Rep. Trey Gowdy Focuses on Bruce Ohr Next (7th Fired?)

CNS NEWS has more on the above:

…Ohr’s wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, which hired Christopher Steele to produce the opposition research on Donald Trump. The Clinton Campaign and the Democrat National Committee paid for the Steele dossier through a law firm.

The FBI used Steele as a source for a while. And recently revealed documentsindicate that Bruce Ohr was funneling information from Christopher Steele to the FBI, even after the FBI fired Steele as a source. It appears that Ohr served as a go-between at a time when the FBI had ended its association with Steele.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) told Fox News Monday night that he used to work at the Justice Department “doing what Bruce Ohr does now.” Both men are or were prosecutors.

“It’s unbelievable that a prosecutor would insert himself into an ongoing investigation for which he had nothing to do,” Gowdy said.

According to Gowdy, “Bruce Ohr worked for the Department of Justice. He had nothing to do with the Russia investigation other than he inserted himself by having contact with Christopher Steele.”

Ohr “even had contact with Chris Steele after the FBI terminated its relationship with Chris Steele.” Gowdy noted that one branch of the Justice Department — the FBI — decided Steele was “not even fit to be an informant,” yet a high-ranking Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, was continuing to funnel information from Steele to the FBI.

“We’re going to interview him on August 28th,” Gowdy said. “I am going to come back to Washington — I’m going to leave my beloved South Carolina and I’m going to go back, and I’m sure others will, too…we’re going to be back, and we’re going to interview Bruce Ohr — not in a public circus setting, but in a deposition with no time limits and we’re going to get to the bottom of what he did, why he did it, who he did it in concert with, whether he had the permission of the supervisors at the Department of Justice.

“I used to work doing what Bruce Ohr does now. It’s unbelievable that a prosecutor would insert himself into an on-going investigation for which he had nothing to do.”….

Jim Jordan was on Neil Cavuto’s show discussing the recent firing of Peter Strozk:

This is the main point Jim Jordan made, among the others:

Dan Bongino fills in for Mark Levin and discusses John Solomon’s recent article entitled, “Did FBI Get Bamboozled by Multiple Versions of Trump Dossier?“. Devastating information keeps coming out, and the FBI is looking worse-and-worse by the day (well, it’s leadership is):

Progressivism vs. Declaration (4th of July Primer)

(School is in!) Mark Levin shares his study of the U.S. Constitution and it’s Founding. The American Founding. Levin discusses the miracle of the death of the two men key to the Declaration’s appearance (Jefferson and Adams) on the Fourth of July. He then treads into progressive waters and the current dislike of our American Founding as compared to history. He reads from Woodrow Wilson (our first Ph.D. President) and his disdain for the Founding document and Principles. Then a reading from — really a counter point — Calvin Coolidge to cement the idea that these are eternal principles. Levin wonders aloud how Leftists can even celebrate the 4th in good conscience.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers. — Calvin Coolidge (POWERLINE)

BTW, if one does not know the history of the fourth in regard to Jefferson and Adams, or the eternal principles BEHIND the Declaration, here are some decent videos:

Dr. Mark J. Perry and Mark Levin Discuss Tariffs

Mark Levin hosts Life, Liberty, & Levin and this week he is joined by American Enterprise Institute Scholar Mark J. Perry to discuss trade in America today. (Mark J. Perry is concurrently a scholar at AEI and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus. He is best known as the creator and editor of the popular economics blog Carpe Diem. At AEI, Perry writes about economic and financial issues for American.com and the AEIdeas blog.) How tariff’s effects other countries and Americans as well, along with President Trumps strength against China, and where we may go wrong if we’re not careful.

Mark Levin gives us an Econ 101 class on tariffs and taxes. This is why the unions love this because it protects their jobs and not other businesses in the States.

An interesting part of the call which I stitched to before the other segment is an article in the Wall Street Journal which notes that the reason car manufacturers build in Mexico is due to free-trade agreements:

  • Audi says that an array of free trade agreements favors Mexico over U.S. sites. Its not just the price of skilled labor that is attractive to Audi. If you think about a $50,000 car made in the U.S. that is then exported to Europe there is a 10% duty on that car. So that’s $5000 in duties that Audi is paying. When that same car is made in Mexico there is no duty. This means with an already concentrated area of auto manufactures in Mexico, low cost skilled labor and free trade agreements it is a huge win for Audi and it will be easy to do business. No reinventing the wheel or stepping out alone as the only auto manufacture, Audi is simply following suit. (WSJ)

Not only will these Executive Orders (E.O.) worsen us in the long run (unless this administration has something else up their sleeve), it is the same thing we gripped about when Obama was President and Left leaning legal scholar, Jonathan Turley said was not what the office of President was intended for. I agree.

