Wednesday, October 16, 2019

American Elites Are Nothing but Globalist, Communist Chinese House Slaves

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Slavery / History / Globalism / Communism

There, it has been said.

Freedom lovers have all thought it, now the thought has been made manifest. Not only have our elite politicians, entrepreneurs, sports stars, celebrities, musicians, actors/actresses, activists, and the ultra-rich become sellouts, these house slaves have also become the tools for which the Globalists and their Chinese communist minions are using to keep the rest of us field workers in line.

Can you say: Arbeit Macht Frei?

Swing lo, swing chariot... if you love communism (socialism) so much, then why don't you let it carry you home to China? 

The African American community lectures white America via on the do's and dont's of racial inequity yet, uses the "N" word in their daily lives and entertainment, commits crimes and yells: "hands up, don't shoot" when arrests go wrong, and tries to be the moral high ground in anything race related while having the highest crime rates against other races. 

Why is that important? Because Communist groups like Black Lives Matter have become the surrogate voices of the African American community to complain about race relations using racism to push for a race war. So African American sports stars (Colin Kapernick) and other celebrities (Jesse Smollet, Edawn Coughman) jump on the bandwagon and infect the national discourse with highly charged racial speech and incidents.

Just to be clear, we are talking about communists here who have created discord within the African American community. For example, one of the philosophical founders of Black Lives Matter, Assata Shakur, otherwise known as Joanne Deborah Chesimard is "a radical feminist and Marxist revolutionary" who murdered a police officer, is on the FBI's most wanted list, and escaped to Cuba after breaking out of prison in 1979. Is she really a role model? 

These communist voices complain that being African American is in itself unfair and that mentality has carried over into the sports world. Some players complain that the owner/manager and team player relationship is akin to the slave-owner and slave relationship during the times before the civil war. Except for the fact the players are highly compensated and have to sign contracts to participate, unlike real slavery.

Ask yourselves: China has how many black Africans in their population? Has taken in how many economic migrants? Does what to their Muslim converts? Christian religious followers? Is America really that racist? Or, are certain groups only creating that illusion? 

Hollywood and other entertainment elites scream and cry about "Climate Change" while sipping thousand dollar glasses of champagne on their carbon spewing planes jet-setting across the world to lecture everyone but China about needing to be Net Carbon Zero... which having zero carbon is mass extinction for humans, animals, and plants alike.

Ask yourselves: China builds how many coal fire plants a year? Has what kind of environmental standards on industry? How are employees treated?

And... the Squad. Or, should these four Congress Critters be referred to as: the Squanderers? Because these four women seem to squander any opportunity to create positive change in our society. If the situation isn't marrying their brother for a Green Card, stealing from the till of their campaign, acting paranoid during house committee hearings, or being a downright media nuisance, it appears these four want to make headlines instead of headway. That is the crux of Social Justice. All selfie driven me, me, me social climbing, and absolutely no justice.

Ask yourselves: Could you protest in China? Could you mouth off and disrespect their leader the way you do President Trump here in America? Could you worship your god(s)/religion freely?

Then there is the private sector. Businesses like Apple, Google, or Facebook that believe China is the happening place. Where these moguls can use slave labor to manufacture their goods and sell Americans their wares for an overpriced ransom. Unless of course you identify yourself as a "publisher" in order to steal user data for profiteering, funnel users into ghettos for social control, and implement community standards to force Americans into the Chinese social credit score model.

Ask yourselves: Are you free? Or, did you have to hand over 51% of your shares to the Communist Chinese government for being tax free slave owners?

What intersection brings these four classes of elites together? Globalism. Globalism is the one world government, step on everyone, create a 1%er Politburo known as the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, and enslave the field workers dystopian nightmare.

Our elite believe that their money and status will protect them from the Globalist model of taking everything from everyone who is not in the One Percent as long as you shut up, put up, and keep everyone under you in line.

One problem: humans want to be free.

