Roll call: Feinstein, Nadler, Schiff, Cummings, Waters, Neal and Engel. Do they have exposure to legal jeopardy and can they be prosecuted for treason and seditious conspiracy? Yes and here's why.

Make no mistake about it - the Democrats and the Left are all in and it appears that we can expect no change in their approach to the Trump administration save the occasional shifting of gears to ensure that the talking points of the day, germane to the developments of the day, somehow fit the furtherance of the overall agenda as delivered by the legacy media. The question then becomes, why?

Let's place high-value cards on the table because they help shape our understanding of the answer to that question:

1. If it wasn't clear then, which it was assuming folks were looking in the right places, it's clear now that the entirety of 'Russia' was fabricated political context laundered into political capital by means of the federal apparatus and its mechanisms so as to facilitate the attack and removal of a presidential candidate and a sitting president, respectively. That is irrefutable and not open for debate at this point.

2. There were three fruitless investigations all rendering the same findings and namely, there is no direct evidence of collusion or conspiracy or obstruction of justice for collusion and conspiracy: House investigation, Senate investigation and Muller probe. This speaks directly to legitimacy, which is at the root of all it and further addressed below.

3. The Democrats quite literally created the pretext for the impetus behind the need for a Special Counsel to which Robert Mueller, a long-tenured albeit militarily decorated swamp rat, was eventually appointed. Notably, he proceeded start-to-finish unimpeded and uncontested.

4. The Democrats demanded ad nauseam that Mueller's probe be allowed to proceed unencumbered and to move unimpeded to its natural conclusion so as to guarantee objective, unbiased findings. That is precisely what happened.

5. Mueller's team (meet them here: was an all-star cast of Democrats with many who donated to Clinton's campaign; including Democrat stalwart and pit bull Andrew Weissmann, who is believed to be the primary author of the report to AG William Barr detailing Mueller's findings. Inconveniently for the Democrats, Mueller's team was not only unbiased, they arguably were completely biased against the president given their own political inclinations. Any findings by this left-leaning alliance that were favorable to the president would therefore be difficult to rebut.

6. If there were any particular group of people who, provided the resources and free reign they received along with the requisite motivation to find wrongdoing, could uncover criminality or impropriety on the part of the president, it's this one. As we discussed yesterday here (, the resources included a team of 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, other professional staff, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 230 orders for communication records, 50 orders authorizing the use of pen registers, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence and 500 witness interviews.

7. Mueller's team of essentially politically motivated Democrats worked unfettered and found nothing of substance; recalling that Mueller's findings were similar to two other previously concluded congressional investigations.

8. Acquiescing to the demands of the Democrats and the Left, the president and his legal team sagely allowed the Mueller process to play-out entirely; with full fidelity to the task at hand (original mandate), although Mr. Trump rightfully and rhetorically criticized the investigation along the way (see Twitter feed - Witch Hunt!)

9. Despite what the American public, lawmakers and others may claim, they have precisely no right to examine the evidence or underlying evidence originating from Mueller's investigation given that there is no criminality, no indictment and no prosecution. Therefore, statutorily, the state has an obligation to protect that sensitive information. Moreover and statutorily, only AG Barr and those authorized within his office may receive Mueller's findings; whereby the former has an obligation to offer his summary principle findings thereof, which is an ongoing process and therefore incomplete. We discussed this previously in a number of places; most recently in yesterday's discussion linked in point 6.

10. It stands to reason then, that Mr. Barr reserves the right to review the thousands of pages of findings to rule-in or rule-out any further judicial considerations before entertaining any such decision for full disclosure to Congress, the public or anyone else. Although Congress possess the right to oversight, they have no right to this information unless deemed so by the AG. How would he be able to make such a judgement if his process is ongoing.

This brings us back to the present. Let's examine who is doing what (Review - Roll call: Feinstein, Nadler, Schiff, Cummings, Waters, Neal and Engel):

1. Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Diane Feinstein, D-CA:
“Attorney General Barr’s 4-page summary of the Mueller report is inadequate and demonstrates why Congress needs to obtain the full report and underlying evidence.
“Mueller elected to describe the facts, leaving it to Attorney General Barr to decide whether the president committed a crime. However, months ahead of his nomination, Barr wrote a 19-page memo concluding the president couldn’t commit obstruction, so it’s no surprise he reached the same conclusion now.

