DEFANGO: Devin Nunes granted discovery McClatchy bankruptcy #russiagate Hoax exploded

The McClatchy Company, a news media company that is being sued for defamation by House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA), moved to dismiss the lawsuit in court on Wednesday, but the judge in the case rejected the request — an interim win for Nunes. In a letter obtained by Fox News, Reps. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and Chris Stewart, R-Utah, the ranking members of the committee and subcommittee, respectively, joined GOP colleagues in blasting Schiff, D-Calif., for not holding hearings on FISA in the wake of the IG report. “Under your chairmanship, the House Intelligence Committee has strayed far from its mandate of overseeing the Intelligence Community. In fact, we have gone months at a time in which we’ve hardly held any oversight-related briefings or hearings at all,” they wrote Wednesday.

 Show Links https://pastebin.com/EFTRGUmD

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

IMPEACHMENT: Senate Trial - Day Four - The Legal Geniuses Cometh

First, this happened....

Then, this happened....



Then, this happened...

https://beverlytran.blogspot.com/search?q=Pat+Cipollone

White House Letter to Speak... by blc88 on Scribd

Then, this happened...

Schiff’s IP addresses tie him directly to DIA informants being presented as whistleblowers. Strzok is tied to all the DIA informants. pic.twitter.com/gjhVgzwfJb

— TruthLeaks - Investigative Journalist George Webb (@GeorgWebb) January 24, 2020

#maytheheavensfall

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

TRUMP - Impeachment Rally In Ohio - 2020 Campaign

#maytheheavensfall

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

IMPEACHMENT: DAY 2 - House Judiciary Committee - Adam Schiff Sent Staff On His Behalf

Where is Adam Schiff?

Here is the case precedent on subpoena of the text messages of elected officials.

FBI Strzok & Page Did Not Get The Detroit Text Message

Here is evidence of Ukrainian election interference. 

The Minority can always file a Voting Rights violation case against the Majority, you know.

Here is the case model.

*snickers*

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Republican Response To Democrat Impeachment Report - They Eat Each Other Alive

Here is the Democratic Staff Impeachment Report.

Republican Staff Report of Evidence in the Democrats 12-2-2019 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

oting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

U.S. House Intelligence Committee Trump - Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report

Russia, Ukraine Agree ‘Comprehensive’ Cease-Fire in Donbass

"This is very poorly written." declared the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed.

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/#report The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.  As described in this executive summary and the report that follows, President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign.  The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations:  a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary. During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance.  President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory.  In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.  Although President Trump’s scheme intentionally bypassed many career personnel, it was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of senior Administration officials, including the President’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry.  In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to “get over it.” President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President’s reelection campaign.  Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today.  However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country:  impeachment.  Accordingly, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, were compelled to undertake a serious, sober, and expeditious investigation into whether the President’s misconduct warrants that remedy. In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry.  Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.  As required under House Resolution 660, the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, has prepared this report to detail the evidence uncovered to date, which will now be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration.

Preface Executive Summary Report

U.S. House Intelligence Committee - THE TRUMP-UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REPORT - 20191203 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Meet Maher Bitar, staff of Adam Schiff, who assisted in the generation of this report.

Now, meet his Maher's wife, Astrid Dorelien.

Maher  Bitat, Astrid Dorelien & their tiny human

Black History Month 2012: Astrid Dorelien

Astrid Dorelien is a 2010 Presidential Management Fellow in the Office of the Haiti Special Coordinator (S/HSC). As a foreign affairs officer in S/HSC, Astrid is the principal point of contact for health, labor, and economic affairs. She also works closely with the Deputy Coordinator for Assistance to oversee the U.S. Government's food and economic security programs in Haiti. Astrid came to the State Department from the Department of Housing and Urban Development in August 2011, where she worked in the Office of Healthcare Programs and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement.

Astrid brings with her to the State Department experience in law, global health, and international relations. Astrid received a joint Juris Doctor and master's in public health degree from Georgetown Law and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. As an undergraduate at Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Astrid majored in science, technology, and international affairs with a concentration in international health. Astrid's professional experiences include internships with the World Health Organization's Office of the Legal Counsel, the Brady Center for Gun Violence Prevention's Legal Action Project, and with the arbitration law firm Bullard, Falla, & Ezcurra in Lima, Peru. Astrid is licensed to practice law in the state of Maryland.

http://www.haiti.mphise.info/us-department-state-haiti-related-contacts?fbclid=IwAR03Vbds6aZbaQoJcl-NA23Z4iNmQvFPXqnOLYv2RXs-Ht_I7-S0HlRQWe0

Having emigrated from Haiti as a child, Astrid’s fluency in French, Haitian Creole, and her familiarity with Haiti’s particular political and development challenges, have allowed her to hit the ground running and contribute to the Department’s efforts in Haiti.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

IMPEACHMENT: What If The "Intelligence Whistleblower" Is A LARP?

What if the "Intelligence Whistleblower" is a LARP?

That would mean the impeachment inquiry hearings are really the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees are impeaching themselves by bearing false witness.

And that, boys and girls, is why I like cocktails and popcorn.

I could not force myself to watch the entire hearing, so here are the highlights.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The Death Of Conyers Allows Pelosi To Proceed With A Full Floor Impeachment Vote

In the Death of Conyers, Nancy can now safely proceed to the impeachment vote.

