NEW WHISTLEBLOWER: George Soros Behind DNC Pressure to Fire Ukraine Prosecutor at Center of Impeachment Inquiry; Where Is The Original Whistleblower?

By The Blaze. [New Ukraine whistleblower, Andrii Telizhenko] was an adviser to former Ukrainian chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was ousted during an investigation into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company where former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the board. The Obama administration claims that the Ukrainian prosecutor was fired over alleged corruption. Biden even bragged, with cameras rolling, that he threatened to withhold a billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine “if the prosecutor is not fired.”

According to Telizhenko, however, Shokin was fired because a George Soros funded non-governmental organization (NGO) wanted him gone. (Read more from “NEW WHISTLEBLOWER: George Soros Behind DNC Pressure to Fire Ukraine Prosecutor at Center of Impeachment Inquiry” HERE)


One Person Is Missing in the Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry: The Whistleblower

By Reuters. Democratic lawmakers leading an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump have heard days of testimony from a parade of senior government officials. But they have yet to hear from the whistleblower who sparked the probe – and may never do.

In the end, it may not matter, some Democratic lawmakers said, because the other officials who have testified, Trump’s own statements, a trove of texts between top U.S. diplomats, and other White House documents have largely substantiated the whistleblower’s complaint that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden.

Talks between lawyers for the whistleblower and representatives of the House of Representatives and Senate committees that want to question the intelligence official have all but deadlocked, three sources familiar with the negotiations told Reuters. (Read more from “One Person Is Missing in the Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry: The Whistleblower” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Now the Deep State Is Calling Trump’s Attorney a “National Security Threat”

Rudy Giuliani’s no good, very bad month keeps getting worse. Just days after two of his clients and business partners were arrested and charged with violating federal campaign finance laws, reports started surfacing that Giuliani himself was the subject of an investigation for possible violations of federal lobbying laws. But according to Wednesday report from CNN, the scope of the federal probe into Giuliani’s foreign entanglements is far broader than initial reports revealed, and includes a counterintelligence investigation.

The counterintelligence facet of the investigation into the president’s personal attorney is reportedly exploring whether a foreign influence campaign attempted to use Giuliani’s business and political connections to gain influence over U.S. policy in the White House.

According to CNN Legal and National Security Analyst, attorney and former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa, the existence of a counterintelligence investigation means the FBI believes Giuliani “may pose a national security threat to the United States.”

Unlike typical criminal probes, counterintel investigations are not predicated on the mere suspicion of unlawful conduct, Rangappa explained. Preliminary counterintel inquiries generally require some verifiable contact with persons linked to foreign intelligence, are kept secret, and must be closed within six months unless an actual threat is identified. Where a threat is identified, however, a preliminary inquiry may escalate into a full investigation that can continue indefinitely.

“Based on reports that the FBI was questioning people about Giuliano’s counterintelligence related issues as far back as Feb/Mar, an ongoing investigation would mean that this is a ‘Full’ rather than ‘Preliminary” Investigation,’ Rangappa wrote Wednesday. (Read more from “Now the Deep State Is Calling Trump’s Attorney a “National Security Threat” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Trump Brands Romney a ‘Democrat Secret Asset’

President Donald Trump slammed Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) as a “Democrat secret asset” who attempted to “infiltrate” his administration as secretary of state following the 2016 election in a video shared to Twitter Friday evening.

In the one-minute video, the narrator states Romney’s cover was “blown,” and he was “exposed by news reports as a Democrat secret asset.” The video then shows highlights of the Utah Republican’s 2012 presidential campaign defeat, following by clips of the president’s successful bid in 2016. President-Elect Trump briefly considered Romney for the role of secretary of state, but ultimatly selected Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson for the high-profile post.

The video’s release comes as Romney, a longtime Trump critic, has criticized the president’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria and his suggestion for China and Ukraine to investigate allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. . .

Trump tweeted:

“I’m hearing that the Great People of Utah are considering their vote for their Pompous Senator, Mitt Romney, to be a big mistake. I agree! He is a fool who is playing right into the hands of the Do Nothing Democrats! #IMPEACHMITTROMNEY.

(Read more from “Trump Brands Romney a ‘Democrat Secret Asset’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Claim: Turkish Forces Immediately Violated Ceasefire Agreement

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) reported on Friday morning that Turkish forces violated the five-day ceasefire agreement announced on Thursday afternoon almost immediately, as Turkish-allied ground forces continued to attack the town of Ras al-Ain with Turkish air and artillery support.

