Do the charges against Trump pass constitutional muster? The justices should decide before the Senate does.

In the present overheated state of official Washington, there may be no alternative to charging into an impeachment trial whose outcome is a foregone conclusion. There is no allegation of treason, bribery, a high crime, or a misdemeanor, the four categories of offense the Constitution identifies as justifying the removal of a president, and no evidence of any such offense. The Democrats tried bribery for a couple of weeks after their focus groups were stirred by it, but gave it up as too implausible. The only bribe that has been unearthed was of the Biden family, and not even this rabid ragtag of bloodless assassins has tried treason, though that wicked act was much bandied about in the piping days of the previous Democratic putsch attempt over collusion between Trump and Russia in the 2016 election. The preferable next step would be for the Senate to ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the four grounds cited by the Constitution for removal of a president are exclusive, and accordingly this impeachment bill need not be tried, or those categories are merely illustrative, and Gerald Ford was correct when he said impeachment can be for any reason the majority in the House of Representatives determines.

I believe it is clear that the authors of the Constitution did not want a president removed for anything less than a high crime, and that none of the impeachment efforts in history would qualify. Andrew Johnson had fired the war secretary, which was his right, and he was narrowly acquitted in 1868 in the intense post-Civil War Reconstruction atmosphere. Richard Nixon was charged by the Judiciary Committee with having "made it his policy" to "obstruct," and having "through his close subordinates and agents" obstructed, the Watergate investigation; and of having "endeavored" to misuse the IRS (not having actually done so, as Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Obama, and others have done); and of impeding the impeachment proceedings by temporary noncompliance with House committee subpoenas. The last was an obviously absurd charge, but even the first two were not high crimes, and there has never been any conclusive evidence that Nixon was guilty of them anyway. But his impeachment case was a model of fairness compared with the present nonsense. President Clinton may have lied to a grand jury about his extramarital sex life, but that was not a high crime either, in constitutional terms, and was rightly judged insufficient to justify his removal.

A New York judge has dismissed a state mortgage fraud indictment against Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman, citing double jeopardy laws.

Manafort, 70, was previously sentenced in a pair of federal cases earlier this year as part of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

Judge Maxwell Wiley ruled that state law precludes prosecution because the criminal case was too similar to that which landed Manafort in federal prison, writing that the factual overlap between the state and federal cases "is extensive — if not total."

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr. said they would appeal the decision.

The US is more divided today than at any time since the historic war between North and South, and whether or not the Democrats vote to impeach Trump, Americans won't be spared a political storm looming on the horizon.

Today, millions of Washington watchers around the world are asking the same question: What happens if the Democrats go ahead and bring articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump? The answer is twofold, and just might be the shortest story ever told: At first nothing, and then, everything. The end.

The reason nothing will happen immediately requires no degree in political science to appreciate. Should the Democrats commit the mother of all political screw-ups by voting to impeach Trump, all on the basis of hearsay, gossip and maybe reading tea leaves, the circus moves next door to the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority. This is where House efforts to impeach Trump will inevitably smack into a brick wall and disintegrate.

The collapse of the Central Bank of Lebanon following a major state scam plunged the country into an unparalleled economic and financial crisis. The country is now paying for its 76 years of political dependence and 8 years of complete political vacancy. The reality of its situation is very different from the perception of its citizens.

The Central Bank of Lebanon has again authorized private banks to freely deliver Lebanese pounds, but still no dollars. This exchange control is illegal in law because it has not been validated by Parliament. Several large companies have already filed an application for interim relief before the courts. The wheat, oil and medicine import sectors are out of business, all the others are in recession.

Public debt stands at 154% of GDP. The Lebanese pound was depreciated by half its value in three months, taking the Syrian pound, already mistreated during the war by the Saudi and Qatari counterfeit currency, into its fall.

Causes of the crisis

This financial crisis led Parliament to adopt a new tax that triggered the demonstrations that have paralysed the country since October 17, 2019. In all likelihood, it originated in a massive scam set up by the country's political leaders through the Central Bank.

Argentine President Alberto Fernandez said last month that he may not seek an $11 billion loan from the IMF, promising instead to "try to revive the economy."