Take Hong Kong for example as what is to come for the rest of the world under this Globalist model of Chinese dictatorship. China has stolen Tibet. China wants to take over all the Asian countries along its borders and the islands thereof. 

Hong Kong is a free and independent nation. China has no right to the British held colony. Here is how:
The New Territories were leased from Qing China to the United Kingdom in 1898 for 99 years in the Second Convention of Peking (The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory). Upon the expiry of the lease, sovereignty was transferred to the People's Republic of China in 1997, together with the Qing-ceded territories of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula.
Sounds straight forward until further research shows that the British were granted ownership of Hong Kong Island (and later Kowloon) in perpetuity by the Qing Emperor in 1842. 
Treaty of Nanjing, (August 29, 1842) treaty that ended the first Opium War, the first of the unequal treaties between China and foreign imperialist powers. China paid the British an indemnity, ceded the territory of Hong Kong, and agreed to establish a “fair and reasonable” tariff. 
Just because Britain walked away from the lease does not mean China owns the land. That land is still under the auspice of Great Britain. If Britain is no longer interested in the island (essentially has abandoned the land), then Hong Kong should be legally free from colonial as well as communist rule. You're welcome.

The people of Hong Kong escaped from the terrible and murderous Maoist regime that is now under the unelected dictator: Xi Jinping. The People's Republic of China is no republic and cares nothing of its people; it is just a stage name.

Anyone in the entertainment industry should understand that.

So what do we have here? We have protesters in Hong Kong being MORE American than our American elites. Our elites should be using their money, status, and celebrity to side with the free peoples of Hong Kong and shame the communist government of China on an international scale.

Instead Americans have people like LeBron James telling other NBA players to shut up about Hong Kong and China. A sports figure whose net worth is approximately $450 million dollars. Enough money for several generations to not be able to spend in their lifetime.

On October 1st, the 70th anniversary of communist rule in China, which has seen over 100 million dead, Hong Kong endured our 9/11, which has now persisted for over 15 days. The Communist Chinese have used our terrorist attack to garner sympathy in the international community for attacking the peaceful Hong Kong residents. 

10/1 is Hong Kong's 9/11. 

Let's show some respect for our dead and theirs. The Communist Chinese do not deserve any recognition for this day except to reiterate that you can never trust a communist. A communist is nothing but a lying, manipulative serial killer.

So let's return to the intersection of Globalism and ask our traitors a question.

Private Sector Profiteers... why don't you just go live in China and stop selling your high-priced crap to Americans if you love slave ownership that much? 

Squanderers... if you love you some Socialism, then why don't you to go live in China for a year without resource or connection? 

Hollywood and other entertainment elite... if the environment is so important to you, then why are you not protesting in China? 

Black Lives Matter... if you hate race relations here in America, then why don't you try your hand at living in homogeneous China? 

Then there is the NFL and NBA disrespecting America, American fans, and Americans in general. These players take affront to any type of negative outcome in police or domestic situations no matter the fault, but will give up their honor, integrity, and community for profit. Kapernick takes a knee to disrespect Americans during football games. LeBron James sides with China versus Hong Kong to protect his revenue stream. 

Since LeBron James has sided with the Communist Chinese government in current events, he will be our example:
“Yes, we do have freedom of speech,” James said on Monday. “But at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you’re not thinking about others when you only think about yourself.”

James went on to scold [Houston Rockets General Manager Daryll] Morey for tweeting his support for Hong Kong’s demonstrators despite the harm it may have done to the NBA’s big-money deals with the Chinese.

“So many people could have been harmed,” James complained, “not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful what we tweet and what we say and what we do. Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech, it can be a lot of negative that comes with it.”
So King LeBron, you want everyone in the world to call you: Maesta... but allow the Communist Chinese to call you: boy? Is that something the African American Community would approve? Or, are you trying to be the sports world's international communist representative?

That is embarrassing. America is embarrassed for you. And, you call yourself a Christian choosing money over people?

The world stands on the precipice of history. Are you for freedom? Or, are you for the slavery of communism? 