“Despite the agreement to halt the fighting, air and artillery attacks continue to target the positions of fighters, civilian settlements, and the hospital in Serekaniye/Ras al-Ain,” said SDF spokesman Mustafa Bali, using both the Kurdish and Arabic names of the town. . .

The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights counted 7 civilians killed plus at least 21 injured by Turkish airstrikes and warned 38 injured people are trapped in an area under siege by Turkish proxies.

Organizers of a civilian relief convoy attempting to reach Ras al-Ain told Kurdistan24 News the attacking forces have cut off access to the town. They reported 30 injuries in the area from artillery fired by either the Turks or their allies from the Free Syrian Army.

Reuters journalists positioned near the Turkey-Syria border said they could hear machine-gun fire and artillery explosions from the vicinity of Ras al-Ain and saw plumes of smoke near the town, although they added the “sounds of fighting had subsided by mid-morning.” (Read more from “Claim: Turkish Forces Immediately Violated Ceasefire Agreement” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Athletic Wear Company Targets Trump for Humiliation in New AD Campaign

A billboard for an athletic wear company features various women humiliating a man who looks like President Donald Trump, including one pose where he is being hogtied.

The ads from Dhvani are being featured at Times Square in New York City. . .

In another, the impersonator is sitting on the toilet with his pants around his ankles while a woman grabs his smartphone from his hands.

Vendors can refuse ads, but the company says that they were able to compromise with their vendor to get the ad approved.

“We were able to work with our vendor and reach a consensus on the level of facial obfuscation that would appease the landlord and get this bold, pull-no-punches, call-to-arms creative up and in front of potentially millions of like-minded Americans,” said Dhvani chief marketing officer Angela Williams. (Read more from “Athletic Wear Company Targets Trump for Humiliation in New AD Campaign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Want to Fight a War? Fight on Our Border, Not Syria’s

Over 30,000 people will be killed there this year. There are powerful terrorist groups that are defeating government forces, beheading and torturing townsfolk, and controlling every form of human- and drug-smuggling over the border. This is not Syria and the Turkish border. I’m talking about Mexico and our own border.

It is truly astounding how so many of the self-described national security hawks like Mitt Romney, who believe we have blood on our hands for not having troops flung out in Syria during a civil war, never utter a word about the need to deploy troops more aggressively at our own border to combat the cartel terrorists.

The Mexican cartels are defeating the government in major cities. There are battles just south of us; they are shooting at our agents; they have operatives in every U.S. state spreading drugs and gang violence; and they are working with MS-13, which is more of a threat to our communities than anything going on in Syria. Thus, the stability of Mexico matters a lot more to us than the stability of Syria. If Romney, Rubio, and other establishment Republicans, along with Democrat leaders, feel we need several thousand troops at the Turkish border, they should support several hundred thousand troops at our own border, based on a commensurate measure of what actually affects our own security.

Yesterday, Mexican national guardsmen detained Ovidio Guzman López, the son of former Sinaloa Cartel head “El Chapo,” in the city of Culiacán. On Thursday afternoon, Sinaloa members dispatched a stronger force of soldiers and weapons than the Mexican government, and the government was forced to release him. They also released his brother, Ivan. This is a failed narco-state right on our border. The cartels are now officially more powerful than Mexico’s military, even when the government is actually trying to combat them. The government has now lost control of a city of 785,000 people.

What’s even more embarrassing is that this failed operation was done at the behest of our government, which had requested Guzman Lopez be extradited to the U.S. for trial, according to Mexico’s president. That is a black eye for our government and something that should concern Mitt Romney a lot more than Syria.

Here is who truly controls Mexico:

Jaeson Jones, retired captain for the Texas Department of Public Safety’s intel and counterterrorism division, has long been a proponent of taking a more aggressive stance against the cartels and believes this is a wake-up call. “Intense violence rocked Culiacan, Mexico, yesterday as government authorities captured leaders of Sinaloa Cartel,” said the cartel expert, who just took a trip to Mexico to meet with sources. “Only hours later, the president of Mexico would cower and show the world the Mexican government was not in charge of the safety of its country. For years, I have tried to convince our citizens and government how hyper-violent the Mexican cartels have become and why we must designate the Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Yesterday, the world witnessed it; the question now is will the U.S. State Dept. still refuse to take action?”

The cartel members are also very heavily armed.

