Harbinger of Election Chaos – Butler County, Pennsylvania

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Butler County, Pennsylvania, is nestled some 28 miles north of Pittsburgh.  

It also marks the coordinates of Donald Trump’s largest haul of votes, percentage wise, in the entire Keystone State, formally known as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Come the night of Nov. 3, after the close of voting in the state, it is destined to become the focal point of the battle for the presidency of the United States of America.

Why? Well potential rigging of the election in favor of the woeful Joe Biden could be the likely answer.

You see, in 2016, Trump carried the county with 66.7% (or 61,388 votes) compared to the forlorn Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 29.2% (or 26,834 votes). Trump’s margin of victory was 48.8% (or 2,912,941 votes) versus Clinton’s 47.6% (or 2,844,706 votes).

Judging from the turnout at President Trump’s raucous rally on the evening of October 31, enthusiasm for Trump in Butler County is over the top.

The problem is the news, as captured in a screaming headline in the October 29 online edition of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, that “Potentially thousands of requested mail ballots lost in Butler County, official says.”

According to the article, “nearly 40,000 registered voters in the county requested mail ballots [and] so far, only 24% of them have been returned to the county, by far the lowest rate among the state’s 67 counties.” The county with the next-lowest rate of return has received 50% of requested ballots, it added.

Democrats are eager to place the blame of the post office. ““I actually just traded voicemails with somebody in the United States Postal Service up at the higher levels to make sure that they’re … paying attention to this and finding out what’s going on,” Kathy Boockvar, Pennsylvania’s secretary of state, said during an election preparedness news conference in Harrisburg.

The post office has been quick to respond. “Regarding mail sorting and delivery in Butler County, the Postal Service is unaware of any significant delays or issues and is in regular contact with the Board of Election as we work to locate and deliver ballots as they are presented to us,” said David Partenheimer, a Postal Service spokesman.

While election officials have been trying to mitigate the effects of the problem, should the final state-wide vote tally be close, a controversy – the likes of which has not been seen since Florida’s “hanging chad” controversy at the tail end of the 2000 election – will ensue.  

Election results should not have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and yet it may come to that.

Is it possible that this is the ultimate rigging of the presidential election process by the Deep State, the so-called Intelligence Community, never-Trumpers and the once-honorable Democratic Party?


Democratic National Committee, CrowdStrike and FBI: A Humdinger of Collusion

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Secret congressional testimony recently unlocked at the prodding of the acting Director of National Intelligence has exposed a disgraceful tale of collaboration between the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike and the FBI.

Under grilling by two Republican members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Shawn Henry, president of CrowdStrike and former key FBI official, testified under oath that his firm was never able to prove the Russian among Democrats and the mainstream press.

Even more revealing, Henry inadvertently gave away a significant secret that was carefully kept under wraps by the DNC and its operatives.   

Henry’s testimony, which took place on Dec. 5, 2017, shines the spotlight on four key points:

  1. CrowdStrike and the Intelligence Community (IC) lied about the certainty that the Russian government hacked the DNC computers.
  2. The DNC used the legal barrier of attorney-client privilege to protect itself from embarrassing revelations about its ties to the notorious Fusion GPS, the firm behind the totally discredited Steele dossier.
  3. Perkins Coie, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm hired by the DNC, is now exposed as a nest bed of unethical operators who misled FBI investigators to prevent the Feds from learning it had hired Fusion GPS to generate dirt on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
  4. The date of April 12, 2016, was the day that made DNC-CrowdStrike-FBI collusion essential to protect the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.   


On June 15, 2016, CrowdStrike posted on its website a statement that “it stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016.” Despite assertions of a related Russian disinformation campaign, “these claims do nothing to lessen our findings related to the Russian government’s involvement, portions of which we have documented for the public and the greater security community,” it added.

Almost seven months later, on January 6, 2017, the IC released a report titled “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 Presidential Elections.” According to this report, “in July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to DNC networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.”

Then came this assertion: “We assess that the General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) cyber operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC. [emphasis added]

However, the IC report coyly included a rather stunning disclaimer: Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. [emphasis added]

The Facts

According to Shawn Henry, on April 30, 2016, CrowdStrike was retained to investigate the details of an alleged hacking of DNC computer servers.

“CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee, the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach,” a June 15, 2016, a company blog update said.  

However, this statement was clearly misleading and false.

In fact, CrowdStrike was retained by Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the DNC, a key point, the importance of which became clearer in the closed-door testimony of Henry.

Under questioning by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), Henry revealed that the threat of a hack was first brought to the attention of the DNC by a company that was overseeing its computer network. This company submitted a report or reports to that effect.

It emerged that the contractor was first contacted by the FBI, months prior to April 30, and warned about possible hacking.  

“l don’t know what [the FBI] had access to in the environment,” Henry said. “l can tell you that the intelligence that we shared with them, including forensic information, indicators of compromise, which are pieces of malware, et cetera, we provided all of that to the FBI. Starting in June of 2016, we provided them the data that would have been of value to them.”

Added Henry: “They were conducting an investigation. Whether they were feeding back information to the DNC or not, I don’t know. And when we sat with them in June, we provided them with a lot of the indicators, the malware, and other pieces of code that we took off of the computer network.’

Rep. Stewart wanted to know if the FBI could conduct their own investigation in a thorough fashion without access to the actual hardware. “Maybe,” replied Henry, “it depends on what else they had access to.” (NOTE: the FBI never had access to any DNC computer hardware)

The wily Stewart then signaled his belief that that something didn’t compute if the goal was to have the FBI conduct a better investigation. “So, the question is, would there be reasons for not making [equipment or hardware] available that override the benefit of having a more conclusive investigation? If someone wasn’t going to make that available, they would have to have reasons for not doing that because they would likely have a less thorough investigation by not making it available?”

