A Republic Under Assault Read online

  THE LONELY BATTLE

  For months, efforts to discredit special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign flickered at the fringes of political debate.

  Now, the allegation that FBI and Justice Department officials are part of a broad conspiracy against President Trump is suddenly center stage.…

  “Until recently, it has been a lonely battle,” said Tom Fitton, whose conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has helped drive the charges by unearthing internal Justice Department documents. “Our concerns about Mueller are beginning to take hold.”—“No Longer a ‘Lonely Battle’: How the Campaign against the Mueller Probe Has Taken Hold,” Washington Post, December, 24, 2017

  The whole Mueller operation collapsed with the arrival of Attorney General Barr as a replacement for Sessions. Mueller obviously knew Barr would quickly see what Strzok had texted Page in May 2017, that “There’s no big there there.” Mueller knew his gig was up and quickly ended his investigation with a several-hundred-page report that confirmed what everyone had already known for two years—that no American, let alone Trump, knowingly worked with the Russians to interfere in our elections.

  As I look back at this period, I’ve concluded that President Trump would have been driven out of office but for Judicial Watch.

  The Washington Post gave us a backhanded compliment in suggesting we were “fringe” on the Mueller attack on our republic. We were indeed virtually alone in our battle, but our leadership saved the republic from a grievous blow.

  One must remember that virtually no one in Washington questioned the propriety of the Mueller appointment, except for Judicial Watch. No one in positions of power questioned the constitutionality of the Mueller operation, except Judicial Watch. No one investigated Mueller’s operation directly, except Judicial Watch. And few questioned the fundamental basis of the appointment—the notion that there was a Russia conspiracy, that General Flynn did something wrong, and that the other Trump associates were appropriately targeted by Mueller’s gang—except for Judicial Watch.

  Without our public education efforts highlighting that the Mueller operation was corruptly formed and pursued, one could easily imagine a scenario in which Mueller would have had the political and institutional cover to indict and force out of office President Trump.

  As we saw with the Flynn prosecution, President Trump’s innocence would have been no impediment to this type of coup operation. But we led the way in exposing that Mueller’s probe was an unconstitutional sham. And this allowed Barr to blow down the Mueller house of cards with little effort.

  SECTION TWO OUR REPUBLIC UNDER ASSAULT… FROM THE IMPEACHMENT-COUP ATTACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP

  Adam Schiff Conspires Against the Republic

  There has been nothing in American history that compares to the impeachment attack against President Trump. It was nothing but a wild abuse of the Constitution. Frankly, the word impeachment should be replaced with the word coup, because the president was illicitly targeted for removal from office for doing his job in asking needed questions regarding Ukraine corruption, and Joe Biden trying (and succeeding) to get a prosecutor in the Ukraine removed who was looking into Burisma, which gave Hunter Biden a suspiciously cash-laden seat on its board of directors.

  Following the House vote to begin impeachment in the House, I said this:

  Today’s vote endorses an abusive process that rolls over the rights of President Trump and undermines the rule of law. This was no impeachment resolution—it was a coup resolution. This coup attack was corruptly formed and corruptly pursued. The U.S. Senate should rule out a trial on any so-called impeachment arising from the Pelosi-Schiff abuse of the U.S. Constitution.

  To be clear, our very republic was at stake. Would a president be driven from office over disagreements in policy (over the timing of aid) and for daring to ask questions about the last administration’s corruption?

  Fortunately, logically, and as it should have done, the Senate, although only after an absurd show trial, then overwhelmingly rejected the Pelosi-Schiff coup.

  But what led to this grotesque miscarriage of justice?

  * * *

  “The truth behind House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s role in engineering President Donald Trump’s impeachment may soon come out because a nonprofit group promoting government transparency—Judicial Watch—is suing to get the whistleblower’s emails.”—Betsy McCaughey

  A coup attempt indeed, led by shifty Adam Schiff and his collection of equally far-left, Trump-hating Deep State co-conspirators.

  Judicial Watch first came across Schiff in 2018 when Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) became a target of the Left (including Schiff) for exposing the Obama gang’s massive unmasking operation against members of Trump world. To take him off the table, the Schiff operation concocted a phony ethics complaint about disclosing classified information against Nunes that resulted in his taking a less prominent role in the important Russiagate investigations.

  But when we examined the actual record, it became clear that Schiff and his colleagues were the rule breakers. If the standard for filing a complaint or opening an ethics investigation is that a member has commented publicly on matters that touch on classified information, but the member does not reveal the source of his or her information, then the complaints against Chairman Nunes are incomplete insofar as they target only Nunes. At least two other members of the House Intelligence Committee have made comments about classified material that raise more directly the very same concerns raised against Chairman Nunes because they appear to confirm classified information contained in leaked intelligence community intercepts.

