crime?
MICHAEL MUKASEY: The statute restricting that is in title 18. That is the criminal code. You tell me.
MARIA BARTIROMO: Wow. Devin Nunes says he will have a legal strategy come January. We’ll see what that looks like. Do you think he has strong standing?
MICHAEL MUKASEY: I think he has strong standing and there ought to be questions asked and answered how it is that Schiff purported to issue a congressional subpoena for telephone records to the provider, not to the people whose records they were, but to the provider.
MARIA BARTIROMO: Yeah.
MICHAEL MUKASEY: Does that mean for example, if somebody is nominated for a public office and being confirmed by a Senate committee that the Senate committee has the right to look at his telephone records? That is ridiculous. The statute was designed to stop that.

Call me crazy but that might mean trouble ahead for Mr. Schiff. That’s a potential legal bombshell for Chairman Schiff’s Committee Democrats. Committee Democrats voted to approve the impeachment report so they’re just as involved in those civil rights abuses as Schiff is.

If Schiff subpoenaed those phone records, which he’s already admitted, then Schiff might need a criminal defense attorney. After putting those phone records into the report that he wrote, there isn’t much of a defense that Schiff can mount. Here’s the Bartiromo-Mukasey interview:

Saying that Chairman Schiff’s imagination is vivid is understatement. This transcript highlights Schiff’s imagination:

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): No, it isn’t a failure. At least, it’s not a failure in the sense of our constitutional duty in the House. And I will tell you what changed my mind, George, because you’re right. I resisted going down this road towards impeachment. But it was two things. It was the discovery of the most egregious conduct to date. It was one thing with the president invited foreign interference as a candidate, when he couldn’t use the power of his office to make it so.

It was another when, as president of the United States, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from.

But it was one more fact, George, that I think made it inexorable. And that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back on the phone, this time with President Zelensky, trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election.

It’s frightening to think that the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, could look at the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call transcript, then think that President Trump was asking President Zelenskiy to “help him cheat in the next election.” Anyone who’s read that 5-page transcript knows that didn’t happen. Only a disturbed person would think that. What’s Chairman Schiff’s proof that President Trump tried cheating in the next election? His vivid imagination? In the U.S. judicial system, great men like Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison insisted that a man couldn’t be convicted without evidence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally Chairman Schiff, before we go, I do want to ask you a question about the Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI investigation into the Russia investigation. As you know, it found that there were significant errors, 17 significant errors and omission in that FISA surveillance application for Carter Page, and you’ve received some criticism because of your past claims that there were not any omissions. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, I want to show it right now:

Mr. Schiff claimed DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA court standards. But Mr. Horowitz makes clear that FBI officials didn’t even tell senior Justice officials about the concerns and irregularities of its Page application. Would the court have granted the warrants if it knew the whole story? We don’t know.

Do you accept that your original judgments were wrong, and what can you do about it?

SCHIFF: Well, I certainly accept that two years later, 170 interviews later, and 2 million documents later, the inspector general found things that we didn’t know two years ago. And I certainly concur with the inspector general’s conclusion that there need to be significant changes to the FISA process. We just didn’t have that evidence available two years ago.

That’s BS. The DOJ IG report verified that the Nunes Memo verified everything and that it got those things right. The other thing that’s interesting is that the DOJ IG report says that then-Chairman Nunes didn’t get a single thing wrong. Then-Chairman Nunes got each detail right.

Question: How could Schiff get each detail wrong and then-Chairman Nunes get each detail right? Not only that, Schiff’s memo contested each of the main points of the Nunes Memo.

If anything that Schiff said isn’t protected by the Constitution’s Speech & Debate Clause, then he’s in trouble. Additionally, there’s no doubt that the FBI is in legal hot water:

Watching the entire Ratcliffe interview is stunning.