Remember, it is all about the psyoptics and timing.



Dear Colleague on Next Steps in House's Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry

OCTOBER 28, 2019 PRESS RELEASE

H. Res. ___ — Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.

***

Dear Democratic Colleague,

For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry “lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding.”  They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.

Of course, this argument has no merit.  The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”  Multiple past impeachments have gone forward without any authorizing resolutions.  Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be “an impermissible intrusion on the House’s constitutional authority.”  More than 300 legal scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that “the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins.”

The Trump Administration has made up this argument – apparently out of whole cloth – in order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized subpoenas.

This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation. 

This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel.

We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives. 

Nobody is above the law.

best regards,

Speaker Pelosi's signature

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Nadler & Schiff Release Key Takeaways from Victorious Court Ruling on Mueller Grand Jury Material

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) released key takeaways from Chief Judge Beryl Howell’s favorable court ruling which ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn over redacted 6(e) grand jury material from Special Counsel Mueller’s report to the House Judiciary Committee by October 30, 2019.

The House Judiciary Committee petitioned the court in July for access to grand jury materials redacted from the Mueller Report and obtained by the Special Counsel’s office.  The Committee argued that because it seeks these materials in connection with the House’s impeachment inquiry, it is entitled to them under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)’s exception allowing disclosures “preliminary to . . . a judicial proceeding.” The Judiciary Committee also informed the court that it would share any grand jury materials it receives with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), given HPSCI’s areas of expertise and its own investigative interests in the materials.

The Chairmen released the following statements on the ruling:

Chairman Nadler said, “I am gratified that the federal district court has ordered that the Special Counsel’s grand jury information must be turned over to the House's impeachment inquiry.  The court’s thoughtful ruling recognizes that our impeachment inquiry fully comports with the Constitution and thoroughly rejects the spurious White House claims to the contrary. This grand jury information that the Administration has tried to block the House from seeing will be critical to our work.”

Chairman Schiff said, “Today, a federal judge ruled that as a part of the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry, the Trump Administration was required to disclose grand jury material underlying Mueller’s report. Indeed, as Judge Howell noted, the White House’s blanket refusal to accommodate the demands of a coequal branch of government, weighs heavily in favor of Congress’s right to the information needed to conduct oversight and the impeachment inquiry. The stonewall continues to crumble.”

Key Takeaways from Chief Judge Howell’s Ruling Granting Access to Grand Jury Materials

Holding: The court ruled for the House Judiciary Committee on every issue presented.  It ordered prompt relief:  DOJ is required to provide the Committee with “all portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted pursuant to Rule 6(e) and any underlying transcripts or exhibits” referred to in those portions of the Report by October 30.

First, the court held that a Senate trial is clearly a “judicial proceeding” for purposes of Rule 6(e).  It rejected DOJ’s contrary arguments, which it described as “in service of the obvious goal of blocking Congress from accessing grand jury material for any purpose.”  The court’s decision was based on an extensive discussion about the purpose and meaning of impeachment as envisioned by the Founders.
Second, the court held that the House’s impeachment inquiry is “preliminary to” an impeachment trial.  It rejected all of the arguments the Trump Administration and the Republican Minority have raised against the legitimacy of the House’s impeachment proceedings. 

The court made clear that “a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry.”  It said the notion that a full vote is required has “no textual support in the U.S. Constitution [or] the governing rules of the House.”

Third, the court held that the Judiciary Committee demonstrated a “compelling need” for access to the grand jury materials.  It described particular portions of the Mueller Report redacted under Rule 6(e) that the Judiciary Committee has an obvious interest in reviewing—such as information that could reveal whether President Trump sought or obtained advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’s email disclosures.

More broadly, the court made clear that the House has a compelling interest in reaching its own judgments about the President’s conduct described in the Mueller Report—especially given the fact that DOJ policy prevented Special Counsel Mueller from pursuing charges.  The court agreed with the Committee that “the House alone can hold the president accountable” for his misconduct.
The court observed that Special Counsel Mueller himself “signaled his view that Congress, as the federal branch of government tasked with presidential impeachment duty under the U.S. Constitution, was the appropriate body to resume where the Special Counsel left off.”  The court stated that “Complete information about the evidence the Special Counsel gathered, from whom, and in what setting is indispensable to” the Committee.

Finally, the court soundly rejected the Administration’s argument that other types of evidence could be adequate substitutes.  The court stated that DOJ’s claim that it had agreed to produce FBI interview reports to the Committee “smack[s] of farce.  The reality is that DOJ and the White House have been openly stonewalling the House’s efforts to get information by subpoena and by agreement, and the White House has flatly stated that the Administration will not cooperate with congressional requests for information.”

The court held that the “White House’s stated policy of non-cooperation with the impeachment inquiry weighs heavily in favor of disclosure.  Congress’s need to access grand jury material relevant to potential impeachable conduct by a President is heightened when the Executive Branch willfully obstructs channels for accessing other relevant evidence.”

The court ordered DOJ to produce (1) all of the grand jury material redacted in the Mueller Report and (2) all grand jury transcripts and exhibits referred to in the Mueller Report by October 30.  It noted there could be limited exceptions if disclosure could harm ongoing law enforcement matters.