What is interesting is the juxtaposition the Dems find themselves in regarding the E.O.’s. You see, you had many challenges to Obama’s E.O.’s and he holds the record for the most overturned by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in our history as a country. But they were brought to the court mainly by Republican Attorney Generals in a state or a group — or a combination thereof. AND YES, many of these actions Trump is taking with his pen and paper are just as unconstitutional. However, in 2018 we find this:

The GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats.

This means that since the Democrats know their constituents are already upset enough at them to switch parties… why would you rock the boat on some of these executive orders that they know their constituents like. Like the car manufactures/unions. What Democrat in their right mind would bring a case to SCOTUS to overturn something they wish they had did?

Or how bout’ the growing concern in the black community about jobs and the influx of illegal immigrants? You see, they type of people Trump is putting on the Court would vote AGAINST what Trump is doing. They are originalists, and so, the Democrats would certainly win these cases if brought before the conservative Court.

  • But they also have to win in 2018. They are essentially protecting 25-seats.

So many of these E.O.’s Trump is writing could easily be overturned if moved forward by the Democrats. Right now however, doing so would be politically dangerous for them. For now at least.

Illegal Immigration Hurts Black and Brown Communities Job Opportunities

Larry Elder brings some sense with common sense studies showing the impact of illegal immigration on workers in black and brown communities. These legal workers are impacted the most by illegal immigration. I include in the audio Cesar Chavev in a 1972 interview calling illegal immigrants harmful to the union he co-founded. Some key articles are these for those wishing to chase down reliable commentary on the facts:

  • The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates: Black Anger Grows As Illegal Immigrants Transform Urban Neighborhoods. | “A recent study…estimates that immigration accounted for a 7.4 percentage-point decline in the employment rate of unskilled black males between 1980-2000.”
  • Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers: The Candidates Tell Drastically Different Stories About Immigration. They’Re Both Skipping Half The Truth. | “But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable.” — George Borjas, Harvard economist.

I was told the other day these are jobs that others will not do. Here are some stats on the matter:

  • “Mark Levin said he was particularly bothered by the claim—made by politicians on both sides of the aisle—that there are so many so-called ‘jobs that Americans will not do.’ Levin mentioned that, according to the Census, 73% of janitors are American citizens, as are 51% of maids and housekeepers, 58%of taxi drivers, 64% of landscapers, 66% of construction workers, and 72% of bellhops, porters, and concierges.” (BREITBART)

 

Jake Tapper Put Into Detention (Mark Levin)

  • Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children and Families spokesperson Kenneth Wolfe told Newsweek on Wednesday that it had as many as 10,852 undocumented children in its custody—a significant jump from the 8,886 that were in the agency’s custody on April 29, according to the Washington Postspokesman for HHS’s Administration for Children and Families told
  • In fiscal year 2013, under the Barack Obama administration, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had as many as 25,000 unaccompanied children in its care across 80 shelters, according to a July 2014 article in Mother Jones.

(Via NEWSWEEK, with a h/t to DAILY WIRE)

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article titled,

  • “Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing” (dated: March 11, 2015)

 Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment.

His intelligence analysts estimated that 78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18 — teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught — and he wanted to attack this loophole.

“Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.

Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge.

During their detention, they are questioned by U.S. authorities and then transferred to a network of facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, across 15 states. While confined, they undergo psychological evaluations and take English courses. Some are allowed tourist-type activities, such as going to the beach or museums, according to Mexican consular officials in Texas. At least one youth earned a high school general equivalency diploma.

“We haven’t heard of any mistreatment,” said Erasmo R. Martinez, Mexico’s consul in McAllen, Tex.

But the little-known program, called the Juvenile Referral Process, has worried human rights groups and some Mexican officials who fear that it puts the children at risk. They view it as a way for U.S. authorities to gather intelligence about cartels and think it endangers the children who could be targeted as informants when they return to Mexico. Some question the legality of the extended detentions.