“You’re asking me to speculate. I don’t know the answer,” Henry said.

What is DNC hiding?

As Rep. Stewart continued with his questions, two attorneys retained by the DNC jumped in and warned they would invoke attorney-client privilege if they did not like the direction Stewart’s questions were taking.

“Just for the record, some of the comments we were just discussing, as Mr. Henry indicated, certain of the work that was performed was performed at the behest of counsel, Perkins Coie, Mr. Sussmann,s law firm,” said David Lashway, of the law firm Baker and McKenzie, representing CrowdStrike. “Therefore, certain of that information, the DNC, as the client of Perkins Coie, has asserted privilege and some confidences over certain of that information, sir. And so we would turn to Perkins Coie, as counsel to the DNC, to ensure that Mr. Henry can actually answer some of these questions relating – some of that information that would otherwise be considered protected by the DNC, as the client.”

Another attorney then stepped in. “On behalf of the DNC, the DNC takes the work of this committee and this investigation incredibly seriously …  and wants to cooperate in every way that we can in order to provide this committee all the information it needs,” said Graham Wilson, of the Perkins Coie Political Law Group. CrowdStrike was actually working for Perkins Coie and was “performing work in order to help Perkins Coie advise the DNC on this matter,” he added.

Stewart probed further and Wilson revealed that “we had a contract between Perkins Coie and CrowdStrike, with a scope of work for the DNC – specific work.”

At this point, under prodding by Rep. Stewart, Henry acknowledged that CrowdStrike never had a contract with the DNC. “I mentioned it was with Michael Sussmann from Perkins Coie,” said Henry. (NOTE: Sussmann was the attorney who, on behalf of the DNC, retained Fusion GPS to get the goods on Trump)

And then came this revelation. “So, the one thing I would want to say is I think we are not waiving any of the attorney-client privilege over the work product here today,” Wilson said. “Again, l’m not waiving any privilege, We’re happy to have him continue to go’ With the request for a specific document and the contents, you know, like that was a DNC document, if you want to put that question to the DNC,  I’d be happy to discuss that with him and we can come back to it.”

Equivocation Is CrowdStrike Tactic

Rep. Stewart raised the claim that the hack on the DNC was not perpetrated by the Russian government and it was clear from Henry’s responses that there was no definitive proof of Russian hacking.

Here are some of Henry’s inconclusive responses (with emphasis added):

          – “We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian government.

          – “There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we’d seen associated with the Russian state.”

          – “Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated’

– “There is evidence of exfiltration, not conclusive, but indicators of exfiltration off the DNC.”

          – “There’s not evidence that they [emails] were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence.”

          – “So, I said that we didn’t have direct evidence.  But we made a conclusion that the data left the network.”

A Whiff Of Collusion

During the questioning of Henry, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) asked when CrowdStrike sent data, in whatever form, to the FBI, “did you filter anything out of that that the DNC would not have wanted the FBI to look at?”

“No, sir. I don’t think so,” replied Henry. “No. And I say that because I know that part of our report is redacted, but I have no – my understanding is everything we gave to the FBI was as we collected it.”

Rep. Stewart followed this up by asking Henry if he or CrowdStrike is required to report any illegal activity that you find on a client’s computer? “l won’t speculate on what my legal obligations are,” responded Henry.

Conaway then wanted to know if the DNC restricted anything that CrowdStrike shared with the FBI or that the FBI asked for. “Did they tell you ‘no’ at any point?” asked the congressman.

“No, I have no recollection. Again, I know that there are redacted reports and there was some restriction on the reports. That’s the only thing I can recall,” was Henry’s retort. This statement appears to be evasive since Henry acknowledged he received directions from Perkins Coie, which retained CrowdStrike, and not the DNC. 

The direction and tone of the questions shifted when Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) had his turn. Queried Swalwell: “And, in your experience, comparing this case to other clients that you’ve had or in your work at the FBI, you believe that the images were sufficient for the FBI to understand what had occurred?

“I believe that the FBI got everything that they asked for that related to the DNC from us. Everything that we had access to related to images and servers, when they asked for it, they got it,” said Henry.

Swalwell also wanted to know who received the findings of the CrowdStrike investigation. “I believe it was to Perkins Coie, to the law firm, because they were the client, essentially, right? We were contracted through the law firm,” answered Henry.

April 12, 2016 – Hiding Origins Of Trump-Russia Collusion Witch Hunt

Rep. Stewart then pinned down Henry on a key point when he asked; “You said, I believe, talking about the DNC computer, you had indications that data was prepared to be exfiltrated, but no evidence it actually left. Did I write that down correctly?

“Yes,” replied Henry.

Continued Stewart: “And, in this case, the data I am assuming you’re talking about is the email as well as everything else they may have been trying to take.”

Henry’s response was quite revealing but Stewart did not follow it up. “There were files related to opposition research that had been conducted but no evidence it was actually exfiltrated.”

So, here are a few questions that deserve answers:

  • How did Shawn Henry know there were files related to opposition research sitting in the DNC servers?
  • Had Henry been instructed by Perkins Coie to do whatever necessary to protect the content of those opposition research files?
  • What specific requests were made by the FBI to the DNC and CrowdStrike, and were those requests fulfilled? 