As envisioned in the Judiciary Committee’s rules for handling grand jury materials, the Committee anticipates working closely with HPSCI to review materials produced by DOJ.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: October 25th, 2019 Trump Accuser Bill Taylor, Bagman For NATO General Investment Club - UBC

https://www.occrp.org/en/gacc/

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: The Webb Report - Chapter Four - Blackberries Between The Senate And the DNC

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Road To Impeachment: Pelosi & Schiff Refuse To #sayhisname

The DOJ OIG Report is supposed to be out by Friday.

Cyberchatter has it the impeachment vote goes to the Floor just as soon as recess is over.

That means we should expect some of their best psyoptic psychotics to drop in the next few days because Monday starts the Detroit trial, but hey, what do I know?

I know #perkinscoiesucks.

I have popcorn, you know.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Road To Impeachment: Jim Jordan Updates 10-15-2019 - No One Will $sayhisname

Ah, the sweet sounds of chaos.

They play these games all the time and call it politics.

#sayhisnames

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Weintraub Of Perkins Coie Sucks Makes A Politically Biased Public Statement From Her FEC Chair

I once asked the FEC about bearing foreign arms in an U.S. election and was dismissed, so I really do not know what the big deal is?

Oh, wait, I almost forgot.

Meet Ellen Weintraub - The Perkins Coie Sucks Legal Genius Who Is Chair For The Federal Election Commission - Has One Seen Marc Elias? #perkinscoiesucks

How is it she can make a prejudicial statement, supposedly to be the chair of an unbiased, judicial body, in the public record, devoid of any due process for POTUS, the Commander in Chief of the Executive Cabinet of which she participates.

She should recuse herself from the Commission, immediately.

She needs to be expelled from office for just being dumb.

In order for an U.S. President to make a request to another nation, it must go through the formal process, which has to go through the U.S. Department of Justice and through the State Department and put on a piece of paper.

Otherwise, it is protected under speech and debate, which is for Congress, not Weintraub, in all of her omnipotence.

The State Department handles the foreign stuff, where the Vice President is the signator.

She needs to be held accountable for her actions, all of her actions because she was mean to my Sweetie and is obviously, not qualified for public office for her lack of candor and/or jacked up deportment.

Her chair is not the bully pulpit of justice.

#perkinscoiesucks

Election Commission chair hints that Trump asking foreign countries for help against Biden violates law

Minutes after President Trump called on the governments of China and Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival in the 2020 presidential campaign, the chair of the Federal Election Commission posted a reminder that seeking foreign political help is illegal.

In a tweet posted Thursday morning, Ellen Weintraub struck an incredulous tone.

Is this thing on? 🎙 https://t.co/K6phZRex8k

— Ellen L Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub) October 3, 2019

Trump has said he wanted Ukraine to investigate “corruption” by Biden and his son Hunter, but the former vice president is a leading candidate to oppose him for reelection, and as his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has admitted, damaging Biden’s reputation is his actual purpose.

Weintraub is a Democrat, according to the FEC website, but was appointed to the commission in 2002, under President George W. Bush. Her nominal term expired more than a decade ago, but she has remained in the post as successive administrations have found it impossible to choose and confirm a successor.

Ellen Weintraub of Perkins Coie Sucks

On June 13, Weintraub originally posted a statement clarifying the illegality of candidates receiving election assistance from foreign governments after Trump told ABC News he would not alert the FBI if he was approached by a country such as Russia with damaging information about his 2020 opponent, and he would consider the information.

“It’s not an interference, they have information — I think I’d take it,” Trump told ABC. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, ‘Oh, let’s call the FBI.’ The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressmen, they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.”

Candidates often look for damaging information on their opponents, but generally from published stories, court papers or other domestic sources, not from foreign governments.

In response to Trump’s interview in June, Weintraub took the opportunity to remind the nation that what Trump had proposed doing violated U.S. law.

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,” Weintraub wrote. “This is not a novel concept.“

On Thursday, Trump was again asked what he was specifically seeking on a July 25 call when he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for “a favor.”

“Well, I would think if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump responded. “It’s a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens because how does a company that’s newly formed and all these companies, and by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine. So I would say with President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend they start an investigation into the Bidens, because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has taken the lead on the impeachment inquiry against Trump, echoed Weintraub’s warning.

Trump has tasked Attorney General William Barr to reach out to several foreign governments to investigate the role U.S. intelligence agencies played in the 2016 presidential election as a way to counter the narrative that Trump was aided by Russian interference. Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for their efforts to promote Trump’s candidacy, including hacking into and stealing files on a server used by the Democratic National Committee.

Minutes after President Trump called on the governments of China and Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival in the 2020 presidential campaign, the chair of the Federal Election Commission posted a reminder that seeking foreign political help is illegal.

In a tweet posted Thursday morning, Ellen Weintraub struck an incredulous tone.

Trump has said he wanted Ukraine to investigate “corruption” by Biden and his son Hunter, but the former vice president is a leading candidate to oppose him for reelection, and as his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has admitted, damaging Biden’s reputation is his actual purpose.

Weintraub is a Democrat, according to the FEC website, but was appointed to the commission in 2002, under President George W. Bush. Her nominal term expired more than a decade ago, but she has remained in the post as successive administrations have found it impossible to choose and confirm a successor.