Do you want to be the master of others? Or, do you want to be the master of your own life? 

You can either be history or be apart of history. The choice is yours. But choose wisely because the international community will never get another chance to defeat Globalism and communism once the tyranny takes control of our governments and lands.

When it comes to the history of slavery, we can either become the nameless, faceless victims of communism, or the Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubmans to defeat it. 

Swing low, sweet chariot,
coming for to carry me home... to freedom instead.

Stand with Hong Kong. 

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Nancy Pelosi Needs to Resign; the People Demand Her Impeachment

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Nancy Pelosi / Resignation Call

With the Trump Administration's eight page rebuttal of the impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives, the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi responded on her website:
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released this statement when the White House asserted that the Administration will not comply with House Committee subpoenas as part of the impeachment inquiry, making false claims about the Constitution, House rules and House precedent:

“For a while, the President has tried to normalize lawlessness. Now, he is trying to make lawlessness a virtue. The American people have already heard the President’s own words – ‘do us a favor, though.’ The President’s actions threaten our national security, violate our Constitution and undermine the integrity of our elections. The White House letter is only the latest attempt to cover up his betrayal of our democracy, and to insist that the President is above the law.

“This letter is manifestly wrong, and is simply another unlawful attempt to hide the facts of the Trump Administration’s brazen efforts to pressure foreign powers to intervene in the 2020 elections. Despite the White House’s stonewalling, we see a growing body of evidence that shows that President Trump abused his office and violated his oath to ‘protect, preserve and defend the Constitution.’

“The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the President’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.

“Mr. President, you are not above the law. You will be held accountable.”
Except the American people are not buying the political theater staged by Progressives and Socialists in the Democrat Party. Instead, the American people are revolting at the premise of impeachment. 

There has been no formal vote to even begin conducting impeachment proceedings so why is Nancy Pelosi threatening the President of the United States with obstruction and other issues? 

Because this impeachment inquiry is about creating headlines and not about finding out any facts. The facts have been presented but the Speaker of the House refuses to acknowledge what does not fit into her crafted rebuke of the Trump Administration. Is Pelosi so consumed with bitterness and hate that she cannot accept that Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump fair and square? 

The American people are fed up with the Progressive and Socialist agenda of ruining our country. Open borders, corruption, and manipulation by the Progressives, Socialists, and Rino Republicans are the true lawlessness the American People are tired of. 

Americans have had enough.

So much so, that Americans began a petition on the White House website demanding Nancy Pelosi be impeached herself: 

Or is it time that the 79 year old woman with over 30 years in the House of Representatives who is past her ability to represent the American people and not her selfish interest to her party for her to save what is left of her reputation by resigning? 

The corrupt Globalists need to resign beginning with the Speaker. 

Sources: Speaker's website, White House Petitions,

White House Opposition Letter to Questionable Impeachment Inquiry

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Impeachment / Legal Rebuttal


October 8, 2019

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Adam B. Schiff
House Permanent Select Committee on
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:

I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled-contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent-as an "impeachment inquiry." As you know,you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process. 

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and eve1y past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the
American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member of Congress explained, he is "concerned that if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected." 1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage
to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.

Interview with Rep. Al Green, MSNBC (May 5, 2019).
Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 2

For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency hy declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was also powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiff's decision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.

In addition, information has recently come to light that the whistleblower had contact with Chairman Schiffs office before filing the complaint. His initial denial of such contact caused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff"clearly made a statement thatwas false. "2 In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiff cannot covertly assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a
counterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a neutral "investigator."

For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless,
unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process. Your unprecedented actions have left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.

Your "Inquiry" Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights
and the Separation of Powers.

Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply
announced an "official impeachment inquiry." 3 Your contrived process is unprecedented in the 2 3 Glenn Kessler, Schiff's False Claim His Committee Had Not Spoken to the Whistleblower, Wash. Post (Oct. 4, 20 I 9). Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 2019).