“We observed .50 cal belt-fed machine guns mounted in armored vehicles, Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles engaging Mexican authorities, convoys of armored vehicles being called into the city along with the use of hand grenades and 40 millimeter grenades,” observed Jones. “They also released prisoners, implemented roadblocks, and a day later, the city is still on fire. Yesterday’s events showed a president cower and a nation kneel. These are not just drug cartels any more.”

It’s truly shocking how nobody in either party in Congress who is ready to die on the hill of the Syrian civil war even utters a peep about the fall of our number one trading partner, which happens to be right on our own border.

You might think this is just a Mexican problem. The issue is that the increasing violence every month is going to impel a new wave of Mexican migration to our border. After steep declines in Mexican illegal immigration for the past decade while the Central Americans began coming, we are now coming full circle and witnessing the early stages of increased Mexican border migration, thanks to the cartel violence.

The Washington Post reports today that there is a new increase in Mexicans asking for asylum at our border. Mexican adults caught at the border have increased 25 percent since the end of July, even as the number of Central Americans has dropped sharply. “In recent weeks, thousands of Mexican adults and children have been camping out in queues at U.S. border crossings, sleeping in tents while awaiting a chance to apply for safe refuge.”

One agent who patrols in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas told me he is already seeing this new trend on the ground. “They are coming from Mexico with an ‘official document’ that has been notarized, which describes their harsh living conditions and threats to safety from the cartels,” said the agent, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to speak to the media.

Again, it’s truly astounding how nobody in Congress, the State Department, or the DOD wants to view our own border as a national security problem because it’s not located in the Middle East. It seems like our military only exists for nonexistent borders of other groups around the world. (For more from the author of “Want to Fight a War? Fight on Our Border, Not Syria’s” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

What Are They Hiding? Top Republicans DEMAND Secret Dem Impeachment Docs

The House Judiciary Committee’s top Republican member is demanding that top Democrats allow him see investigation information that has been kept secret from other members of Congress and the American people.

In a trio of Friday afternoon letters to the Democratic chairs of the three committees conducting the House’s impeachment investigation — Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs — House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collings, R-Ga., said that he intends to use a House rule to get access to impeachment materials that have thus far only been made available to members of those panels.

“I write to inform you of my intent to exercise my right under House Rule XI, Clause 2(e)(2)(A) to review documents and records in possession of [your committee] so that you may prepare accordingly,” the letters explain. “Please make available all records, documents, transcripts, and other materials related to or obtained in the course of the ongoing joint investigation between the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Committee on Oversight and Reform.”

According to the House rule Collins cites, “all committee records … shall be the property of the House, and each Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner shall have access thereto.”

The secrecy of the three committees’ investigation has drawn an immense amount of criticism from GOP lawmakers this week.

On Monday, Judiciary Committee member Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., was kicked out of an impeachment deposition because he wasn’t a member of one of the three panels doing the investigation.

“To exclude Members of Congress from hearings confirms the American people’s suspicions: This is not a legitimate ‘impeachment inquiry’ — it is a charade,” Gaetz told Blaze Media in a statement. “Blocking Members of Congress from attending ‘impeachment’ hearings is not only unfair, it runs counter to our Democracy. The perpetrators of this impeachment hoax must be held accountable — both by the Congress, and by the American people.”

On Wednesday, Judiciary Committee member Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said on the House Floor that he tried to get access to investigation materials but was also turned away.

“Who gave that order?” Gohmert asked. “Because until a vote is held on the rules … [impeachment] goes through the Judiciary Committee.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has defended the secretive nature of the investigation, saying that congressional investigators are acting similarly to a grand jury.

In an effort to force transparency to the impeachment proceedings, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., and House Rules Committee Ranking Member Tom Cole, R-Okla., introduced legislation Friday afternoon that would allow all members of Congress to view investigation materials, regardless of their committee assignments.

“Chairman Schiff wants to impeach President Trump behind closed doors and clearly has no intention of conducting a fair and open process,” Scalise said in a statement announcing the resolution. “We demand transparency. For the sake of our republic, Members of Congress must have access to proceedings with such monumental and dangerous consequences.” (Read more from “What Are They Hiding? Top Republicans Demand Secret Dem Impeachment Docs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

If SCOTUS Won’t Overturn Even Recent Bad Decisions, Why Does Anyone Think Roe Is in Danger?

It should be a no-brainer that any reputed conservative Supreme Court would easily overturn recent bad decisions limiting sentences of life without parole for juvenile murderers, like the infamous D.C. sniper, Lee Boyd Malvo, who, along with his older partner, killed 17 and injured 10 in 2002 in the D.C. area. Yet here we are, completely unsure whether we have to five justices willing to affirm the long-standing precedent.