On June 13, Weintraub originally posted a statement clarifying the illegality of candidates receiving election assistance from foreign governments after Trump told ABC News he would not alert the FBI if he was approached by a country such as Russia with damaging information about his 2020 opponent, and he would consider the information.

“It’s not an interference, they have information — I think I’d take it,” Trump told ABC. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, ‘Oh, let’s call the FBI.’ The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressmen, they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.”

Candidates often look for damaging information on their opponents, but generally from published stories, court papers or other domestic sources, not from foreign governments.

In response to Trump’s interview in June, Weintraub took the opportunity to remind the nation that what Trump had proposed doing violated U.S. law.

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,” Weintraub wrote. “This is not a novel concept.“

On Thursday, Trump was again asked what he was specifically seeking on a July 25 call when he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for “a favor.”

“Well, I would think if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump responded. “It’s a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens because how does a company that’s newly formed and all these companies, and by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine. So I would say with President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend they start an investigation into the Bidens, because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has taken the lead on the impeachment inquiry against Trump, echoed Weintraub’s warning.

The President cannot use the power of his office to pressure foreign leaders to investigate his political opponents.

His rant this morning reinforces the urgency of our work.

America is a Republic, if we can keep it. https://t.co/9KDCx1hVjs

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) October 3, 2019

Trump has tasked Attorney General William Barr to reach out to several foreign governments to investigate the role U.S. intelligence agencies played in the 2016 presidential election as a way to counter the narrative that Trump was aided by Russian interference. Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for their efforts to promote Trump’s candidacy, including hacking into and stealing files on a server used by the Democratic National Committee.

Joe and Hunter Biden are not under investigation in the U.S.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

#ukrainegate - Kurt Volker, Rudy Giulian, China, Text Messages & The Impeachment 2020 Re-election Campaign

It seems Kurt and Rudy did not get the Detroit Text Message Memo.

#sayhisname

Trump’s former Ukraine envoy reveals damaging texts

Kurt Volker

Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, gives House Democrats the first deposition in their impeachment inquiry.

Even as President Donald Trump ignited a huge controversy over China and the 2020 election on Thursday, House members were clashing over the closed-door testimony of the former special envoy to Ukraine and Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure officials in that country for dirt on Joe Biden and his son.

The former envoy, Kurt Volker, who is at the center of a scandal that may lead to Trump’s impeachment, spent more than eight hours on Thursday being deposed by lawmakers and aides from three House committees. The committees are looking into allegations that include whether Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani improperly pressured Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation into Biden while withholding U.S. military aid.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched an impeachment inquiry last week following the revelation that Trump urged his Ukrainian counterpart, President Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Biden during a phone call on July 25.

“This week, current and former State Department officials have begun cooperating with the impeachment inquiry by producing documents and scheduling interviews and depositions," said Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the chairmen of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees in a joint statement Thursday night. "Based on the first production of materials, it has become immediately apparent why Secretary Pompeo tried to block these officials from providing information.”

Volker provided Democrats with 60 pages of text messages and other documents that showed some senior State Department officials were outraged that the Trump administration would try to make aid to Ukraine contingent on efforts to help the president’s reelection campaign.

One text between Volker and Andrey Yermak, a top Zelensky adviser, on July 25 — the day of the Trump-Zelenksy call — linked a Zelensky visit to the Washington to whether the Ukrainians moved ahead with the Biden probe. Volker said "Heard from the White House. Assuming President Z convinces [T]rump he will investigate/ 'get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington."

And in another more controversial text, a senior American diplomat expressed outrage to any linkage between U.S. aid to whether the Ukrainians took the steps Trump and Giuliani wanted.

“I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” said Bill Taylor, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, in a Sept. 9 text message.

But Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, strongly denied in a response to Taylor that this was Trump’s purpose.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” Sondland wrote. “The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”

Republicans insisted that Volker testified that Trump never sought a “quid pro quo” from Zelensky, despite the new documents and Democrats’ repeated questions on the topic.

“What we do know is there was definitely not quid-pro-quo,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform panel, told reporters after leaving the Volker deposition. “Any comments that would indicate that there was some nefarious purpose on behalf of this president was not backed up by the facts today.”

“If there was an Academy Award for leading the witness, my Democratic colleagues would have gotten three Oscars today,” Meadows added.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), without offering specifics, said Volker’s testimony “blew a massive hole” through allegations that Trump sought a quid pro quo from the Ukrainian leader leader.

But Sondland and Volker — under pressure from Giuliani — were also asked to draft a statement saying Ukrainian officials were committed to beginning investigations into Biden and other Trump rivals. Volker testified about that episode to congressional investigators on Thursday, according to several people involved in the hearing. The New York Times first reported the intent to draft the statement.

One source said Volker testified that he wanted a broader statement on the Ukrainians fighting corruption. Giuliani, though, pushed for a statement more narrowly focused on Burisma — the Ukrainian energy firm on whose board Hunter Biden sat — and a possible Ukrainian role in the 2016 U.S. election, a near obsession with Trump. No statement was ever drafted, Volker said.

Volker also told investigators that he warned Giuliani that he was being fed some incorrect information on the Bidens from Ukrainian contacts, particularly Yuriy Lutsenko, the country’s former top prosecutor.