Why the importance of April 12, 2016? According to “Witch Hunt” by Gregg Jarrett, that was the day “Fusion GPS was hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and DNC to do opposition research on Donald Trump,” an action that gave birth, among other things, to the totally discredited Steele dossier and FBI abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What would have happened if this had all seen the light of day before the incoming Trump administration was wrapped in a virtual straightjacket?


Pelosi Thumbs Her Nose at Congressional Budget Office Warnings

IMPORTANCE of article – Prior to the passage of Obamacare, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously told an audience: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.” To this former Capitol Hill reporter, voting in favor of Pelosi’s $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act in bullet-train speed, without understanding the contents and implications of the legislative package, is a fundamental abdication of responsibility by members of the House of Representatives.  

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Older folks will remember Willie Sutton, the much-beloved (in some quarters) and crème de la crème of American bank robbers, who, when asked why he robbed banks, supposedly retorted “Because that’s where the money is.”

“Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I’d be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that’s all.”

Now along comes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who wants to emulate Sutton to the tune of $3 trillion, a sum far beyond the wildest imagination of the bank robber.

On May 12, Pelosi unveiled what she has dubbed the HEROS Act, which carries the $3 trillion price tag and is being promoted as “a bold response to the coronavirus pandemic and the economic collapse.”

All of this in a matter of less than four full days with a floor vote scheduled for May 15 and not even one committee of jurisdiction, excluding the House Rules Committee, conducting a hearing on germane provisions.

Congressional Budget Office Warns of Fiscal Earthquake

In an April 16 letter to Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO offered a preliminary estimate that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) will increase federal deficits by about $1.8 trillion over the 2020-2030 period.  

CBO noted that the estimated budgetary effects of the CARES Act are uncertain for several reasons, including:

– “The effects of the novel coronavirus pandemic on economic output and the labor markets are difficult to predict, and those effects drive CBO’s estimate of the act’s changes to unemployment compensation benefits.”

– “The duration of the emergency declarations related to the coronavirus pandemic and the number of hospitalizations for COVID-19 could differ significantly from what CBO has projected, and the budgetary effects of some provisions, such as those affecting Medicare, will depend on those factors.”

On May 8, CBO, in its Monthly Budget Review for April 2020, said that the federal government incurred an estimated deficit of $737 billion in April compared with a surplus of $160 billion in April 2019.

“The federal budget deficit was $1.48 trillion in the first seven months of FY 2020, CBO estimates, $949 billion more than the deficit recorded during the same period last year,” the budget review said.

“Overall, if laws currently in place governing spending and revenues generally remained unchanged and not significant additional emergency funding was provided, the federal deficit would be roughly $3.7 trillion in fiscal year 2020 (which ends on September 30) and $2.1 trillion next year,” CBO said.    

This is the financial state of the U.S.A. as Pelosi and House Democrats self-righteously promote a $3 trillion Pandora’s box of woes upon the nation.

An In-Depth Look At One Murky Provision

One provision allows Economic Impact Payments to be made to an individual who provides a Taxpayer Identification Number [TIN], rather than a Social Security number (SSN).

According to the IRS website: “The TIN is generally a Social Security number. However, in some cases, individuals who become U.S. resident aliens for federal tax purposes are not eligible to obtain an SSN. These individuals must apply for an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) which is a tax processing number issued by IRS. It does not authorize work in the U.S., provide eligibility for Social Security benefits, or qualify a dependent for earned income tax credit purposes.”

A person in one of the following categories requires an ITIN:

  • Nonresident alien who is required to file a U.S. tax return
  • U.S. resident alien who is (based on days present in the United States) filing a U.S. tax return
  • Dependent or spouse of a U.S. citizen/resident alien
  • Dependent or spouse of a nonresident alien visa holder
  • Nonresident alien claiming a tax treaty benefit
  • Nonresident alien student, professor or researcher filing a U.S. tax return or claiming an exception

Can Nancy Pelosi tell us if this means an illegal immigrant or some other foreigner with an ITIN can receive $1,200 payments from the government?

A Quick Look at Some Other Provisions of the Bill

What follows is just a sampling of provisions that stuck out during a cursory review of a summary of the bill.

My purpose is to demonstrate the complexity of what is being voted on and to suggest that those who vote in favor of passage of the bill are clueless about what they are actually supporting in a coronavirus-related bill.

  • Second Chance Act grants – $250 million for grants to help facilitate the reintegration of ex-prisoners back into society and to prevent recidivism.
  • Elections – $3.6 billion for grants to states for contingency planning, preparation, and resilience of elections for federal office.
  • Postal Service – $25 billion for revenue forgone due to the coronavirus pandemic, plus language providing additional protections to postal workers.
  • Environmental Protection Agency – $50 million for environmental justice grants, including investigating links between pollution exposure and the transmission and health outcomes of coronavirus in environmental justice communities.
  • Department of Labor – $925 million to assist states in processing unemployment insurance claims.
  • Department of Education – $100.15 billion to support the educational needs of states, school districts, and institutions of higher education in response to coronavirus.
  • House of Representatives – $5 million, in part to provide funding for the newly formed Select Committee that will provide oversight of the funds provided for coronavirus and economic aid. {Author’s Note: this new committee will, in practice, usurp the jurisdiction of standing committee’s and would likely be used by Democrats as a purely partisan attack dog against the Trump administration.)
  • Refundable tax credit – Temporary special rule for determining earned income for purposes of earned income tax credit (EITC). Allows taxpayers in 2020, for purposes of computing the EITC, to substitute their 2019 earned income for their 2020 earned income if their 2020 earned income is less than their 2019 earned income. (Author’s Note: IRS estimates 25.3% (or $17.4 billion) of the total EITC payments of $68.7 billion made in FY 2019 were improper.)
  • Authorizes payments for private education loan borrowers as a result of the COVID–19 national emergency and provides up to $10,000 in debt relief to be applied to a private student loan. The Treasury Department will make monthly payments on behalf of the borrower up to $10,000 until September 2021.
  • Early voting and voting by mail – This provision requires at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections. Prohibits states from requiring notarization or witness signatures to obtain or cast an absentee ballot.   