Many conservatives somehow think we are building an originalist majority to overturn terrible court decisions from 50 years ago, such as Roe v. Wade, yet no legal analyst seems to think we even have the votes to overturn terrible decisions made by Anthony Kennedy this past decade. Then what good are these much-vaunted Supreme Court nominees?

Before delving into the Malvo case, some background is in order. In 2005, contrary to practice in our country since the Founding, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in all cases. Writing for the majority in Roper v. Simmons, Anthony Kennedy applied foreign law to overturn a 1989 Supreme Court decision (Stanford v. Kentucky) and rule that a punishment in practice at the time of our Founding somehow violated our own Constitution. He felt that “the evolving standards of decency” gave him the right to unilaterally amend the Constitution. Liberals never have problems reversing precedents they don’t like when they discover new “rights.”

Well, what’s the alternative to the death penalty for people like Malvo who commit mass murder at the age of 17? Life in prison without parole, right? In Graham v. Florida (2010), Kennedy, joined by the liberals and Roberts, ruled that life in prison without parole for a juvenile is unconstitutional except for cases of murder. Then, in his incremental ad hoc constitutional amendment process, in Miller v. Alabama (2012), Kennedy took it to the next level and joined with the four liberals to rule that state laws mandating life in prison without parole even for murder are unconstitutional. Finally, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court retroactively applied the Miller v. Alabama decision to roughly 2,500 people already serving mandatory sentences of life without parole as juvenile murderers. Roberts bizarrely joined in with Montgomery, even though he wrote the dissent in Miller.

Freeze-frame right here. Given that it was Anthony Kennedy who insidiously took a hatchet to long-standing state powers over juvenile justice from 2005 to 2016, and he has now been replaced with the much-vaunted Brett Kavanaugh, shouldn’t we have the confidence that everything from Roper through Montgomery should be reversed? If we are promised by the Republican legal establishment that the new Supreme Court will overturn long-standing bad precedent, it certainly should easily overturn this craziness from just a few years ago.

Remember, we are not debating the policy or political merits of capital punishment or life without parole for juvenile murderers. We are debating the notion that the Constitution prohibits states from passing these laws. No originalist can ever contemplate such a novel idea, and with all the hype surrounding Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, this should be easy to overturn. Anyone calling himself an originalist should agree with what Thomas wrote in Graham v. Florida – that “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was originally understood as prohibiting torturous methods of punishment—specifically methods akin to those that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights” (emphasis added).

Sadly, none of the legal analysts believe this will happen, and as is the case with so many issues, there is no confidence that anyone besides Thomas and Alito would categorically overturn these four cases.

The issue at hand in Mathena v. Malvo is whether to expand Montgomery to a case where the juvenile murderer wasn’t even sentenced to life without parole under a mandatory guideline. Lawyers for Malvo argue that the jury never really contemplated anything lower than life without parole, so while such a punishment wasn’t mandated, the jury never fully vetted out whether this specific juvenile was “incorrigible,” as required under the Miller decision. The Fourth Circuit agreed with Malvo.

Most of the oral argument time on Wednesday was dedicated to splitting hairs over whether Malvo fits into Miller and Montgomery. And even on that account, some legal bloggers like SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe hypothesized that “Justice Brett Kavanaugh [is] potentially the pivotal vote.” Howe believes it’s “possible that a majority might try to navigate a middle ground that sends the case back for the lower courts to take a closer look at whether Malvo had a real opportunity to have the judge and jury consider whether his youth might warrant a lighter sentence.”

Time will tell, but notice how it’s not even under discussion that there might be five votes to completely overturn Montgomery and Miller, much less the previous cases. Nobody in the legal world believes anyone other than Thomas and Alito would categorically apply the Eighth Amendment as understood at the time of its adoption. That is because Gorsuch, although decent on many issues, is no Scalia, and Kavanaugh certainly is not. Roberts is getting worse by the day. And while many of these justices will not add to the existing bad case law, their political motivations will make them reluctant to overturn even the most egregious 5-4 decisions of the past decade or two.

Do you think Democrats have any doubt that the current four liberals plus their next potential fifth vote would overturn the Heller decision on gun rights from 2008 in a heartbeat? Heck, in the gay marriage case of 2016, they overturned a 9-0 decision from 1971. The courts have always been a one-way ratchet for the Left and a dead end for conservatives. The Left will toss out 200 years of precedent, history, tradition, and statute overnight on immigration or social issues, while judges like Roberts and Kavanaugh will dogmatically legitimize that breach itself as new precedent that must be accorded the highest degree of respect.