“Our concern is that the program’s real intent is to interrogate the kids,” said Maureen Meyer, an expert on Mexico and migrants at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). The kids are “often questioned about the criminal groups they are working for and then subsequently returned to Mexico with no apparent concern about the implications for them.”

While in custody last year, one Mexican boy who worked as a guide shared information with U.S. authorities about the location of stash houses used by migrants as they move through the United States, according to his lawyer’s written summary of his case. When he returned to Mexico, he learned that armed men had forced their way into his home and killed a relative’s son. The men told the family that there had been raids on cartel hideouts and arrests and that they believed the boy was responsible. His half-brother was later killed by the same group. The boy, his lawyer said, has since been in hiding.

Harris said the Border Patrol does not have a system to track what happens to the juveniles once they return to Mexico. The program does appear to be discouraging them from returning illegally to Texas, he said. The patrol calculates that just 7 percent of the children who have gone through the program have been picked up again crossing the border.

In the past, Mexican minors picked up by the Border Patrol normally would be deported by bus, sometimes on the same day they arrived. Some of these kids have been captured more than 60 times, and Harris’s officers have identified about 800 young smugglers operating in Texas. Human rights workers in Mexico and the United States say these kids are often forced to work for the cartels or risk retaliation against themselves or their families.

Drug cartels “exploit hundreds of juveniles, using them as smugglers, guides, and scouts; in turn these juveniles are responsible for smuggling thousands of illegal aliens and large amounts of narcotics,” the Border Patrol told WOLA in a statement about the program.

The program began in May in two Border Patrol sectors, Laredo and Del Rio, consisting of nearly 400 miles of the Texas border with Mexico.

“The moment it started, it took us all by surprise, because there wasn’t an announcement,” said Reyna Torres Mendívil, director general of the Mexican Foreign Ministry’s office for protection of Mexicans abroad. “Where were they taking these children?”

Border Patrol agents would refer them to the U.S. attorney’s office, but typically, unless there are aggravating circumstances, they won’t be prosecuted. So this period of detention is intended to be a punishment in lieu of a criminal charge. The shelters they are sent to also house juveniles from Central America, awaiting flights home; last year, the Mexican kids accounted for about 1 percent of all the detainees in these facilities.

In November, Oscar Jaime Rodriguez Mendoza, a 16-year-old from the border town of Reynosa, left for the United States and didn’t come home.

“We didn’t know what had happened to him,” said his mother, Leonor Mendoza, a 37-year-old clothing vendor.

She finally learned that he had been sent to a shelter in California. From there, he was allowed to talk to her by phone every night for 10 minutes. Oscar told his mother that the kids were grouped by risk or behavior — purple, yellow, green — and that some couldn’t leave the facility. Oscar was a purple, he told his mom, with the least restrictions. On one occasion, he got to go ice skating.

“It’s a type of punishment so they won’t cross as much,” his mother said. “For me, sincerely, it’s okay. It will discourage him from doing it again.”

Mexican authorities say they don’t want these minors to be stigmatized or criminalized by U.S. authorities. Mendívil, of the Foreign Ministry, said that not all repeat border-crossers are cartel-linked smugglers. She cited the case of one child who crossed repeatedly to buy used clothes for his mother to sell in Mexico.

“We’re in favor of what is in the best interest of the minor,” she said. “Many of these kids may have legitimate claim to perhaps be reunited with family in the U.S. We want them to have their day in court and be heard. If they are threatened, if they are victims of trafficking, if they have been in a family crisis situation, they deserve to be heard and protected from whatever is threatening them.”

At the local level, Mexican immigration officials along the border consider the program effective because they’ve found that it discourages children from working as guides.

“It’s excellent for us,” said Erasmo Rodriguez, an immigration official in the border town of Piedras Negras. “We’ve received many fewer minors.”

In the first two months of the year, just five repeat crossers from the area were deported to his office. Before the Border Patrol program, he said, dozens would be returned in a normal month.

The Executive Order Trump signed will not last… here are some examples of how and why it will fail. The first source is Leftist, FYI:

Trump can’t overrule the Flores settlement with the stroke of a pen…

[….]

The Flores settlement now at the center of the family separation crisis has a 30-year history. In the 1980s, several lawsuits were filed over the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the care of the US government. One was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1985 on behalf of Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador. She had fled her home country to find an aunt who was living in the United States, but she was detained by federal authorities at the US border.