  On March 21, 2017, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff, spoke to an audience at the Brookings Institution in which he commented on an intelligence community intercept of a December 29, 2016, conversation between Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and retired U.S. Army general Michael Flynn, who had been selected by then–president elect Donald Trump to serve as national security advisor. Both the fact of the conversation and the conversation’s contents were leaked to the news media and reported widely. In his Brookings Institution speech, Schiff stated:

  And then you have leaks that expose malfeasance or illegality. Now, I put that kind of leak, I put the Flynn leak in that category. And what was most disturbing to me, frankly, about that was: here you had a situation where the president is informed that his national security advisor… has lied to the vice president, and probably others… about a conversation with the Russians over sanctions imposed over hacking in the election to help the president.

  Likewise, an April 3, 2017, report in the Daily Caller quotes Representative Jackie Speier as commenting publicly on both the contents of the Kislyak-Flynn conversations and Flynn’s subsequent “unmasking” as a U.S. person incidentally intercepted by the intelligence community:

  Now, if in fact, it was unmasked and if it was General Flynn. You have to understand the context in which it was unmasked. We do know that. Ambassador Kislayak [sic] and General Flynn were freelancing sanctions relief at the end of December, when he had no portfolio in which to make any kind of negotiations with Ambassador Kislayak [sic]. (Emphasis added)

  Like Schiff, Representative Speier did not disclose how she knew about the conversation between Ambassador Kislyak and General Flynn or about General Flynn’s “unmasking,” but the statement attributed to her also appears to confirm the contents of leaked, classified information.

  Judicial Watch concludes by asking that the Office of Congressional Ethics conduct a preliminary investigation into whether Rep. Schiff and Rep. Speier disclosed classified information to the public in violation of House ethics rules.

  At least two leading Democrats, Representatives Schiff and Speier, on the House Intelligence Committee seem to have improperly disclosed classified information. While the Ethics Committee harassed Representative Nunes over his innocuous statements on Obama�
��s surveillance on the Trump team, we thought it was right that the committee expand its investigation to include the other members of the Intelligence Committee who seem to have flagrantly violated the rules.1

  Interestingly, the Ethics Committee, which is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, almost immediately dropped its investigation of Nunes but to this day—two years later—hasn’t resolved or made any public comment on our Nunes complaint.

  It was clear the rules didn’t bother Schiff. And when Mueller dropped his massive nothingburger of a report, Schiff seemed ready to pounce as soon as a Plan B opportunity presented itself.

  Who is the so-called whistleblower who tried to topple a president? Reports have settled on Eric Ciaramella, a CIA employee who had been assigned to the Obama White House National Security Council staff to handle Ukraine issues and stayed on for a bit under President Trump. Reports are that he eventually was pushed out of the White House after being tied to anti-Trump leaks.

  Ciaramella is also reportedly buddies with Sean Misko—a fellow Obama holdover in the National Security Council who left that position suddenly to go work for Adam Schiff (you really can’t make this up).

  While there is a long list of impeachment cheerleaders who later lined up behind them, Schiff and those two will do for starters.

  As was reported by Real Clear Investigations, Ciaramella and Misko were critical of Trump from the outset.2

  Within the National Security Council of the White House, plots against the president of the United States of America were being hatched.

  But, what to do?

  A review of House testimony strongly suggest[s] that the infamous Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was a key source for Ciaramella on the call between President Trump and Ukraine’s leader.

  Eric Ciaramella, assuming he was the “whistleblower,” had no direct, firsthand knowledge of the July 25, 2019, conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky but went ahead and filed a whistleblower complaint. That started the ball rolling for the cabal of Deep State Trump haters within the NSC and the other three-letter U.S. intelligence agencies seeking to have Trump “removed from office.”

  In his complaint filed with Inspector General for National Intelligence Michael Atkinson, every alleged complaint statement begins with “multiple officials told me,” or “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” or “Officials with direct knowledge informed me.”

  Secondhand information about a call he didn’t hear? This is why, on television and on social media, I’ve repeatedly called the whole absurdity “The Gossip Girl Impeachment.” During the impeachment show trial propped up by the hearsay from Ciaramella, Adam Schiff would smash his gavel down anytime a Republican dared to talk about the “whistleblower” whose unreliable hearsay “evidence” was responsible for launching that 2.0 version of the latest invented attack on Trump.

  But, as Americans who can actually think for themselves have come to realize, Schiff was not only trying to protect the cowardly whistleblower, but himself most of all.

  Why? Because he knows full well he is the ringleader behind the impeachment scam.

  Let’s look at just a smidge of incriminating evidence.