“The ambassador’s view of Ukrainian corruption and Rudy Giuliani’s view of corruption are at odds with one another,” Meadows acknowledged. “I think the ambassador had a much more forward-looking position on what he believes the new Ukrainian government will do, and I think that’s at odds with what Rudy Giuliani believes.”

Giuliani’s role in the Ukrainian scandal was the focus of a “significant portion” of Thursday’s session, according to sources familiar with the hearing, and Democrats accused the former New York mayor and ex-federal prosecutor of being involved in a “shakedown” of the Ukrainiains on Trump’s behalf.

“We saw further evidence that there was a shadow shakedown, and I would say, the lead deputy for the president was Rudy Giuliani,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “You had an experienced diplomat, working for free as a special envoy, who in many ways was a front for the work being done on the side, parallel to his efforts, by Rudy Giuliani.”

According to Swalwell, there is “more and more evidence that the president of the United States was improperly using his office, using our taxpayer dollars, to leverage help from an ally in our upcoming 2020 elections.”

Volker is mentioned in a whistleblower complaint that fueled the impeachment inquiry. The complaint notes that Zelensky met with Volker the day after his phone call with Trump, and says the envoy tried to help Ukrainian officials figure out how to “navigate” Trump’s demands.

Giuliani and associate give conflicting accounts on origins of Ukraine caper

The Trump administration held up nearly $400 million in foreign aid approved by Congress as Trump and Giuliani lobbied to announced a probe into the Bidens. Trump and Giuliani alleged that Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time, intervened to block an investigation into Burisma in 2016. There is no evidence that an investigation was underway at the time or that Biden intervened to protect his son’s firm.

Giuliani has also pulled Volker into the episode, insisting that he met with Zelensky’s aides at the request of State Department officials — including Volker — and that he briefed the department about his discussions afterward.

On Thursday morning, Giuliani tweeted out screenshots of texts between him and Volker in which the envoy appeared to be arranging meeting times for Giuliani and a Ukrainian official.

The former New York mayor also railed against Democratic lawmakers pursuing impeachment, though he offered a kind word for Volker.

“Crooked Dems not letting Republicans subpoena witnesses and maybe even question witness,” Giuliani claimed in a tweet. “This is a Star Chamber, illicit and part of their conspiracy to violate constitutional rights condoned by their media lamb dogs. Kurt did nothing wrong.”

Volker has said little publicly about the unfolding drama. But the State Department has defended him in the past, saying that a Ukrainian official had asked Volker to connect him with Giuliani, which he did. Volker is a former career Foreign Service officer and ambassador to NATO who is respected among Democrats and Republicans in Washington.

Many foreign policy hands welcomed Volker’s appointment as envoy in 2017 because of his hawkish views on Russia.

Volker held the envoy position on an unpaid, part-time basis. He also works as an adviser to a lobbying firm and as executive director of a Washington think tank named for the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

The implication is that aides to Zelensky — a former comedian who won Ukraine’s presidency in April — were trying to establish a link to Giuliani, given his close relationship with Trump.

It’s likely Giuliani got the new Ukrainian government’s attention in part because he spent much of this past spring talking about Ukraine and alleged wrongdoings by the Bidens.

Kurt Volkor Text Messages To U.S. House Foreign Intelligence Committee 10319 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Did Schiff Bear False Witness In The Public Record, Again?

Whoops.

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a  whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to a son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half-dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson.

Mr. Trump, who has focused his ire on Mr. Schiff amid the burgeoning Ukraine scandal, wasted no time in trying to use the revelation about the whistle-blower’s attempt to alert Congress to try to denigrate his complaint. In a news conference in the East Room of the White House after this article was published, Mr. Trump called it a scandal that Mr. Schiff knew the outlines of the whistle-blower’s accusations before he filed his complaint.

“Big stuff. That’s a big story,” Mr. Trump said, waving a copy of the article in the air. “He knew long before and helped write it, too. It’s a scam,” the president added, accusing Mr. Schiff of helping the whistle-blower write his complaint. There is no evidence that Mr. Schiff did, and his spokesman said he saw no part of the complaint before it was filed.

The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy as a target of Mr. Trump’s.

Earlier Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.

“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” Mr. Trump said. “He’s a shifty, dishonest guy.”

Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving whistle-blower’s accusations, Mr. Boland said. They referred him to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked Mr. Atkinson from turning over the complaint sooner.

In response to questions, spokeswomen for Senators Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner of Virginia, its Democratic vice chairman, said it was standard procedure to refer whistle-blowers to the relevant inspectors general.

The future whistle-blower went to Mr. Schiff’s committee after he grew concerned about the first investigation he had touched off.

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation.

Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system.

The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. “The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginning,” said Andrew Bakaj, the lead counsel for the whistle-blower. “The laws and processes have been followed.”

Filing a complaint with Mr. Atkinson gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information. While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff, after a private letter and phone call to Mr. Maguire, publicly released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing documents from Mr. Maguire and requesting him to testify before the intelligence panel.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

But letters from the inspector general and Mr. Maguire had made clear to the House Intelligence Committee that the Justice Department and the White House were blocking Mr. Maguire’s office from forwarding the complaint.