For decades, rather than militating against the premise of judicial supremacy over political questions, the GOP legal establishment has legitimized the concept, albeit with the promise that we would somehow win the supremacy game by “appointing better judges.” It was the ultimate scam for voting Republican rather than looking outside the GOP for a home for conservatism. Now, they believe they’ve finally achieved that goal. Yet nothing has changed. As always, when liberals have a clear majority, they make earth-shattering transformational changes. When Republicans get a majority, the lower courts still make radical decisions, and at best, the Supreme Court merely maintains the status quo. And in some instances, there is at least one GOP appointee peeled off to join with the transformational changes, as we witnessed multiple times last term.

Just remember, in the current legal system, for every Clarence Thomas, there are numerous John Robertses and Brett Kavanaughs – and an endless supply of Ruth Bader Ginsburgs. The capacity and resolve of a good judge to do good is nowhere near the capacity and resolve of a bad judge to do bad. (For more from the author of “If SCOTUS Won’t Overturn Even Recent Bad Decisions, Why Does Anyone Think Roe Is in Danger?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Impeachment Witness Warned About Biden-Ukraine Problem in 2015 – Biden’s Office Dismissed Claim

In a newly reported development that further complicates the Democrats’ Ukraine corruption investigation, a State Department witness told congressional investigators this week that in early 2015 he warned about the problematic optics of the vice president’s son, Hunter Biden, serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was tasked with overseeing Ukraine-U.S. relations. The career State Department official told investigators his warning was rebuffed by Biden’s office. Months later, Biden would pressure the Ukraine — by withholding a billion dollars in aid — to fire the prosecutor who had looked into the company employing Hunter.

Citing sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, The Washington Post reported Friday that George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state and career State Department official, “testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest.”

The sources told the Post that Kent “had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people.”

Kent reportedly told congressional investigators that Biden’s office dismissed his warning about the potentially problematic situation by saying the vice president did not have the “bandwidth” to address the Hunter-Burisma question because he was dealing with his other son, Beau, battling cancer.

“Kent, who also testified about how Trump’s associates raised unfounded allegations about the former ambassador to Ukraine, is the first known example of a career diplomat who raised concerns internally in the Obama administration about Hunter Biden’s board position,” the Post reports, noting that the paper “has previously reported that there had been discussions among Biden’s advisers about whether his son’s Ukraine work would be perceived as a conflict of interest, and that one former adviser had been concerned enough to mention it to Biden, though the conversation was brief.” (Read more from “Impeachment Witness Warned About Biden-Ukraine Problem in 2015 – Biden’s Office Dismissed Claim” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Campaign Declares Legal Action Against CNN – Here’s Why

In a letter obtained and published by the Washington Examiner on Friday, President Trump’s campaign informs CNN President Jeff Zucker that it plans to sue him and his network for a “substantial” amount as a result of CNN subjecting the president to “unfair, unfounded, unethical and unlawful attacks.”

The letter was sent after the release this week of a series of undercover videos produced by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas showing CNN insiders describing alleged overt, systemic bias against Trump within CNN, including from the top: Zucker himself.

The letter is addressed to Zucker and CNN’s Executive Vice President and General Counsel David Vigilante and signed by Charles J. Harder of Harder LLP, a firm representing Trump’s campaign. In the letter, Harder accuses CNN of failing to abide by “industry-accepted codes of ethics, including the Society for Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics,” as well as CNN’s own self-declared commitment to “excellence in journalism” and being “the most trusted source for news and information.”

Among the evidence of CNN’s alleged failure to provide ethical coverage, Harder cites Project Veritas’ recent videos in which CNN employees say that their network is committed to help “take down President Trump” and Zucker is driven by a “personal vendetta” against him. Harder stresses that the listed examples “are merely the tip of the iceberg of the evidence my clients have accumulated over recent years.” . . .

“Your actions are in violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.), among other applicable laws, by constituting misrepresentations to the public, to your advertisers, and others,” the letter reads. “Accordingly, my clients intend to file legal action against you, to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, reimbursement of legal costs, and all other available legal and equitable remedies, to the maximum extent permitted by law.” (Read more from “Trump Campaign Declares Legal Action Against CNN – Here’s Why” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE