As President Trump’s historic and unconstitutional impeachment draws near, do not forget about the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Speaker Pelosi’s select House Chairmen.
With the President’s historic and unconstitutional impeachment beginning this coming week, I thought this would be an excellent time to revisit a relevant fact about which I’ve periodically reminded folks. After all, it is precisely their agreed upon efforts that delivered this scam impeachment.
Recall that select House Chairmen signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to target the Trump Umbrella with oversight, subpoena and investigative authority derived from their respective committee chairmanship. THIS is the first brief item I wrote about it last April (I’d skip it and go to the next link.) THIS is the article sourced in that Gab post (first link.)
The names of the undersigned will not disappoint nor will they surprise: Schiff, Cummings (deceased) and Waters (crazy… felt compelled to add that.) Since the initial post, I’ve woven this fact set into several subsequent articles.
As you consider all of this, also recall that criminal investigators look for evidence demonstrating motive, means and opportunity.
Here’s some secret stash moonshine to sip on and consider relative to everything above and it’s a subtle point. Whose name is missing from the list of undersigned chairmen? Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler’s name? Yeah – that exact name. It’s interesting is it not?
Now consider that upon ascending to power as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi oversaw changes to many rules including those for impeachment. Therein, she also transferred what would customarily be a function of Nadler’s Judiciary Committee – the authority to oversee impeachment – to another committee. Pelosi decided to buck tradition by sending Nadler’s oversight authority to the Intelligence Committee and Chairman Adam Schiff.
Let me pour you another. Exactly how was the investigation into President Trump opened? Do folks remember? The FBI opened it’s investigation as a counter-intelligence one; not a criminal one. This is important for two reasons with one of them being obvious and the other perhaps not.
The less obvious reason is that the threshold to be met for sufficient evidence to properly predicate the opening of a counter-intelligence investigation is not as stringent as what is required to predicate a criminal investigation. Do you think there’s a reason for that? There is.
Here’s that reason and it’s a long contended position – the DSSG was out shopping for a cover story for the largest political spying operation of all time. That operation belongs former US President Barack Obama and his criminal cartel. They were attempting to essentially and figuratively build that airplane as they flew it. What I mean by that is their efforts to place a multi-faceted criminal construct around the President so they could use it to target him and his umbrella criminally were ongoing and always subject to change; or adaptable; or calibrated as new information arose; or similar. My work hypothesizes that the Obama’s operation goes back to early in his first term. I’ve woven that into many articles.
That is the reason Trump’s investigation was opened as a counter-intelligence investigation. They never expected she would lose. They never expected to have to target Trump criminally so long as he lost. They didn’t have much to begin with so the only way to make it happen was to literally make it happen. The only way to do that was to move in the direction of a lesser requirement for predication. It’s also an excellent explanation for why the DSSG’s angle changes every time their fake evidence falls flat: Russia> Mueller> Ukraine> Impeachment> Iran> 25th Amendment?> assassination?> other? It’s a fluid construct with multiple open war fronts.
It’s also important to remember that all of this preceded the Mueller debacle and all of it was being used to justify Mueller. But remember, Mueller didn’t chose his team and he didn’t open anything in the way of an investigation. Rather, the team chose Mueller and the investigation, which was inherited as a counter-intelligence one, was subsequently converted to a criminal one. In other words, the DSSG manipulated their way around or circumvented constitutional protections to avoid having to meet requisite evidentiary requirements to predicate their investigation. Pretty swampy, eh?
Let me pour yet another. Now look back at how Pelosi’s predetermined rules changes were implemented upon her ascension to Speaker. Her actions in transferring Nader’s authority were anomalous and counter to tradition. They also inversely mirror the actions of the FBI and DOJ. Pelosi: Judiciary to Intelligence. FBI/Mueller: Intelligence to Judiciary. Those two dynamics in confluence with one another are unpalatable as chance or coincidence. Pelosi maneuvered to support the FBI/DOJ effort at the same time the FBI/DOJ body of work served Pelosi’s impeachment effort. Two peas in the same treasonous and seditious pod.
Put simply, the FBI didn’t have enough evidence to predicate a criminal investigation so they opened a counter-intelligence one. That investigation, AS PLANNED, had to serve the impeachment effort. The impeachment effort is a function of the Judiciary Committee. Since the House had to prepare to accept a counter-intelligence investigation, Pelosi transferred the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment oversight authority to the Intelligence Committee. Or, in other words from Nadler to Schiff. And who’s name is missing from the MOU again? Nadler’s. And guess whose name was specifically mentioned in the Presiden’t initial impeachment response yesterday? Schiff’s. (Here are the MAJOR TAKEAWAYS from the President’s brief.)
Now ask yourself if each of those three of elements for prosecution (motive, means and opportunity) have been met so as to predicate a proper criminal investigation into these political miscreants? There is an abundance of evidence available in open sources alone. It’s a complex issue and I’m not saying the predication is technically there but I have a difficult time believing it’s not.
It’s one thing to plan to betray the will of the people by subverting their vote as you attempt to unseat a duly elected president; and while committing a slew of felonies along the way; and all in the name of intolerant partisan politics.
It’s a whole other level of stupid to agree to it in writing almost immediately after you ascend to power in the House.
As we’ve been told repeatedly – ‘these people are stupid.’
Don’t forget about that MOU – it’s important: motive, means and opportunity.
Excellent Analysis. Very important to why they will all down for treason, as they were stupid enough to put it in writing. Thanks
[…] Recall that the House retains the sole power to impeach. That power inherently includes the burden of investigating, gathering evidence and making a case; and with due process and adherence to proper procedure throughout; all before passing constitutionally valid and properly predicated Articles of Impeachment and submitting them to the Senate. These drunk miscreants fully knows this – hell, they even signed an MOU agreeing to attack the Trump Umbrella with that very specific power – the power to subpoena as a function of serving as a committee chairman. If unfamiliar or to review, see THIS. […]
[…] SUPPORT ARTICLES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 […]
[…] JAN 20: ARTICLE: Reminder about the MOU signed by House committee chairmen to agree to use their committee subpoena […]
[…] with this reminder – that upon seizing control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections, Nancy Pelosi’s House Chairmen signed an MOU agreeing to leverage their authority and subpoena powe…. We first began covering this 16 Apr 19; providing more detail […]
[…] and subpoena power possessed and leveraged by each. Pelosi is most certainly compromised – maybe even in writing – and most certainly by China and therefore she, like Biden, functions as a proxy in the […]
[…] set-out by signing an MOU with select House committee chairmen to use the power and authority vested in those committees to […]
[…] Services Committee and who is not qualified to be your local dog catcher; and who signed an MOU to target President Donald J. Trump with oversight and subpoena power as he was entering office in 2017; and […]