  Again, President Trump placed his call to the Ukrainian president on July 25, 2019. The very next day, Sean Misko—the Obama holdover in the NSC, and Eric Ciaramella’s bosom buddy—joined the staff of Adam Schiff.

  Are you kidding me? The very next day?

  They have no shame. None.

  As to be expected, right after Misko came on board, Schiff’s staff supposedly invited Ciaramella in for a meeting. During that meeting, Schiff’s staff reportedly gave Ciaramella “guidance” in how to file a complaint against the president of the United States.

  Also not surprising is that Schiff and his staff worked very hard at hiding their coaching of the “whistleblower” from any authorities as well as House of Representative investigators. In fact, Schiff was caught in a bald-faced lie about his office’s collusion.

  When asked directly if he had heard from the “whistleblower,” Schiff told a whopper:

  We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower, we would like to. But I’m sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national intelligence just as to how he is to communicate with Congress, and so the risk for the whistleblower is retaliation.

  Even the anti-conservative “fact checkers” at PolitiFact rated Schiff’s denial as “False.”

  Why would the Schiff operation go to such great lengths to lie? The most obvious reason was to hide the fact that the whistleblower was not “independent” but a partisan, get-Trump cutout for Schiff. The other reason, perhaps more significant, is that the whistleblower likely communicated classified information to Schiff’s team in violation of law. Recall, the contents of the call between President Trump and Ukraine’s leader was classified at the time the whistleblower was colluding with Schiff. Simply put, an executive branch employee can’t share classified information with Congress without permission. There is no “whistleblower” exemption to allow the improper dissemination of classified information.

  So to the extent there were crimes related to the Ukraine call, they seem to be related to Schiff’s collusion with the whistleblower.

  After all that coaching and “guidance,” the alleged whistleblower Ciaramella filed his formal complaint with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on August 12, 2019.

  The complaint did not inform Atkinson that he had met with, and been coached by, Schiff’s staff. Or, so they both say. But then, former inspector general Atkinson seems far from clean in these very dirty dealings.

  As the inspector general for the intelligence community, Atkinson knew better than anyone else that regulations stipulated that hearsay and “secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions” are insufficient for a complaint.

  Insufficient for a complaint.

  Atkinson knew that the “whistleblower’s” complaint was all hearsay, secondhand, and unsubstantiated, and yet could not wait to process it and spread the gossip.

  Why?

  After getting the complaint and feedback from Atkinson, the Office of the Legal Counsel’s opinion was that “the appropriate action is to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, rather than to report to the intelligence committees.”

  Atkinson completely ignored that legal advice from the Office of the Legal Counsel and instead sent a letter to… drumroll please… none other than Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, to inform him of the complaint.

  In reality, Atkinson was informing Schiff and his staff about a complaint that Schiff and his staff had set in motion in the first place.

  Why would Atkinson violate protocols and run to the most political, most partisan, most anti-Trump member of Congress?

  Could it be that Atkinson knew that if he did that, it would be the “justification” Schiff would need to launch the impeachment show trial against Trump?

  Inspectors general are supposed to uncover this type of abuses. Not facilitate them.

  Had Atkinson done the least part of the professional due diligence required of him, he would have discovered that a number of allegations in the whistleblower complaint were clearly false and that the whistleblower had been coached in the drafting of said complaint.

  But… such due diligence would have gotten in the way of the highly orchestrated coup attempt against Trump. Hence, the documented and disgraceful intrigue that follows below.

  DEEP STATE PROTECTS SCHIFF COCONSPIRATOR

  The DC adage is that the “cover-up is often worse than the crime.” In my experience, “cover-ups” happen because the underlying crimes and corruption are serious.

  As the impeachment/coup against President Trump marched on, Judicial Watch continued to take the lead on exposing the full truth about the various Deep State officials at the center of some of t
his treasonous behavior.

  Naturally, we filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against both the DOJ and CIA for CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella’s communications. He reportedly worked on Ukraine issues while on detail to both the Obama and Trump White Houses, so whether or not he was the whistleblower, he certainly would have information on the Ukraine issue at the heart of the impeachment/coup attack against President Trump.

  We sued the DOJ after it failed to respond to November 2019 FOIA requests seeking communications between Ciaramella and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, and/or the Special Counsel’s Office (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice [No. 1:19-cv-03809]).

  We sued the CIA after it failed to respond to November 2019 FOIA requests seeking all of Ciaramella’s emails from June 1, 2016, to November 12, 2019 (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency [No. 1:19-cv-03807]).

  Ciaramella’s name appears in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the 2016 presidential election, in reference to two emails Ciaramella sent to then–chief of staff John Kelly and other officials, describing a meeting between President Trump, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak:

  In the morning on May 10, 2017, President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office.