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 3

history of the Nation, 4 and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding. 5 The Committees' inquiry also suffers from a separate, fatal defect. Despite Speaker Pelosi's commitment to "treat the President with fairness," 6 the Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own party, that "[t]he power of impeachment ... demands a rigorous level of due process," and that in this context "due process mean[s] ... the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. "7 All of these procedures have been abandoned here. These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements.

The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations. 8 Indeed, it has been recognized that the Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings. 9 And precedent for the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence dates back nearly 150 years. 10 Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President these elementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and are protected by the Constitution. No citizen-including the President-should be treated this unfairly. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Since the Founding of the Republic, under unbroken practice, the House has never undertaken the solemn responsibility of an impeachment inquiry directed at the President without first adopting a resolution authorizing a committee to begin the inquiry. The inquiries into the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton proceeded in multiple phases, each authorized by a separate House resolution. See, e.g., H.R. Res. 581, I 05th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 525, I 05th Cong. (1998); III Hinds' Precedents §§ 2400-02, 2408, 2412. And before the Judiciary Committee initiated an impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon, the Committee's chairman rightfully recognized that "a[n) [inquiry] resolution has always been passed by the House" and "is a necessary step." III Deschler's Precedents ch. 14, § 15.2. The House then satisfied that requirement by adopting H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974), Chairman Nadler has recognized the importance of taking a vote in the House before beginning a presidential impeachment inquiry. At the outset of the Clinton impeachment inquiry-where a floor vote was held-he argued that even limiting the time for debate before that vote was improper and that "an hour debate on this momentous decision is an insult to the American people and another sign that this is not going to be fair." 144 Cong. Rec. HI 0018 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler). Here, the House has dispensed with any vote and any debate "t {II/, Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today (Oct. 2, 2019). Examining the Allegations of Misconduct Against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen (Part II): Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the J11diciG1J', 114th Cong. 3 (2016) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler); Background and History of Impeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 17 (1998) (statement of Rep, Jerrold Nadler). See, e.g., Watkinsv. United States, 354 U.S. 178,188 (1957); Quinnv. United States, 349 U.S. 155,161 (1955). See Hastings v. United Stales, 802 F. Supp. 490, 504 (D.D.C. 1992), vacated on other grounds by Hastings v. United States, 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993). See, e.g., III Hinds' Precedents § 2445.


Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 4
To comply with the Constitution's demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony. Likewise, the Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called
to testify in the inquiry. The Committees' current procedures provide none of these basic constitutional rights. 

In addition, the House has not provided the Committees' Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries. 11 The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House's utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater.

As if denying the President basic procedural protections were not enough, the
Committees have also resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses. Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process. In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened­
without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena-that "[a]ny failure to appear" in response to a mere letter request for a deposition "shall constitute evidence of  obstruction." 12 Worse, the Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests-or apparently if
they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all-these officials will have their salaries withheld. 13 

The suggestion that it would somehow be problematic for anyone to raise long­
established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for a deposition is legally unfounded. Not surprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch cannot be punished for



H.R. Res. 581, 105th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974).
Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, et al., to George P. Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State I (Sept. 27, 2019). 

See Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, et al., to John J. Sullivan,
Deputy Secretary of State 2-3 (Oct. I, 2019).


Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 5

following such instructions. 14 Current and former State Department officials are duty bound to protect the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch, and the Office of Legal Counsel has also recognized that it is unconstitutional to exclude agency counsel from participating in congressional depositions. 15 In addition, any attempt to withhold an official's salary for the assertion of such interests would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. 16 The Committees'
assertions on these points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals and of the Executive Branch. Threats aimed at intimidating individuals who assert these basic rights are attacks on civil liberties that should profoundly concern all Americans.

The Invalid "Impeachment Inquiry " Plainly Seeks To Reverse the Election of 2016 and To Influence the Election of 2020.