Flores and other minors in federal custody sometimes had to share sleeping quarters and bathrooms with unrelated adult men and women. Flores was strip-searched regularly, and she was told she could only be released to her parents, not her aunt. The ACLU asserted in its lawsuit that Flores and other unaccompanied children had a constitutional right to be released to “responsible” adults, as the Marquette Law Review documented in a review of the Flores settlement’s history.

The case went through several federal courts before reaching the Supreme Court in 1993, and the high court mostly sided with the government. But the real consequence was a consent decree agreed to by the Clinton administration and the plaintiffs in the litigation in 1997. The decree, known as the Flores settlement, set standards for unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities.

(VOX)

 

 

 

Mark Levin Checks Gowdy’s “Slip-n-Fall” From Law 101

  • Trey Gowdy’s Defense Of The FBI In “Spygate” (POWERLINE, by Paul Mirengoff | May 30, 2018)
  • Not Giddy Over Gowdy (POWERLINE, by Scott Johnson | May 31, 2018)
  • Yes, the FBI Was Investigating the Trump Campaign When It Spied (NATIONAL REVIEW, by  Andrew McCarthy | May 30, 2018)
  • Trey Gowdy Didn’t Even See Documents He Claims Exonerate FBI On Spygate: Reports (THE FEDERALIST, by Mollie Hemingway | May 30, 2018)

Robert Mueller’s Appointment Is Unconstitutional

(Via MARK LEVIN) The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the constitution, which means every subpoena, indictment, and plea bargain should be null and void. On his radio show, Levin said every person under a subpoena, or indictment, or has a case against them via Muller should walk into their respective Federal Court Building and make this case before a Federal Judge. While Mark said he is the first to promote this… he is not in fact the first.

  • H/T to Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi, who raised many of these points, and more, with me and a few other friends and colleagues over the weekend, in a well-researched opinion he shared with us. He deserves great credit.

BUT LEVIN wasn’t the first to promote this idea. Lionel is working from a previous article — mind you, Lionel is a conspiracy guy, so is ZERO-HEDGE, but the issue is one of settled Constitutional law in 1988:

Here is LIONEL’s description of the above:

Lionel reviews noted jurist Steven Calabresi’s thesis that Robert Mueller’s investigation has crossed the legal line, explaining that it’s unconstitutional under Morrison vs Olson. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including – as in Mr. Manafort’s case – ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Here is ZERO HEDGE excerpting the WALL STREET JOURNAL article:

Judge T.S. Ellis has expressed skepticism about the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “What we don’t want in this country is… anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis, who is to preside over the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, told prosecutor Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben May 4. “So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers.”

Judge Ellis is right to be skeptical. Mr. Mueller’s investigation has crossed a constitutional line, for reasons the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in the 1988 case Morrison v. Olson. That case is best known for Justice Antonin Scalia’s powerful lone dissent arguing that the post-Watergate independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the court, while upholding the statute, set forth limits that the Mueller investigation has exceeded.

At issue is the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which provides that “principal officers” must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s consent. Rehnquist wrote that independent counsel Alexia Morrison qualified as an “inferior officer,” not subject to the appointment process, because her office was “limited in jurisdiction” to “certain federal officials suspected of certain serious federal crimes.”

Mr. Mueller, in contrast, is investigating a large number of people and has already charged defendants with many different kinds of crimes, including – as in Mr. Manafort’s case – ones unrelated to any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s too much power for an inferior officer to have. Only a principal officer, such as a U.S. attorney, can behave the way Mr. Mueller is behaving. Mr. Mueller is much more powerful today than any of the 96 U.S. attorneys. He is behaving like a principal officer.

Rehnquist’s majority opinion has never been overturned. In Edmund v. U.S. and in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, the justices said that an officer cannot be inferior unless he has a boss – as Mr. Mueller does in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him. But that’s not a sufficient condition. As a principal officer, Mr. Rosenstein could legally have brought all the indictments Mr. Mueller has. But he may not delegate that authority to Mr. Mueller, any more than President Trump could delegate his veto power to Mr. Rosenstein.

Crossfire Hurricane | Rush Limbaugh

Rush touches on the article from the New York Times. He points out that it is a major correction to its ever changing timeline and confirms a spy in the Trump campaign, thus, undermining its own attacks on “crazy Trump” and his conspiracy theories. Which Obama had to have been aware of, since as Levin noted yesterday, that Sally Yates signed the first FISA application. One thing the NYT article did admit, and that is that “…No Evidence Exists of Trump-Russia Collusion”.