THE BOTTOM LINE = House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic stooges are willing to plunder the Treasury (or wherever the money will originate), at a cost of $3 trillion, to the detriment of the current and future generations. Will President Trump let them get away with it?

Powerful House Democrat Extols President Trump’s Trade Policy

By: Jeffrey Winograd

A seemingly wily congressman from western Massachusetts got carried away with his own verboseness when he lavished praise on the Trump administration’s announcement that the United States plans to enter the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) into force on July 1.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on April 24 sang the praises of the new trade pact which replaces the controversial North American Free Trade Act, better known as NAFTA.

The Irish-American pol spouted more than the typical touch of the blarney one encounters when celebrating Saint Paddy’s Day as he, in effect, placed himself in the leading American role during the negotiation and passage of USMCA.

Neal’s remarks suggested that House Democrats twisted the arm of U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer in order to secure a deal that “now includes the most robust enforcement mechanisms ever incorporated in a U.S. trade agreement.”

Then came the now obligatory Democratic injection of the “COVID-19 crisis” into the picture. The new trade agreement “includes a balanced set of intellectual property obligations that promote innovation, including the research and development of new medical therapies,” Neal said.

The chairman of the House tax-writing committee was a Democratic back-bencher in 1993 when, to his credit, he voted against passage of NAFTA.

However, that was long ago and far away.

In 2016, Neal, a man of great convictions, was an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton for president despite her cast-in-stone position regarding NAFTA.

She Said, He Said, About NAFTA

Clinton was quoted in a May 25, 2011, Huffington Post article as follows:

“I believe in the general principles [NAFTA] represented. But what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have.”

Candidate Donald Trump, on June 28, 2016, while campaigning in Pennsylvania, made abundantly clear his intentions regarding NAFTA.

“I’m going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don’t mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better.”

Should they not agree to negotiate, Trump added, he would notify Mexico and Canada pursuant to the terms of the treaty “that America intends to withdraw from the deal.”

With an eye on the July 1 kickoff of the USMCA trade pact, Neal said “it is critical that the United States holds our trading partners accountable for their obligations from day one.”

He also vowed to be the American watchdog to ensure proper implementation and enforcement going forward.

And here is Neal’s finale, lauding the trade-deal achievement of President Trump …

I take comfort knowing that there is a new generation of rising House Democratic trade leaders who share my investment in the USMCA’s success and my belief that the deal is the standard upon which future U.S. trade agreements should be built.”

Yes, Congressman Neal, the USMCA is a success, a President Donald Trump success!


Rand Paul Question Ensnares Chief Justice In Likely Deep State- Adam Schiff Whistleblower Coverup

By: Jeffrey Winograd

At the outset of the Senate’s second day of impeachment-related questions and answers, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) submitted the first question from the Republican side and it related to the whistleblower who complained about President Trump’s phone call with Ukraine President Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019.

After perusing the question, Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the impeachment trial, stated he “declines to ask the question as submitted.”

Roberts reportedly has signaled he will not allow the naming of the alleged whistleblower or any question seeking details that might lead to the whistleblower’s identity.

Here are the contents of two tweets Sen. Paul transmitted in the immediate aftermath of Chief Justice Roberts’ refusal.

          “My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.”

          “My exact question is: Are you aware that House intelligence staffer [redacted] had a close relationship with [redacted] while at the National Security Council together?”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the lead House impeachment manager, on Jan. 29 refused to answer a probing question regarding the entire whistleblower affair. It was a blanket refusal cloaked in a lecture on the importance of protecting everything and everyone related to intelligence.

Disturbing facts about whistleblower affair

  1. The alleged whistleblower was not entitled to file a claim because he did not have first-hand knowledge about the July 25 Trump-Zelenskyy phone call. Why did the Intelligence Community inspector general permit the submission of the complaint?
  2. The Intelligence Community inspector general reportedly changed the form which allowed the whistleblower to submit a complaint and first-hand knowledge was no longer required. Why did the inspector general take such an action?
  3.  Rep. Schiff allegedly lied about his knowledge of the whistleblower’s identity and/or interaction with Schiff’s committee staff. Is Schiff believable?
  4. The alleged whistleblower has personal and professional relationships with a specific Schiff staffer. Is this not a sensitive matter requiring a public explanation?
  5. The Intelligence Community inspector general was deposed by the House Intelligence Community and Schiff slapped a “secret” classification on the transcript. What is Schiff afraid of?

It would seem that since the Senate is sitting as a court and Roberts is the presiding judge, he could have called a sidebar to instruct Sen. Paul on how to rephrase his question.

Why didn’t you, Chief Justice Roberts?

Impeachment Surprise – Journalist’s Lawsuit Paves Way To Call CrowdStrike Executive As Witness

By: Jeffrey Winograd

A lawsuit filed in a Maryland federal court on January 10 offers Republican senators, should they decide to call witnesses during the impeachment trial, a politically acceptable pathway to debunk one of the impeachment charges against President Trump.

