World Net Daily ... In reference to the soon-to-be published criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia collusion hoax, Attorney General William Barr recently stated he was "very troubled" by what has been uncovered. 

There are indications that as many as 17 criminal referrals may be headed to the Department of Justice, indicating a significant effort by the administration of Barack Obama, initially, to derail the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and, later, to mastermind a silent coup to get him out of office.

 

While these referrals will name members of the executive branch under Obama, with the double crises of COVID-19 and the anti-police protests and riots triggered by the death of George Floyd, we cannot lose sight of the fact members of Congress were also complicit, evidenced by their efforts to impeach Trump. 

To understand how they actively sought to falsely disparage the president, we first need to understand the "Brady Rule."

 

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed a duty upon prosecutors to ensure they respected a defendant's right to due process. In the Brady v. Maryland case, Brady and fellow defendant Boblit were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. While Brady confessed, he asserted Boblit was the actual killer. 

Only after Brady was sentenced to death was it discovered the prosecution had withheld from Brady, despite a defense request, Boblit's confession he was the actual killer. 

Brady's lawyers believed the jury should have heard that evidence before sentencing Brady to death. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding due process required the prosecution, upon request by the defense, to turn over evidence relating to the defendant's guilt or innocence, even if favorable to the defense. By not doing so, the prosecution denied Brady his constitutional right to due process.

Today, this right of a defendant's entitlement to receive exculpatory evidence has been ingrained for over 50 years in the Brady Rule.

 

Obviously, the Brady Rule seeks to mandate the prosecution be fair in pursuing justice. If there is any evidence helpful to the defendant in the prosecutor's possession proving the innocence or lessening culpability, the prosecutor has a duty to turn it over to the defendant if requested.

 

This brings us to Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his long-standing effort to lay the groundwork for Trump's impeachment. 

The Democrats' 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, had hired a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to investigate and issue a report on Republican presidential candidate Trump. Clinton and the DNC split the costs of the investigative report, which was turned over to President Barack Obama's Deep State. 

While both the report's funding sources and the Deep State's inability to validate the charges therein should have raised a red flag for anyone concerned about fairness, no such flag was raised by those claims made in the Steele dossier. 

The dossier fed into the anti-Trump mindset of FBI investigators for whom it became a bible by which they sought to derail the Trump campaign or remove him from office.

 

Despite the Robert Mueller investigation, which found no evidence to support Trump/Russia collusion, Schiff saw its findings as no barrier to go after the president on whatever basis he could. 

So, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., gave the green light for the House Intelligence Committee, of which Schiff is chairman, to hold secretive impeachment hearings, he was hot to trot in the race to find evidence. 

And, if not found, Schiff would do whatever he could to create the stigma Trump had committed impeachable sins.

 

The title of a 1974 television crime drama – "Get Christie Love" – that lasted a bit longer than the Trump impeachment hearings, encapsulated the mission of Democratic leaders: "Get Donald Trump." Led by the trio of Pelosi, Schiff and Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., these party leaders became the Three Blind Mice in the House. 

Matters of domestic and national security import were subverted to getting Trump.

 

Despite the American public's right to know what evidence had been gathered by the time the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate, the release of 53 transcripts was blocked by Schiff – with no justification for why.

The transcripts in question included interviews with Obama administration officials, FBI officials who investigated the Trump-Russia collusion issue, current and former Trump administration officials and individuals with insights into the Steele dossier. Schiff had assured us, more than a year ago, he had "direct evidence" of Trump's collusion. 

Why then not release the transcripts?

 

As Schiff continued balking at releasing the transcripts even after Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell had cleared them, it became obvious Schiff feared public review. Only after Grenell stated he would release the transcripts if Schiff did not was that public review made possible. 

It also made clear Schiff's reluctance in releasing the transcripts. He had lied – there was no direct evidence of collusion.

 

The transcripts contained exculpatory evidence, undermining Schiff's impeachment case. There was absolutely no sense on his part for fair play or abiding by the Brady Rule.

 

As she prepared to send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate, Pelosi gloated, win or lose, history will show, "He's been impeached forever. They can never erase that."

Pelosi then announced Schiff would be one of the impeachment managers to make the case to the Senate. 

Schiff knew he was doing so without Trump's defense lawyers having the benefit of the exculpatory evidence to which only he and his fellow Democrats were privy. What he collusion Democrats so desperately sought could only be found by looking in the mirror.

 

With the transcript (now a matter of public record) making Trump's innocence clear, one wonders if it registers with Pelosi what history will really show. It will add a "forever" footnote to Trump's "forever" impeachment, to make sure future generations understand his impeachment effort was the result of a vindictive Democratic leadership motivated by political hatred – not truth. 

What a damning insight into the true character of America's first female Speaker of the House.