The effort to impeach President Trump-----without regard to any evidence of his actions in office is a naked political strategy that began the day he was inaugurated, and perhaps even before. 17 In fact, your transparent rush to judgment, lack of democratically accountable authorization, and violation of basic rights in the current proceedings make clear the illegitimate, partisan purpose of this purported "impeachment inquiry." The Founders, however, did not create the extraordinary mechanism of impeachment so it could be used by a political party that feared for its prospects against the sitting President in the next election. The decision as to who will be elected President in 2020 should rest with the people of the United States, exactly where the Constitution places it.
Democrats themselves used to recognize the dire implications of impeachment for the Nation. For example, in the past, Chairman Nadler has explained:
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We
must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to
defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire
threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the
American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an
impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by
another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our



See, e.g., Testimonial Immunity Before Congress a/the Former Counsel to the President, 43 Op. O.L.C. _, * 19 (May 20, 2019); Prosecution/or Contempt a/Congress of an Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a
Claim of Executive Privilege, 8 Op. O.L.C. IO I, I 02, 140 (l 984)("The Executive, however, must be free from the threat of criminal prosecution if its right to assert executive privilege is to have any practical substance,,,)
Attempted Exclusion of Agency Counsel for Congressional Depositions of Agency Employees, 43 Op. O.L.C._, * 1-2 (May 23, 2019).

See President Donald J. Trump, Statement by the President on Signing the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (Feb. 15, 20 19); Authority of Agency Officials To Prohibit Employees From Providing information to
Congress, 28 Op, O.L.C. 79, 80 (2004).

See Matea Gold, The Campaign To Impeach President Trump Has Begun, Wash. Post (Jan. 21, 2017) ("At the moment the new commander in chief was sworn in, a campaign to build public support for his impeachment went live .... ").

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 6
politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of
our political institutions. 18

Unfortunately, the President's political opponents now seem eager to transform
impeachment from an extraordinary remedy that should rarely be contemplated into a conventional political weapon to be deployed for partisan gain. These actions are a far cry from what our Founders envisioned when they vested Congress with the "important trust" of considering impeachment. 19 Precisely because it nullifies the outcome of the democratic process, impeachment of the President is fraught with the risk of deepening divisions in the country and creating long-lasting rifts in the body politic. 20 Unfortunately, you are now playing out exactly the partisan rush to judgment that the Founders so strongly warned against. The American people deserve much better than this.

There Is No Legitimate Basis for Your "Impeachment Inquiry"; Instead, the
Committees' Actions Raise Serious Questions.

It is transparent that you have resorted to such unprecedented and unconstitutional procedures because you know that a fair process would expose the lack of any basis for your inquiry. Your current effort is founded on a completely appropriate call on July 25, 2019, between President Trump and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Without waiting to see what was actually said on the call, a press conference was held announcing an "impeachment inquiry"
based on falsehoods and misinformation about the call. 21 To rebut those falsehoods, and to provide transparency to the American people, President Trump secured agreement from the Government of Ukraine and took the extraordinary step of declassifying and publicly releasing the record of the call. That record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate, that the President did nothing wrong, and that there is no basis for an impeachment inquiry. At a joint press conference shortly after the call's public release, President Zelenskyy agreed that the call was appropriate. 22 In addition, the Department of Justice announced that officials there had reviewed the call after a referral for an alleged campaign finance law violation and found no such violation. 23 Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing. 24 This


144 Cong. Rec. HI 1786 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler).

The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton).
See id.

Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 20 19).

President Trump Meeting with Ukrainian President, C-SPAN (Sept. 25, 2019).
Statement of Kerri Kupec, Director, Office of Public Affairs, Dept. of Justice (Sept. 25, 2019) ("[T]he Department's Criminal Division reviewed the official record of the call and determined, based on the facts and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.").

See Whistleblower Disclosure: Hearing Before the H Select Comm. 011 Intel., I 16th Cong. (Sept. 26, 2019)
(statement of Rep. Adam Schiff).


Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 7

powerfully confirms there is no issue with the actual call. Otherwise, why would Chairman Schiff feel the need to make up his own version? The Chairman's action only further undermines the public's confidence in the fairness of any inquiry before his Committee.

The real problem, as we are now learning, is that Chairman Schiffs office, and perhaps others-despite initial denials-were involved in advising the whistleblower before the complaint was filed. Initially, when asked on national television about interactions with the whistleblower, Chairman Schiff unequivocally stated that "[w]e have not spoken directly with
the whistleblower. We would like to."25 Now, however, it has been reported that the whistleblower approached the House Intelligence Committee with information-and received guidance from the Committee-before filing a complaint with the Inspector General. 26 As a result, The Washington Post concluded that Chairman Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false. "27 Anyone who was involved in the preparation or submission of the whistleblower's complaint cannot possibly act as a fair and impartial judge in the same matter-particularly after misleading the American people about his involvement.

All of this raises serious questions that must be investigated. However, the Committees are preventing anyone, including the minority, from looking into these critically important matters. At the very least, Chairman Schiff must immediately make available all documents relating to these issues. After all, the American people have a right to know about the Committees' own actions with respect to these matters.



Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it. Because participating in this inquiry under the current unconstitutional posture would inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the separation of powers, you have left the President no choice. Consistent with the duties of the President of the United States, and in particular his obligation to preserve
the rights of future occupants of his office, President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.
Your recent letter to the Acting White House Chief of Staff argues that "[e]ven if an impeachment inquiry were not underway," the Oversight Committee may seek this information



Interview with Chairman Adam Schiff, MSNBC (Sept. l 7, 2019).
Julian Barnes, et al., Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower's Concerns Grew, N.Y. Times(Oct. 2, 20 l 9).

Glenn Kessler, Schiff's False Claim His Co111111i//ee Had Not Spoke11 to the Whistleblower, Wash, Post (Oct. 4,


Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 8

as a matter of the established oversight process. 28 Respectfolly, the Committees cannot have it both ways. The letter comes from the Chairmen of three different Committees, it transmits a subpoena "[p]ursuant to the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry," it recites that the documents will "be collected as part of the House's impeachment inquiry," and it asserts that the documents will be "shared among the Committees, as well as with the Committee on the Judiciary as appropriate."29 The letter is in no way directed at collecting information in aid of legislation, and you simply cannot expect to rely on oversight authority to gather information for an unauthorized impeachment inquiry that conflicts with all historical precedent and rides roughshod over due process and the separation of powers. If the Committees wish to return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process as we have in the past, in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people. The President has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of
unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescription drug prices, and addressing mass shooting violence. We hope that, in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.




Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives
Hon. Michael McCaul, Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Hon. Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on
Hon. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Letter from Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, et al., to John Michael Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff to the President 3 (Oct. 4, 2019).
Id. at I.

Biden Admits Quid Pro Quo in Ukraine Corruption Scandal

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Biden Corruption / Ukraine

Joe Biden Admits to Getting Ukrainian Prosecutor who Investigated Son Fired

Source: Youtube

Joe Biden's S.Res.322 - A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the trial, sentencing and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Biden Corruption / Senate Resolution

Sponsor: Sen. Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [D-DE] (Introduced 11/18/2005)
Latest Action: Senate - 11/18/2005 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13410; text as passed Senate: CR S13410; text of measure as introduced: CR S13396-13397)  (All Actions)

1st Session

S. RES. 322

Expressing the sense of the Senate on the trial, sentencing, and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev.