Congressional officials insisted that Mr. Schiff and his aides followed the rules. Whistle-blowers regularly approach the committee, given its role in conducting oversight of the intelligence agencies, Mr. Boland said.

“The committee expects that they will be fully protected, despite the president’s threats,” Mr. Boland said, referring to the whistle-blower without identifying his gender. “Only through their courage did these facts about the president’s abuse of power come to light.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tweets, Leaks & Bearing False Witness In The Public Square - Schiff & His Quest To Terminate The Parental Rights Of Trump

Very interesting.

Earlier today, Trump tweeted.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1177548939207352320?s=19&fbclid=IwAR3l0uaNSfCzImd4huhb6NwdsW1nMKO3kTlXh300Ng1TwZREBbUjXekbJtw

But later that day, it was gone.

I know there are screenshots.

A president may not just remove his public speech, or did he?

Everything he says is preserved in the Library of Congress which makes me wonder whose feathers got ruffled.

Trump accused Schiff of reading a false claim into the public, congressional record, which is used for obviation, for the best interests of the children, who are the posterity of this nation, by and through fraud, which becomes testimony in the public square, for the purposes of generating a false record to use for grounds for impeachment.

That sounds like a Right to Lie except that Schiff is an elected office holder.

In essence, Trump accused a member of congress of treason in the public record for violating his oath of office by bearing false witness.

It was at that point that I realized impeachment is basically the legal model for termination of parental rights, like a CPS case.

This is a transposable model.

The next stage is to set up expulsion from congress.

The purpose of expulsion is to defrock the office holder and their right to bear the arms of the U.S., which puts then into the jurisdiction of the land, meaning they can be held accountable in their district jurisdictions.

Keep in mind, there is an entire legal network approaching from the districts through the referrals of OSC to CIGIE to the joint, conjugal collaborations as I like to call them, special task forces in local, county, state, federal and international, well, for Detroit it is international.

So, I would consider "leaks" to be a fat ass worm, on a hook, where it was pulled form the waters just in time to see which fish came up to eat it.

It seems like John Solomon was that Big Salmon.

We still have those issue with McGahn, because Trump's entire cabinet is a straight up, no chaser, bible thumping group of trafficking tiny human privateers, and no, I did not stutter when I said that.

Pence is next in line.

Pence wants that U.S. crown.

Pence called his armies at the UN meeting where his boy, Tony Perkins, is falsely advising Trump, too, through the public record. 

https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/

This is about to get deep.

Religious Freedom is the core of this war, where weaponized religion as a crime of war is being prosecuted, as we speak.

I just adore transposable models.

Nunes may want to rethink his whistleblower and leaker defense arguments because he has no idea of the pre-existing investigations.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: September 26th, 2019 Watnick Was Eyes And Ears For Sue Gordon and Morell. Cofer Black Was Uke Gun

This is not about an election, nor is it about Biden.

This is about weapons and drugs.

Ukraine gas producer appoints Biden’s son to board

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Who Is The Ukrainian Liar - Schiff Or The U.S. Intelligence Community?

Adam Schiff said this about the Trump's phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky.

In Biden's own words on threatening withholding U.S. funds to the Ukraine if the prosecutor general was not fired.

This is the resignation of the Ukrainian prosecutor directly after Biden's mandate.

Either the intelligence community has generated a fraudulent unclassified document entered into the formal record or Schiff is lying, but hey, what do I know?

I know someone is lying.

This is the transcript of the call.

Trump's July 25 Ukraine... by Law&Crime on Scribd

Crowstrike video history

106th Congress                                              Treaty Doc.
                                 SENATE                                
 1st Session                                                  106-16
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     



 
  TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL 
 ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH ANNEX, SIGNED AT KIEV ON JULY 22, 
1998, AND WITH AN EXCHANGE OF NOTES SIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WHICH 
                PROVIDES FOR ITS PROVISIONAL APPLICATION




 November 10, 1999.--Treaty was read the first time, and together with 
the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
          and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-118                     WASHINGTON : 1999


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                The White House, November 10, 1999.
To the Senate of the United States:
    With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the 
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between 
the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal 
Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on 
July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the 
Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30, 
1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well 
as the report of the Department of State with respect to the 
Treaty.
    The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal 
assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in 
order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The 
Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution 
of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking 
offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad 
range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance 
available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or 
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and 
articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or 
identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for 
testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches 
and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, 
confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection 
of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by 
the laws of the requested state.
    I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable 
consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to 
ratification.