The lawsuit names a former FBI official, an expert in cybersecurity and one of the top people at CrowdStrike, as a defendant in an action alleging illegal government surveillance and hacking of a prominent journalist’s personal electronic equipment.

In 2016, CrowdStrike was hired to investigate the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer servers and Trump dropped the company’s name during his July 25, 2019, phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This conversation lies at the heart of the impeachment.   

Although CrowdStrike said that it “immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network,” both “Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries,” the FBI says it never conducted its own examination of the computer servers,

It remains unknown whether there were any other nation-state hackers identified by CrowdStrike, it is unfathomable why the FBI and the Justice Department did not use the investigative tools available (such as a grand jury subpoena or search warrant) to gain access to the computer hardware, and it is unclear why the DNC withheld FBI access to its servers.

One individual named in the lawsuit, who was a key FBI cybersecurity expert and knows the ins-and-outs of the agency’s methodology in dealing with hacking investigations, was likely CrowdStrike’s point man in the DNC probe.

Shawn Henty’s answers would surely provide the details President Trump wanted when he sought Zelenskyy’s help and he should be called as an impeachment witness.    

Given the glare of the public spotlight that will shine on him due to the lawsuit, Henry will hardly be in the position to turn his back on a Senate subpoena.


The relevant portion of the transcript of the July 25 phone conversation is this:

Trump: “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 wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people.”

CrowdStrike was the company hired by the DNC to investigate the hacking of its servers.

One provision of the articles of impeachment indirectly refers to the president’s desire to know exactly what, if anything, this U.S. company did regarding the hacking allegation but does not name the company:

“(1) President Trump – acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government – corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into: … (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine – rather than Russia – interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.”

Democrats Toss A Red Herring

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the spearhead of Democratic efforts to impeach the president, saw a way to distract attention away from the real issue – did the Russians actually hack the DNC servers and, if so, was it only the Russians?

Democrats and their cohorts in the media and Deep State promoted the claim that Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, was peddling conspiracy nonsense. This alleged theory suggested that the DNC server or servers somehow wound up in Ukraine, a founder of CrowdStrike has Ukrainian roots (when, in fact, his family came from Russia), and Ukraine was responsible for the hacking.   

So, according to the Democrats, Trump bought into this somewhat bizarre scenario and wanted the Ukraine president to publicly announce an investigation into the matter.

Intelligence Community Labels Russia As Hacker, Maybe

On Jan. 6, 2017, as the Obama administration was reaching its expiry date, the intelligence community (IC) released a report titled “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 Presidential Elections.”

The report stated that “in July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to DNC networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.”

It continued: “We assess that the General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) cyber operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”

However, the report contained this rather stunning disclaimer: “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

Why, given the combined resources of the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency, was there no out-and-out proof of Russian hacking?

Was it a botched FBI/Justice Department (DOJ) investigation? Or, was the James Comey-led FBI attempting to protect unsavory DNC activities documented on its servers, such as its role in the Steele Dossier affair?

The Sharyl Attkisson Lawsuit

During the time span involved in the suit, Sharyl Attkisson was an investigative reporter for CBS and was in the spotlight for her coverage of Operation Fast and Furious as well as the Benghazi (Libya) debacle, both of which were bringing unwanted negative publicity for the Obama administration. 

Attkisson alleges that the named defendants, acting in their capacity as federal employees, conducted “unauthorized and illegal surveillance of the plaintiff’s’ laptop computer from 2011 to 2014.” Such activity constituted a violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, she claims.

The first named defendant is Rod Rosenstein, who at the time was U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Of course, Rosenstein is best known for his tenure as deputy attorney general of the United States and as the guy who named Robert Mueller as special prosecutor to probe President Trump for alleged links to Russia.

However, it is the second named defendant, Shawn Henry, who can be the vehicle for Senate Republicans to totally discredit one impeachment allegation – that Trump’s interest in a CrowdStrike probe was part of a “scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.”

Who Is Shawn Henry?

On Sept. 15, 2010, Henry was named the executive assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch.

During his agency career, Henry served as chief of the Computer Investigations Unit in the National Infrastructure Protection Center; field supervisor of the Computer Crimes Squad for the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office; deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Cyber Division, with program management responsibility for all FBI computer investigations worldwide; and assistant director of the Cyber Division, where, in the words of an FBI press release, “he played a central role in restructuring the FBI’s cyber strategy and investigative programs.”

According to the CrowdStrike website, Henry joined CrowdStrike in 2012 after retiring from the FBI, where he oversaw half of the FBI’s investigative operations, including all FBI criminal and cyber investigations worldwide,

The bottom line is that Shawn Henry is a heavyweight in the field of cybersecurity and probably remains extremely influential in FBI circles.

In the wake of being named in the Attkisson lawsuit, Henry likely is not in a favorable position to rebuff any impeachment-related Senate subpoena to answer detailed questions about CrowdStrike’s work in the DNC computer server hacking investigation, as well as the conduct of the FBI in the matter.

CrowdStrike And The DNC Servers

Exactly why the DNC selected CrowdStrike to investigate possible hacking is open to question.

Andrew C. McCarthy, in “Ball of Collusion,” says that while “CrowdStrike has a good reputation,” it was a “private DNC contractor that had deep ties to the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration.”

According to a CrowdStrike blog dated June 15, 2016, and updated on Sept. 25, 2019, “at the DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April.” Both of the intruders are related to Russian intelligence agencies.