November 18, 2005
Mr. Biden (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Obama) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

Expressing the sense of the Senate on the trial, sentencing, and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev.
    Whereas the United States supports the development of democracy, civil society, and the rule of law in the Russian Federation;
    Whereas the rule of law and the guarantee of equal justice under the law are fundamental attributes of democratic societies;
    Whereas the trial, sentencing, and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev have raised troubling questions about the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system in Russia;
    Whereas the Department of State 2004 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Russia stated that the arrest of Mr. Khodorkovsky was “widely believed to have been prompted, at least in part, by the considerable financial support he provided to opposition groups;”
    Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has remarked that the arrest of Mr. Khodorkovsky and the dismantling of his company have “raised significant concerns” about the independence of the judiciary in Russia;
    Whereas the independent non-governmental organization Freedom House has asserted that the conviction of Mr. Khodorkovsky “underscores the serious erosion of the rule of law and growing intolerance for political dissent in Russia”;
    Whereas upon concluding an investigation of the facts surrounding the case of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev, the Human Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe determined that the two men were “arbitrarily singled out” by the Russia authorities, violating the principle of equality before the law;
    Whereas in May 2005, a Moscow court sentenced Mr. Khodorkovsky to serve 9 years in prison;
    Whereas Article 73 of the Russian Criminal Penitentiary Code stipulates that except under extraordinary circumstances, prisoners serve their terms of deprivation of liberty on the territory of subjects of the Russian Federation where they reside or were convicted;
    Whereas on or about October 16, 2005, Mr. Khodorkovsky was sent to prison camp YG 14/10 in the Chita Region of Siberia;
    Whereas on or about October 16, 2005, Mr. Lebedev was sent to penal camp number 98/3 in the arctic region of Yamal-Nenets;
    Whereas the transfer of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev constitutes an apparent violation of Russia law and hearkens back to the worst practices and excesses of the Soviet era;
    Whereas a broad coalition of human rights advocates and intellectuals in Russia have appealed to Vladimir Lukin, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Russian Federation, to investigate and rectify any abuse of Russia law associated with the transfer of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev; and
    Whereas the selective disregard for the rule of law by officials of the Russian Federation further undermines the standing and status of the Russian Federation among the democratic nations of the world: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) the criminal justice system in Russia has not accorded Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev fair, transparent, and impartial treatment under the laws of the Russian Federation;
(2) the standing and status of the Russian Federation among the democratic nations of the world would be greatly enhanced if the authorities of the Russian Federation were to take the necessary actions to dispel widespread concerns that—
(A) the criminal cases against Mr. Khodorkovsky, Mr. Lebedev, and their associates are politically motivated;
(B) the transfer of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev to prison camps thousands of kilometers from their homes and families represents a violation of the norms and practices of Russia law; and
(C) in cases dealing with perceived political threats to the authorities, the judiciary of Russia is an instrument of the Kremlin and such judiciary is not truly independent; and
(3) notwithstanding any other disposition of the cases of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev, and without prejudice to further disposition of same, Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev should be transferred to penal facilities with locations that are consonant with the norms and general practices of Russia law.

Source: Congress online 

Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Ukraine / Mutual Legal Assistance








 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.


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 
    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 

                                                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 
    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 
    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 
    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 
    Respectfully submitted,
                                                    Strobe Talbott.

Source: Congress online

Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Joy Reid, Donald Trump is the Legitimate President of the United States

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
President of the United States

Hillary Clinton is a sore loser. She has been making the show circuit claiming that Donald Trump is the illegitimate President of the United States.  She also had set herself up in an art installation pretending to be the POTUS. 

Why would any American want a person whining around and blaming everyone, including imaginary Russians, for her loss to be President of the United States? 

Americans want responsible leaders. 

Here are the official numbers of the Electoral College for the 2016 Presidential election: 

Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 11
Arkansas 6
Florida 29
Georgia 16
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Iowa 6
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8
Maine 1
Michigan 16
Mississippi 6
Missouri 10
Nebraska 5
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Ohio 18
Oklahoma 7
Pennsylvania 20
South Carolina 9
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 36
Utah 6
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 3
304 Electoral Votes that won the Presidency of the United States for Donald J. Trump. 

Hillary Clinton only managed 227 electoral votes and thus disqualified her from the Presidency. 

AM Joy had a panel to discuss how it would work to impeach President Trump and Vice President Pence in order to install "the proper party into power." The proper party is in power; they are called the American People and they voted the Trump/Pence ticket into office. 