“Congress must do its job and determine whether President Trump abused his authority and what next steps are appropriate. I plan to call on Attorney General Barr to provide the full report and underlying material to Congress so we can conduct proper oversight.”
“Congress must now determine the risks to national security, whether there was misconduct or abuse of power, whether existing laws are sufficient to deter and punish election interference, and what next steps are appropriate,” Senator Feinstein wrote. “A four-page summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s extensive investigation and report, with no underlying evidence or findings, is not adequate to accomplish our constitutional, legislative, and oversight responsibilities.”

2. Six House committee chairmen unite to press for full disclosure of the Mueller report's findings:
"Today, the chairs of six committees in the U.S. House of Representatives wrote to U.S. Attorney General William Barr to demand that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report be made available to Congress together with the underlying evidence. The letter was signed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah E. Cummings, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Adam B. Schiff, Committee on Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Richard E. Neal and Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot L. Engel.
“We look forward to receiving the report in full no later than April 2, and to begin receiving the underlying evidence and documents that same day.”
It reads like the 'usual suspects,' does it not? Nadler, Cummings, Schiff, Waters, Neal and Engel.

Sources (article continues below):

The relevant and most pressing argument here is legitimacy. Can a lawmaker assert constitutional oversight on a matter that was fabricated out of thin air; especially when the factual findings of three federal investigations and the evidence therein demonstrates such illegitimacy? Logically, the answer is simply no - one can not make such an assertion.

That certainly won't stop the Democrats as it appears they are leveraging a two-pronged strategy by asserting constitutional oversight authority so as to gain full possession of all of Mueller's evidentiary findings. The first prong is exacting full disclosure to the public. If they are unsuccessful in this effort - making the report fully disclosed to the public - but they receive the full report themselves, they will employ the second prong of their strategy, with which we're all overly familiar. It will take the form of leaks and will likely precede any such full release anyways. Bottom line - the Democrats are attempting to transition Mueller's findings into state-sponsored, state-funded political opposition research geared for 2020.

So then, this brings us to THE MOST SIGNIFICANT QUESTION of all - if lawmakers are acting counter to the findings of an investigation they demanded because the findings don't align with their political ideology; and they stay the course of wittingly and willfully participating in furtherance of the broader process to attack, prevent the election of and then remove a duly elected president, does this rise to the crimes of sedition and treason?


1. Treason:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

2. Seditious conspiracy:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Relevant questions and (ANSWERS):

1. Are the lawmakers' previous and current actions and words tantamount to treason? (YES)

2. Are the lawmakers' previous and current actions and words tantamount to seditious conspiracy? (YES)

3. Germane to treason, can these lawmakers be individually deemed as an "enemy" if they fabricated or utilized fabricated information in an attempt to prevent the election of or actuate the removal of a sitting president? (YES)

4. Germane to seditious conspiracy, can these lawmakers be individually deemed to have conspired to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States? Did they oppose by force the federal authority? Did they prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States? (YES)

In full light of Mueller's findings (and the findings of two previous congressional investigations) that there is no direct evidence of Russian collusion, Russian conspiracy or obstruction of justice, why would these lawmakers continue down this self-destructive path? It's illogical and futile. Occam's Razor applies related to motivation: they are operating in the mode of self-preservation.

The only avenue left for these conspirators is to retain legislative control over all investigations, all findings and how those findings are used or not used. They have no other choice - they're in too deep, they know it, we all know it and presumably, they are fighting for their political lives and quite frankly, some of them may be fighting for their actual lives. If there's another explanation, it defies logic and has escaped us.

All of this tells us to expect more of the same - visceral, blistering attacks based upon and absence of facts and rooted in contrived rhetoric, narrative and conjecture, which masquerades as facts for low-information Americans. It's a battle for the base; a battle for the mind; a battle for the vote and it's all predicated on a foundation of lies.

When will those responsible for the lies be held accountable? Let's hope it's soon - that's what the president wants:

In summary and in consideration of the US statutes for treason and seditious conspiracy, the actions and words of these lawmakers present exposure to legal jeopardy for both. Let the trials (or tribunals) begin.


Popular posts from this blog