RT's Keiser Report talks to Nick Giambruno of CaseyResearch.com about the relative calm in Buenos Aires among the populace, despite the ongoing currency and debt crises.

Argentina has gone through a number of financial crises in the past 100 years and it looks like it is on the cusp of another one, Giambruno says. According to him, the South American nation is facing another currency cataclysm "which is relatively normal for this country, it has happened repeatedly over the past 100 years."

And there are reasons for that, the analyst says, explaining that 100 years ago Argentina and the United States were "really kind-of on the same level." That was "kind-of a golden era for Argentina."

However, everything changed, a lot, since Argentina instituted a central bank in 1935, Giambruno points out. "The golden era was prior to the establishment of the central bank... like in most places the central bank is the magic money machine for the politicians and that's really how Argentina started its long descent downhill," he concludes.

Today we are joined by Philip Giraldi who is the Executive Director at the Council for National Interest to talk about whether or not Israel is our greatest ally. Phil is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer. He is a veteran and patriot here to tell us the truth about our so-called unbreakable bond with Israel.

The latest US sanctions targeting Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will deliver natural gas to Germany, will not stop the project, presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday.

"We assume that [Nord Stream 2] will be completed," he told journalists when asked whether Washington's potential sanctions might result in construction being suspended.

Peskov's comments followed the approval of a bill by the US Senate, which would sanction companies involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2. It is expected to be signed by US President Donald Trump later this week.

Pending White House approval, the companies working on the Nord Stream 2 project will have 30 days to stop their operations. The sanctions would revoke US visas and block the property of those individuals involved.

European companies involved in the project include German energy firms Wintershall and Uniper, French multinational Engie, British-Dutch oil and gas giant Royal Dutch Shell, and Austrian energy company OMV.

The Kremlin spokesman called the possible sanctions "a direct violation of international law" and "an ideal example of unfair competition and the spread of their artificial dominance in European markets." He said Washington is "imposing on European consumers more expensive and uncompetitive products - more expensive natural gas."

The Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) report last week threw cold water on many Democrat talking points regarding the FBI and the investigation into whether President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign colluded with Russia.

Media outlets have even had to admit that even though they consistently sided with Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) claims about the investigation, it was Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) who got most of the facts right. Taking a victory lap, Nunes wrote a letter on Friday to Schiff, who is the current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

"After publishing false conclusions of such enormity on a topic directly within this committee's oversight responsibilities, it is clear you are in need of rehabilitation, and I hope this letter will serve as the first step in that vital process."

Nunes went on to outline a small sample of the falsehoods Schiff spread regarding the FBI's investigation into the 2016 election:

Judge Emmet Sullivan had two choices: He could ignore the growing evidence of government misconduct and wind up the two-year saga that has been the sentencing phase of the Michael Flynn criminal case, or he could say "not on my watch." Yesterday, in a methodical and seemingly tempered opinion, the long-time federal judge opted for the former tack when he denied in full the comprehensive motion to compel Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell filed several months ago. Judge Sullivan then set Flynn's sentencing for January 28, 2020.

While Judge Sullivan's opinion appeared measured as he dispatched the myriad issues Powell raised on behalf of her client, two passages, separated by scores of pages in the tedious 99-page opinion, make clear that the outcome was a forgone conclusion.

"The Court notes that Mr. Flynn's brief in support of his first Brady motion lifted verbatim portions from a source without attribution," Judge Sullivan began his analysis of Powell's legal arguments under a bolded heading entitled "Ethical Concerns with Mr. Flynn's Brief." Judge Sullivan then notes that Powell's brief provided a hyperlink to the "excellent briefing by Amicus in support of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Brown v. United States."

Bolivia's coup-imposed government now has a court order for the arrest of former President Evo Morales, issued on the grounds of his alleged incitement of riots and "terrorism" in the divided South American nation.

A photo of the arrest order has been shared on Twitter by Arturo Murillo, the interior minister of the "transitional" government of Jeanine Anez. He had previously promised to jail Morales "for the rest of his life," calling him a "terrorist."
Actually arresting Morales is currently easier said than done for Murillo, as the former Bolivian president has accepted political asylum in Argentina, and has vowed to "keep fighting" the opposition-led coup.