CrowdStrike stated that it has never taken physical possession of any DNC servers. Rather, they capture evidence of hacking using a process call imaging. “The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence,” the firm said.

“We’ve provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI related to the DNC investigation as requested,” CrowdStrike said. “We have never declined any request for information from the FBI related to this investigation, and there are no pending requests for information by the FBI,” it added.


There are at least three key issues that remain to be addressed.

#1 CrowdStrike has never publicly stated that it offered everything it had on the hacking to the FBI. Why not?

#2 The FBI has never revealed everything they have requested from CrowdStrike. Why not?

#3 The IC report only cited hacking by the GRU. However, as CrowdStrike reported in its discussion of COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR: “Both adversaries engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services [emphasis added].” Why the disparity?   

CrowdStrike has not responded to an email request for an interview.

President Trump and the country deserve to know if everything involving government agencies, CrowdStrike and the DNC probe was kosher.

Smart money says Shawn Henry can fill in the blanks.


Ukrainians Dirty Hands With 2016 Campaign Shenanigans

By: Jeffrey Winograd

If you really believe that Russian operatives were working covertly to undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, then you must surely want to know if Ukrainian conspirators were overtly working to support Hillary and undermine the candidacy of Donald Trump. Wouldn’t you?

Well, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, together with Speaker Nancy Pelosi ((D-CA) and most Democrats on Capitol Hill, would rather you don’t even ponder such an outrageous possibility.

This is clearly evident from the words frequently emanating from the mouth of Schiff. As he well knows, words have meaning and they often have great importance in the halls of Congress.

Schiff has been spewing forth “discredited” so much in recent weeks that I thought to take a look in the dictionary to see what it actually means.

“Discredit,” as defined in the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed.), means: “(1) to refuse to accept as true or accurate; (2) to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of.”

The past tense of this verb now seems to be a favorite of the congressman and here are some choice examples:

Schiff on Nov. 19: “One of those investigations involved the Bidens and the other involved a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine and not Russia was responsible for interfering in our 2016 election.”

Schiff on Nov. 20: “The first investigation was of a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine – and not Russia – was responsible for interfering in our 2016 election.”

Rep. Schiff’s modus operandi during the impeachment inquiry seems to be if he says discredited often enough, the average person will accept, as fact, that there was no Ukrainian conspiracy and only the Russkies would stoop to such despicable conduct.

Clearly, to say that something has been discredited does not mean that it has been proven false. Schiff is engaging in a bit of razzle-dazzle to distract people from what is clearly provable.

Ukrainians Apparently Conspired To Impact Election

A serious investigation is warranted to see if disparate events, when taken together, constitute a conspiracy, but there are clearly enough provable facts to suggest this was most likely the case.

What follows are some examples.

#1 There is the matter of the so-called “black ledger” which contained financial documents claiming to show that Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign manager, received  under-the-table payments for services rendered to the tainted former president, Viktor Yanukovych. The New York Times reported on this in its Aug. 14, 2016 edition.

#2 Who actually leaked the document to the media? A guy by the name of Serhiy Leshchenko, a well-known former parliamentarian and vocal supporter of Clinton. Fast forward to Dec. 11, 2018, when a Ukrainian court found that Leshchenko had interfered in the American election. The court also found that the chief of the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau illegally participated in the “black journal” affair.

#3 On Aug. 4, 2016, Valerly Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador in Washington, tossed his hat into the anti-Trump ring, stating in a scathing op-ed in The Hill: “Even if Trump’s comments [regarding Crimea] are only speculative, and do not really reflect a future foreign policy, they call for appeasement of an aggressor and support the violation of a sovereign country’s territorial integrity and another’s breach of international law.” Is it normal conduct for an ambassador to publish such an opinion in the midst of a hotly contested political campaign?

#4 In a July 20, 2017, letter from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who at the time was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the senator voiced his concerns about the activities of Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who had a close association with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. According to Grassley, “Chalupa’s actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and [Hillary] Clinton, in an effort to influence not only the U.S. voting population but U.S. government officials.” Almost two years after Grassley sent his letter, the Ukrainian Embassy released an official statement on the matter

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire

Adam Schiff wants people to think that the intelligence community has clearly proven, which it has not, that the Russians, and no other government, hacked the DNC servers.

However, as you have just seen, those who are crying out about Ukrainian interference have not been alleging hacking, It’s all about those overt activities.

Meanwhile, something rather despicable has been going on.

Various Democrats on the impeachment inquiry panel have sought to discredit the honest reporting of John Solomon, who has been relentless in his probing of a likely conspiracy among Ukrainian – both in and out of government – to influence the presidential campaign in favor of Clinton. Un-American-Activities.com  reported on Solomon’s efforts in its Nov. 13th edition.


Impeachment Inquiry – 5 Key Takeaways from Week 2 (Day 1)

By: Jeffrey Winograd

The second week of the impeachment inquiry by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence kicked off with both morning and afternoon (extending into the evening) sessions that produced no bombshells.

However, some continuing trends were apparent, a few interesting facts were revealed AND, in the view of this reporter who served as an officer in the U.S. Air Force, a poignant and unfortunate situation befell an honorable man.

So, here is my list of the key takeaways in the order to which I attach importance:

#1 Adam Schiff protects the provocateur (and himself).

It was into the third hour of the morning session that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking member of the committee, had his first chance to question the witnesses and he honed in on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the director for European affairs on the National Security Council.

Nunes wanted to know who Vindman spoke with in the aftermath of the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, The Army officer said he spoke with several people in the White House who had a need to know, but he also spoke with two individuals in other agencies who, he said, had the proper security clearance and the appropriate need-to-know.