Even Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, commented:

"Now we have an election coming up... How many people have said to you, 'This is the most important election of our time'? Well, this is. But I leave the other subject; I just have to tell you this one thing a cartoonist told me today. There's this meme going around, and I'm saying, 'Donald, you used to own a casino. You know the 'House' always wins'".

Yes, but Madam Speaker, that house is owned by the American People. No political party owns anything. That fact appears to be missing in the politics of the day. 

So the only way the United States of America can have an illegitimate President and have the improper party in power is to remove by impeachment or force Donald J. Trump from the highest office in the land. 

Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. 

Maybe if Democrats were more interested in the lives of the American people instead of becoming the party of gimmicks and giveaways, especially to non-citizens, then perhaps the American People would send a Democrat to the White House, but not until the party starts taking responsibility for their losses, change their platform of hate and intolerance, and abide by our laws. 

Until the Democrats show American values and drop Globalism, then Democrats will continue to be out of power.

And get Hillary Clinton off the stage. She is not helping the Democrat cause either. She is a negative, not a positive. 

So just get over yourselves. 

Many Americans already are over the Democrat Party. Donald J. Trump will be the 46th President of the United States come 2020. You can thank the leaders of the Democrat party for losing the next five election cycles, as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court, if all talk and threats of impeachment are not halted by Halloween. 

That is a guarantee. 

Monday, October 7, 2019

Vaccinegate: MRC-5 contained in Priorix Tetra - Complete genome sequencing

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Vaccines / Fetal DNA / Cancer

Got a vaccine lately? In this scientific breakdown of one vaccine found fetal DNA from a male human and much more that may shed light on why vaccines have become so toxic causing a myriad of illnesses and deadly reactions. 

Are the vaccine makers creating more than toxic reactions but trying to change the living human genome to induce a chimera effect to redefine the human species? 

Can you say: living Chimera? 

Wouldn't that put into question who your creator is? Where your rights and freedoms come from? 

Should we halt all vaccines until laws are put into place so that humans are no longer used as guinea pigs without our permission? 

The human reference genome was found to be matched by 99.76% reads from vaccine DNA, that means nearly in all its entirety. The human fetal DNA presented in this vaccine is a single entire genome, that means the vaccine contains genomic DNA with all the chromosomes of a male individual (in fact MRC-5 originates from a male fetus).

Given below are the analysis results of different types of variants compared to the reference human genome.

Variant analysis in cancer genes

The analysis on SNP, InDels, CNV, SV variants on 560 genes chosen because they involved in different forms of human cancer shows the presence of numerous "original" variants, that’s to say that they are, not even present in public databases, therefore are not known in the literature. In other words, important modifications of genes known to be associated with various tumor forms have been identified, for all the 560 verified genes; furthermore, there are variants whose consequences are not known, but which, however, affects genes involved in the induction of human cancer.


The human genomic DNA contained in the Priorix lot vaccine. n. A71CB256A is evidently anomalous, presenting important inconsistencies if compared to a typical human genome, i.e. the one of a healthy human being. There are several unknown variants (not noted in public databases) and some of them are located in genes involved in cancer. What is also apparently anomalous, is the excess of genome that shows changes in the number of copies (CNV) and structural variants (SV), such as translocations, insertions, deletions, duplications and inversions, many of which involve genes.

The potential contribution of the numerous variants (not present in the scientific literature and in public databases) to the phenotype of the cells used for the growth of vaccine viruses is not known.

Read the study in its entirety in the source link below.

Source: Associazione Corvelva - Vaccinegate

United States Senators' Letter to the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Senators / Ukraine Letter

Maybe these Senators (Menendez, Leahy, and Durbin) have some explaining to do about their joint letter to the Prosecutor General in Ukraine.

Read the letter on the Senate's own website: Menendez Joint Letter to General in Ukraine dated 5/4/2018.

Source: United States Senate

Get All the Latest News... Follow the VDP Gazette by Email