                                                William J. Clinton.
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                                
        

                                       Department of State,
                                      Washington, October 19, 1999.
The President,
The White House.
    The President: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty 
Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual 
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the 
Treaty''), signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that 
the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and 
consent to ratification.
    Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an 
exchange of notes under which the Treaty is being provisionally 
applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic 
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual 
assistance in criminal matters. Provisional application would 
cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
    The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal 
matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have 
entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty 
with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the 
United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and 
prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be 
self-executing and will not require new legislation.
    Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major 
types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including 
taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing 
documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or 
identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring 
persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing 
requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings 
related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, 
restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other 
form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested 
State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal 
offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, 
which may be civil or administrative in nature.
    Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided 
without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute 
an offense under the laws of the Requested State.
    Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not 
intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, 
suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution 
of a request.
    Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central 
Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the 
Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be 
the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney 
General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the 
Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General. 
The article provides that the Central Authorities shall 
communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the 
Treaty.
    Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which a 
Requested State's Central Authority may deny assistance under 
the Treaty. A request may be denied if it relates to a military 
offense that would not be an offense under ordinary criminal 
law. A further ground for denial is that the request relates to 
a political offense (a term expected to be defined on the basis 
of that term's usage in extradition treaties). In addition, a 
request may be denied if its execution would prejudice the 
security or similar essential interests of the Requested State, 
or if it is not made in conformity with the Treaty.
    Before denying assistance under Article 3, the Central 
Authority of the Requested State is required to consult with 
its counterpart in the Requesting State to consider whether 
assistance can be given subject to such conditions as the 
Central Authority of the RequestedState deems necessary. If the 
Requesting State accepts assistance subject to these conditions, it is 
required to comply with the conditions. If the Central Authority of the 
Requested State denies assistance, it is required to inform the Central 
Authority of the Requesting State of the reasons for the denial.
    Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written 
requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information 
required in each request. The article permits other forms of 
requests in emergency situations but requires written 
confirmation within ten days thereafter unless the Central 
Authority of the Requested State agrees otherwise.
    Article 5 requires the Central Authority of the Requested 
State to execute the request promptly or to transmit it to the 
authority having jurisdiction to do so. It provides that the 
competent authorities of the Requested State shall do 
everything in their power to execute a request, and that the 
courts or other competent authorities of the Requested State 
shall have authority to issue subpoenas, search and arrest 
warrants, or other orders necessary to execute the request. The 
Central Authority of the Requested State must make all 
arrangements for representation of the Requesting State in any 
proceedings arising out of an assistance request.
    Under Article 5(3), requests are to be executed in 
accordance with the laws of the Requested State except to the 
extent that the Treaty provides otherwise. However, the method 
of execution specified in the request is to be followed except 
insofar as it is prohibited by the laws of the Requested State.
    Article 5(4) provides that if the Central Authority of the 
Requested State determines that execution of the request would 
interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, prosecution, 
or proceeding in that State, it may postpone execution or, 
after consulting with the Central Authority of the Requesting 
State, impose conditions on execution. If the Requesting State 
accepts assistance subject to the conditions, it shall comply 
with such conditions.
    Article 5(5) further requires the Requested State, if so 
requested, to use its best efforts to keep confidential a 
request and its contents, and to inform the Requesting State's 
Central Authority if the request cannot be executed without 
breaching confidentiality. This provides the Requesting State 
an opportunity to decide whether to pursue the request or to 
withdraw it in order to maintain confidentiality.
    This article additionally requires the Requested State's 
Central Authority to respond to reasonable inquiries by the 
Requesting State's Central Authority regarding the status of 
the execution of a particular request; to report promptly to 
the Requesting State's Central Authority the outcome of its 
execution; and, if the request is denied, to inform the 
Requesting State's Central Authority of the reasons for the 
denial.
    Article 6 apportions between the two States the costs 
incurred in executing a request. It provides that the Request 
State shall pay all costs, except for the following items to be 
paid by the Requesting State: fees of expert witnesses, costs 
of interpretation, translation and transcription, and 
allowances and expenses related to travel of persons pursuant 
to Articles 10 and 11. If during the execution of the request, 
it becomes apparent that extraordinary expenses will be 
entailed, the Central Authorities shall consult to determine 
the terms and conditions under which execution may continue.
    Article 7 requires the Requesting State to comply with any 
request by the Central Authority of the Requested State that 
information or evidence obtained under the Treaty not be used 
for proceedings other than those described in the request 
without its priorconsent. Further, if the Requested State's 
Central Authority asks that information or evidence furnished under 
this Treaty be kept confidential or be used in accordance with 
specified conditions, the Requesting State must use its best efforts to 
comply with the conditions. Once information is made public in the 
Requesting State in accordance with either or these provisions, no 
further limitations on use apply. Nothing in the article prevents the 
use or disclosure of information to the extent that there is an 
obligation to do so under the Constitution of the Requesting State in a 
criminal prosecution. The Requesting State is obliged to notify the 