The first was George Kent, the State Department official who testified at the first hearing last week.

Who was the second person? asked Nunes. The answer was someone in the intelligence community. At this point Schiff intervened in the questioning and, with a don’t-defy-me look on his face which was directed at Vindman, pronounced:

“I want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistleblower through these proceedings. If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we’re here for. I want to advise the witness accordingly.”

The colonel’s lawyer instructed Vindman not to identify the person in the intelligence community and he followed his attorney’s lead and Schiff’s dictate.

Unfortunately, in the minds of many, Vindman will now be seen as a leaker when if, in fact, the anonymous member of the intelligence community had a proper need-to-know, that individual abused the trust place in him by the colonel and was the lead provocateur and the leaker in the impeachment spectacle.

#2 Lt. Col. Vindman is no longer an “unwitting” victim of the Democrat’s impeachment plot.

By most accounts, the colonel has had a distinguished military career. His many accomplishments and performance in a combat zone, as well as linguistic skills (English, Russian and Ukrainian) earned him a coveted stint at the National Security Council.   

There can be little doubt that Vindman genuinely was worried about President Trump’s comments to Zelenskyy about former Vice President Biden and his son, CrowdStrike (which reported that the Russians had hacked the computer server of the Democratic National Committee) and Burisma (the Ukrainian private gas company).

However, as became clear during his testimony, Vindman made a serious error in judgment for a military officer – he sidestepped his chain of command and instead of directly reporting his concerns to his immediate boss he chose to go directly to the legal counsel for the National Security Council. By doing so, he unexpectedly became a centerpiece in the events that followed and had to face harsh but proper questioning from some Republican members of the committee.

And now, according to fresh news reports, the Army may be taking measures to ensure the safety of the colonel and his family.

While Lt. Col. Zindman may have been naïve, he has earned my respect … Duty, Honor, Country.

#3 The Democrats on the committee continue to signal that the “quid pro quo” charge is out and “bribery” and “witness tampering” are very much in.

The day was sprinkled with references to bribery and other matters. For example, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D- NY) inquired of one witness if anyone on the National Security Council expressed anything about the possibility of “some crime or bribery.”

Also, a quick glance at the Democratic majority site on the committee’s webpage reveals more of what we can expect and was evident from the onset of the proceedings.

Certainly, Rep. Schiff’s remarks at the opening session tells us a lot about his and, one presumes, Nancy Pelosi’s intentions, to wit: “If the President abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts — a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid — it will be up to us to decide, whether those acts are compatible with the office of the Presidency.”

#4 Both Republicans and Democrats can focus on the same particular fact and turn it to their own advantage.

For those who are unable to watch the televised sessions, this can be kind of tricky to fully grasp. But here is one example that sticks in my mind.

FACT: Vice President Pence did not attend the inauguration of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.

THE ISSUE: Why didn’t he attend?

The Democrats contended the possibility of Pence attending was used as a form of pressure on Zelenskyy to publicly announce a probe of Burisma and the younger Biden.

The Republicans countered that it was not meant to express displeasure or to apply pressure of some sort.

The points made by both sides merited some thought.

In the end, it turns out, thanks to the testimony of  Jennifer Williams, a career Foreign Service Officer detailed to the Office of the Vice-President and responsible for European and Eurasia issues, that the May 20 date for the inauguration was decided on May 16 (after parliamentary elections) and Pence only had a brief window of opportunity to travel (May 30, May 31 and June 1) due to other major commitments. The inauguration was held on May 20.

Ms. Williams also explained that due to such short notice, it would have been impossible to send an advance team of Secret Service and other personnel.

#5 Delivery of additional Javelin anti-tank missiles.

My apologies to readers but I have been unable to confirm with 100% certainty what I thought I heard. If I can do so, I will report on this topic.



Impeachment Inquiry – 5 Key Takeaways from Week One

By: Jeffrey Winograd

The first week of the impeachment inquiry by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence treated viewers to bloviating members of Congress (almost exclusively Democrats) under marching orders from pseudo-dictator and chairman of the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and three highly experienced American diplomats who pontificated on their overseas exploits and heroism, as well as their (not the Trump administration’s) blueprints for U.S. foreign policy.

With all the talk, a number of key points may have been missed by viewers or those who rely on the Capitol Hill cadre of inexperienced and/or partisan journalists who are supposed to be reporting on what actually was going on.

So, here is my list of the key takeaways in order of importance:

#1 Politization of a crucial legislative committee.

Talk about undermining U.S. national security!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) placed the highly partisan inquiry into the collective lap of a panel whose oversight responsibilities can best be described by citing the names of its four subcommittees – Strategic Technologies and Advanced Research (STAR); Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation (C3); Intelligence Modernization and Readiness (INMAR); and Defense Intelligence and Warfighter Support (DIWS).

Why did the House speaker take such a rash decision? For the answer, look no further than the twin fiascos that took place during impeachment-related hearings conducted by the House Judiciary Committee under the gavel of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Those hearings featured Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, and John Dean of Watergate fame. They would have been first-night flops in the Broadway theaters which happen to sit in Nadler’s district.

#2 Obama administration was leery of the Joe Biden-Hunter Biden conflict of interest.

It is common knowledge that President Obama handed the Ukraine portfolio to Joe Biden whose son was sitting on the board of directors of a Ukrainian private energy company called Burisma. It is also well known, as constantly heralded in the testimony of the three witnesses who appeared during week one, that the promotion of strong anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine was a paramount feature of U.S. foreign policy.