What is the bottom line of this issue?

  • The NYTs reveals FBI used a secret type of subpoena to spy on the Trump campaign, as well as human spies inserted into the campaign – BEFORE Carter-Page, before Papadopoulos, before Flynn (BREITBART). Meaning, this is a concerted effort by a political party to overturn an election. Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, head of Stalin’s secret police, once told Stalin, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

All I will do is give a listing of some articles that are noting the NYT column:

  • Spinning a Crossfire Hurricane: The Times on the FBI’s Trump Investigation (NATIONAL REVIEW);
  • Crossfire Hurricane: Category Five Political Espionage (AMERICAN SPECTATOR);
  • National Security Letter (WIKIPEDIA)
  • 10 Key Takeaways From The New York Times’ Error-Ridden Defense Of FBI Spying On Trump Campaign (THE FEDERALIST);
  • NYT Report Confirms Obama Administration’s FBI Spied on Trump Campaign (LEGAL INSURRECTION);
  • Just WOW: Kimberley Strassel’s thread on NYT ‘Hurricane Crossfire’ piece incredibly DAMNING for Obama DOJ/FBI (TWITCHYThread Reader);
  • The Origin of The Feces – Corrupt Intelligence Community Now Leaking To Justify Unlawful Election Surveillance: Operation “Crossfire Hurricane” (CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE);
  • The Morning Report 5/17/18 (ACE OF SPADES);
  • Trump: Obama FBI ‘Probably’ Had a Spy Inside Presidential Campaign (FREE BEACON);
  • A “Crossfire Hurricane” Of Partisanship (HOWARD KURTZ);
  • Operation Crossfire Hurricane + I.G. Report Update (SEAN HANNITY)
  • Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation (ABOVE TOP SECRET).

Crossfire Hurricane | Mark Levin

This is the biggest scandal in American History. In this hour long reading/commentary by Mark Levin, we find out that what he and others have been saying is not only COMPLETELY true, but far worse than previously suspected.

All I will do is give a listing of some articles that are noting the NYT column:

  • Spinning a Crossfire Hurricane: The Times on the FBI’s Trump Investigation (NATIONAL REVIEW);
  • Crossfire Hurricane: Category Five Political Espionage (AMERICAN SPECTATOR);
  • Informant Spied on Trump Campaign BEFORE the FBI Officially Began Its Probe (BREITBART)
  • National Security Letter (WIKIPEDIA)
  • 10 Key Takeaways From The New York Times’ Error-Ridden Defense Of FBI Spying On Trump Campaign (THE FEDERALIST);
  • NYT Report Confirms Obama Administration’s FBI Spied on Trump Campaign (LEGAL INSURRECTION);
  • Just WOW: Kimberley Strassel’s thread on NYT ‘Hurricane Crossfire’ piece incredibly DAMNING for Obama DOJ/FBI (TWITCHYThread Reader);
  • The Origin of The Feces – Corrupt Intelligence Community Now Leaking To Justify Unlawful Election Surveillance: Operation “Crossfire Hurricane” (CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE);
  • The Morning Report 5/17/18 (ACE OF SPADES);
  • Trump: Obama FBI ‘Probably’ Had a Spy Inside Presidential Campaign (FREE BEACON);
  • A “Crossfire Hurricane” Of Partisanship (HOWARD KURTZ);
  • Operation Crossfire Hurricane + I.G. Report Update (SEAN HANNITY)
  • Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation (ABOVE TOP SECRET).

Mueller vs. Paul Manafort – Judge Ellis III Presiding

Mark Levin reads from the court transcript from the court precedings of “U.S Special Counsel Mueller -Vs- Paul Manafort – Judge TS Ellis III Presiding – May” (COURT TRANSCRIPT — uploaded by the CONSERVATIVE TREE-HOUSE). There are also some stories on this here:

Not only is Mueller in trouble with Flynn’s case, this one ain’t looking so healthy now!

A Primer for Constitutional Impeachment (Constitution 101)

I have heard from many talk show hosts that you can impeach a ham sandwich for jay-walking. However, like with other issues, the framers of the Constitution had a convention — they spoke on many of the items added to it’s text, clearly, and were working from definitions and meanings enumerated from their day… and in writing.

MARK LEVIN reads from the book “IMPEACHMENT: THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS“, and lays down the case that the writers of the impeachment clause in the Constitution would not allow any frivolous issue be the driver for impeachment.