Requesting State in advance of any such proposed use or disclosure.
    Article 8 provides that a person in the Requesting State 
from whom testimony or evidence is requested pursuant to the 
Treaty shall be compelled, if necessary, to appear and testify 
or produce items, documents and records. The article requires 
the Central Authority of the Requested State, upon request, to 
furnish information in advance about the date and place of the 
taking of testimony or evidence pursuant to this Article.
    Article 8(3) further requires the Requested State to permit 
the presence of persons specified in the request and to permit 
them to question the person giving the testimony or evidence. 
In the event that a person whose testimony or evidence is being 
taken asserts a claim of immunity, incapacity, or privilege 
under the laws of the Requesting State, Article 8(4) provides 
that the testimony or evidence shall be taken and the claim 
made known by written notification to the Central Authority of 
the Requesting State for resolution by its competent 
authorities. Finally, in order to ensure admissibility of 
evidence in the Requesting State, Article 8(5) provides a 
mechanism for authenticating evidence that is produced pursuant 
to or that is the subject of testimony taken in the Requested 
State.
    Article 9 requires that the Requested State provide the 
Requesting State with copies of publicly available records in 
the possession of government departments and agencies in the 
Requesting State. The Requested State may further provide 
copies of any documents, records or information in the 
possession of a government department or agency, but not 
publicly available, to the same extent and under the same 
conditions as it would provide them to its own law enforcement 
or judicial authorities. The Requested State has the discretion 
to refuse to execute, entirely or in part, such requests for 
records not publicly available. Article 9(3) provides that 
records produced pursuant to this Article shall, upon request, 
be certified by the appropriate form attached to the request. 
Article 9(3) also provides that no further authentication shall 
be necessary for admissibility into evidence in the Requesting 
State of official records pursuant to this Article.
    Article 10 provides a mechanism for the Requesting State to 
invite the voluntary appearance in its territory of a person 
located in the Requested State shall indicate the extent to 
which the expenses will be paid. It also states that the 
Central Authority of the Requesting State has discretion to 
determine that a person appearing in the Requesting State 
pursuant to this Article shall not be subject to service of 
process or be detained or subjected to any restriction of 
personal liberty by reason of any acts or convictions that 
preceded his departure from the Requested State. Any safe 
conduct provided for by this article ceases seven days after 
the Central Authority of the Requesting State has notified the 
Central Authority of the Requested State that the person's 
presence is no longer required, or if the person has left the 
Requesting State and voluntarily returns to it.
    Article 11 provides for temporary transfer of a person in 
custody in the Requested State or in a third State to the 
Requesting State for purposes of assistance under the Treaty 
(for example, a witness incarcerated in the Requested State may 
be transferred to have his deposition taken in the presence of 
the defendant), provided that the person in question and the 
Central Authorities of both States agree. The article also 
provides for voluntary transfer of a person in the custody of 
the Requesting State to the Requested State for purposes of 
assistance under the Treaty (for example, a defendant in the 
Requesting State may be transferred for purposes of attending a 
witness deposition in the Requesting State), if the person 
consents and if the Central Authorities of both States agree.
    Article 11(3) further establishes both the express 
authority and the obligation of the receiving State to maintain 
the person transferred in custody unless otherwise agreed by 
both Central Authorities. The return of the person transferred 
is subject to terms and conditions agreed to by the Central 
Authorities, and the sending State is not required to initiate 
extradition proceedings for return of the person transferred. 
The person transferred receives credit for time served in the 
custody of the receiving State.
    Article 12 establishes the authority of the Requested State 
to authorize transit through its territory of a person held in 
custody by a third State whose appearance has been requested by 
the Requesting State. The Requested State further has the 
authority and the obligation to keep the person in custody 
during transit. The Parties retain discretion to refuse to 
grant transit of their own nationals, however.
    Article 13 requires the Requested State to use its best 
efforts to ascertain the location or identity of persons or 
items specified in a request.
    Article 14 obligates the Requested State to use its best 
efforts to effect service of any document relating, in whole or 
in part, to any request for assistance under the Treaty. A 
request for the service of a document requiring a person to 
appear in the Requesting State must be transmitted a reasonable 
time before the scheduled appearance. Proof of service is to be 
provided in the manner specified in the request.
    Article 15 obligates the Requested State to execute 
requests for search, seizure, and delivery of any item to the 
Requesting State if the request includes the information 
justifying such action under the laws of theappropriate. The 
Central Authority of the State receiving such information is required 
to inform the Central Authority that provided the information of any 
action taken.
    Article 17 also obligates the Contracting States to assist 
each other to the extent permitted by their respective laws in 
proceedings relating to forfeiture of the proceeds and 
instrumentalities of offenses, restitution to victims of crime, 
and collection of fines imposed as sentences in criminal 
prosecutions. This may include action to temporarily immobilize 
the proceeds or instrumentalities pending further proceedings. 
The Contracting State having custody over proceeds or 
instrumentalities of offenses is required to dispose of them in 
accordance with its laws. Either Contracting State may transfer 
all or part of such assets, or the proceeds of their sale, to 
the extent permitted by the transferring State's laws and upon 
such terms as it deems appropriate.
    Article 18 states that assistance and procedures provided 
in the Treaty shall not prevent either Contracting State from 
granting assistance to the other Contracting State through the 
provisions of other applicable international agreements or 
through the provisions of its national law. The Contracting 
States may also provide assistance pursuant to any bilateral 
arrangement, agreement, or practice which may be applicable.
    Article 19 provides that the Central Authorities of the 
Contracting States shall consult, at times mutually agreed, to 
promote the most effective use of the Treaty, and may agree 
upon such practical measures as may be necessary to facilitate 
the Treaty's implementation.
    Article 20 provides that the Treaty is subject to 
ratification and the instruments shall be exchanged at 
Washington as soon as possible. The Treaty enters into force 
upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. Article 20 
further provides that either Contracting State may terminate 
the Treaty by written notice to the other Contracting State, 
with termination to be effective six months following the date 
of notification.
    A Technical Analysis explaining in detail the provisions of 
the Treaty is being prepared by the United States negotiating 
delegation, consisting of representatives from the Departments 
of Justice and State, and will be transmitted separately to the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
    The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in 
favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate as soon as 
possible.
    Respectfully submitted,
                                                    Strobe Talbott.

Shokin Statement by JohnSolomon on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©