Yet, the White House turned a blind eye, at least publicly, to the appearance of a significant conflict of interest given that Burisma and its founder either had been or still were under criminal investigation (a point of big-time controversy) by Ukrainian authorities. According to George Kent, who served as deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, he contacted the vice president’s office and raised his concerns about a possible perceived conflict of interest. What was their response? “I have no idea,” he replied to the GOP questioner. He was then asked if Biden’s engagement with Ukraine remained the same. “Correct, because the vice president was promoting U.S. policy objectives in Ukraine,” Kent said.

Two days later, the cat was out of the bag when former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, testifying under oath, was hit with a few probing questions by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). Did the Bidens come up in your preparations to assume the ambassadorship?” Yovanovitch explained how she was rehearsed for her Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing and she was instructed how to answer any possible question about the Bidens. “I would refer you to the vice president’s office,” she was instructed to say.

#3 NATO’s relationship with Ukraine deserves scrutiny.

During his opening remarks, George Kent, who has been serving as deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs since September 2018, made a comment that was ignored by all the committee members. Stated Kent: “Ultimately, Ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the United States within NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization].”

What exactly Kent meant by that is unclear. However, a cursory reading of a NATO publication titled Security Through Partnership hints at a possibility, even though it is unlikely. The publication notes that a special relationship has been developed with Ukraine since 1997. “Steps were taken to deepen and broaden the NATO-Ukraine relationship in November 2002 with the adoption of the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan, which supports Ukraine’s reform efforts on the road to full integration in Euro-Atlantic security structures,” it adds. The publication goes on to say that 10 Partner countries have become Allies, among them the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

Since the three diplomats who testified have left the impression that it is diplomats who create foreign policy and not just carry it out, it might have been the perfect occasion to ask the Deep Staters in the State Department what is really in store for Ukraine, Russia willing.

#4 Schiff’s chicanery with committee rules and procedures undercut his credibility.

Rep. Schiff wielded his chairman’s gavel in a cavalier and disrespectful manner towards his GOP colleagues, and along the way it appears he trampled on a basic courtesy of allowing committee members to request various items be added to the hearing record by unanimous consent. Once the Republicans began requesting such courtesy to add a host of news reports about Schiff saying the so-called whistleblower would be testifying before the committee, Schiff couldn’t stand the heat and put a stop to it. This ultimately forced Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to change her plans for using her five-minute opportunity to ask questions. Instead, she read aloud more of the stuff Schiff now finds embarrassing and which will appear in the record.

Schiff also used his power to make the deposition of Timothy Morrison, formerly on the staff of the National Security Council, unavailable to the public until Nov. 18. According to applicable House rules, Republicans were unable to use anything from Morrison’s deposition when they were questioning witnesses. They clearly felt there was information in the deposition that Schiff didn’t want them to use. And he was able to stop them.

#5 Elise Stefanik Shines

It was clear that Schiff was afraid of the articulate, self-assured and pugnacious Rep. Stefanik, who, when she had limited chances to speak, was well worth listening to. In fact, when Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking member of the committee, wanted to yield his time to Stefanik, Schiff refused to allow it by invoking his handcrafted rules for the impeachment inquiry.

Schiff may well rue the way he treated the third term legislator from upstate New York. Commenting on Stefanik’s performance, President Trump said, “A new Republican star is born.” Somewhat surprising since Trump is not known for understatements!


Impeachment Scam Should Sink Schiff – Part IV (Hamilton v. Schiff)

By: Jeffrey Winograd

Part IV – Alexander Hamilton Trumps Adam Schiff

Alexander Hamilton, a key architect and signer of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 65 on the proper court for a trial of impeachments, Stated Hamilton: “A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired, than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective.”

He continued: “In many cases, [the venue for such a court] will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strengths of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

What a fitting description of the House of Representatives led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).  

Why did the framers of the Constitution place “the delicacy and magnitude of a trust,” as is the court for a trial of impeachment, in the hands of the Senate which, at that time, was comprised of members chosen by state legislatures? In Hamilton’s words: “The  difficulty of placing it rightly in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodic elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders, or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction; and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.”  

How could Hamilton possibly have foreseen the emergence of such a devious, lying, leaking legislator as Adam Schiff (D-CA)?

Going back to the words of Schiff in his Nov. 5th op-ed: “The president’s corrupt pressure to secure [Ukraine’s] interference in our election betrayed our national security and his oath of office.”

Finishing in a blaze of self-centered glory, Schiff wrote: “For over a year, I resisted calls for an impeachment inquiry because impeachment was intended to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. But the Founders who devised our government understood that someday, a president might come to power who would fail to defend or would sacrifice the country’s national security in favor of his own personal or political interests, and that Congress would need to consider such a remedy.”

Schiff is guilty of willful ignorance and perhaps he should read the words of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The President … of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Is President Trump guilty of Treason?

Is President Trump guilty of Bribery?

Has President Trump committed other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?

To this point, it seems that Mr. Schiff has been unable or unwilling to offer any evidence of such illegal conduct by President Trump.

Finally, take a quick look at the House Intelligence Committee’s webpage devoted to impeachment. Forget that it looks and reads like a political flyer.

Instead, focus on what is alleged to be President Trump’s “grave abuse of the power of the presidency.”

Specifically, it reads: “The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to ascertain the full extent of the president’s misconduct, and thanks to testimony from dedicated, nonpartisan public servants, we now have a much fuller picture of how President Trump abused the State Department and other levers of government for his own political gain.”