James Comey

[soonernvolved]

Kamala Harris: “Leave Joe Biden alone”

Called out:

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/ron-paul-asks-impeachment-or-cia-coup

Ron Paul Asks: "Impeachment... Or CIA Coup?"
.........

ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-coup/

You don’t need to be a supporter of President Trump to be concerned about the efforts to remove him from office. Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment proceedings against the President over a phone call made to the President of Ukraine. According to the White House record of the call, the President asked his Ukrainian counterpart to look into whether there is any evidence of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and then mentioned that a lot of people were talking about how former US Vice President Joe Biden stopped the prosecution of his son who was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine.

Democrats, who spent more than two years convinced that “Russiagate” would enable them to remove Trump from office only to have their hopes dashed by the Mueller Report, now believe they have their smoking gun in this phone call.

It this about politics? Yes. But there may be more to it than that.

It may appear that the Democratic Party, furious over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, is the driving force behind this ongoing attempt to remove Donald Trump from office, but at every turn we see the fingerprints of the CIA and its allies in the US deep state.

In August 2016, a former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, wrote an extraordinary article in the New York Times accusing Donald Trump of being an “agent of the Russian Federation.” Morell was clearly using his intelligence career as a way of bolstering his claim that Trump was a Russian spy – after all, the CIA should know such a thing! But the claim was a lie.
Former CIA director John Brennan accused President Trump of “treason” and of “being in the pocket of Putin” for meeting with the Russian president in Helsinki and accepting his word that Russia did not meddle in the US election. To this day there has yet to be any evidence presented that the Russian government did interfere. Brennan openly called on “patriotic” Republicans to act against this “traitor.”

Brennan and his deep state counterparts James Comey at the FBI and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper launched an operation, using what we now know is the fake Steele dossier, to spy on the Trump presidential campaign and even attempt to entrap Trump campaign employees.

Notice a pattern here?

Now we hear that the latest trigger for impeachment is a CIA officer assigned to the White House who filed a “whistleblower” complaint against the president over something he heard from someone else that the president said in the Ukraine phone call.

Shockingly, according to multiple press reports the rules for CIA whistleblowing were recently changed, dropping the requirement that the whistleblower have direct, first-hand knowledge of the wrongdoing. Just before this complaint was filed, the rule-change allowed hearsay or second-hand information to be accepted. That seems strange.
As it turns out, the CIA “whistleblower” lurking around the White House got the important things wrong, as there was no quid pro quo discussed and there was no actual request to investigate Biden or his son.

The Democrats have suddenly come out in praise of whistleblowers – well not exactly. Pelosi still wants to prosecute actual whistleblower Ed Snowden. But she’s singing the praises of this fake CIA “whistleblower.”


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer once warned Trump that if “you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” It’s hard not to ask whether this is a genuine impeachment effort…or a CIA coup!

[soonernvolved]

Well played Mr. President:

[soonernvolved]

So, the ICIG basically admitted that they changed the whistleblower rule to get President Trump:

thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/intel-community-admission-of-whistleblower-changes-raises-explosive-new-questions/

Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions
In a press release issued late Monday, the intelligence community inspector general admitted it changed its policy and its whistleblower form after an anti-Trump complainant alleged that Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president.
Sean Davis By Sean Davis
OCTOBER 1, 2019

On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.


Under the law governing whistleblower complaints for members of the intelligence community, the inspector general has near-total authority to determine whether a complaint is credible or not. The law is silent on what type of evidence is required and leaves that decision entirely to the discretion of the inspector general. As a result, the internal policies set by the ICIG’s office are the regulatory rules governing the examination of whistleblower complaints. Because of this wide discretion granted under the law, the ICIG’s internal changes to its own policies and guidance regarding firsthand evidence — which the ICIG admitted to in its press release on Monday — directly impacted its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint filed in August.

In its press release, the ICIG also explicitly admitted it changed its policies because of the anti-Trump complaint, raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint:

In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.
The ICIG’s claim that it would have been incorrect to perceive a requirement for firsthand information is bizarre considering the previous version of the form clearly stated in unambiguous language that firsthand evidence was required in order for “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints to be deemed credible. It said, in bold, underlined, all-caps text, “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED”:



Because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing against a member of the intelligence community (the president of the United States is an elected constitutional officer, not an employee of a statutory agency), did not allege wrongdoing with regard to an intelligence activity (a phone call between two elected world leaders is basic diplomacy, not the execution of a statutorily required intelligence activity), and relied primarily on hearsay rather than firsthand evidence, both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the anti-Trump complaint was not an “urgent concern” under the law and was therefore not required to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees. In spite of those determinations, the ICIG on its own and after revising its internal guidance and policies regarding firsthand evidence decided the complaint did qualify as an “urgent concern” and forwarded the anti-Trump complaint to Congress.

The ICIG did not inform the DNI of the existence of the anti-Trump complaint until Aug. 26 and did not inform Congress of the complaint until Sept. 9. On Sept. 13, the DNI informed Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint did not meet the statutory definition of an “urgent concern” and would therefore not be shared with Congress. The complaint was formally declassified by the president for release to the public on Sept. 25.

This timeline raises significant questions about the rationale for the rule changes by the ICIG, as it would be improbable, except in the case of illegal classified leaks, for the press to have inquired about the anti-Trump complaint in August, when the revisions to the forms and policies were claimed to have been formally made, according to markings on the new whistleblower forms which claim they were revised in August of 2019. While the previous forms requiring firsthand evidence show they were approved on May 24, 2018, the new forms do not disclose the specific date of the revision. If the ICIG did not inform the congressional committees of the particular whistleblower complaint until Sept. 9 and did not transmit the letter until Sept. 13, how could any members of the media have inquired back in August about the specific anti-Trump complaint or its relation to the previous requirement for firsthand information in whistleblower complaints?

The ICIG in its press release also failed to disclose when precisely its whistleblower forms and rules were changed, despite top lawmakers on oversight committees in both chambers specifically requesting that information. The specific date of the changes to internal evidentiary requirements is essential to determining whether the ICIG changed its own policies and procedures to justify forwarding to Congress a complaint that under the previous standard may not have been deemed credible.


The president’s release of the transcript of his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed that numerous allegations within the complaint filed with the ICIG were false. For example, the complainant falsely alleged that Trump demanded Zelensky return multiple servers from CrowdStrike, an IT contractor for the Democratic National Committee, that were physically located in Ukraine. Trump made no such demand. The complainant also alleged that Trump urged Zelensky to either hire or retain a particular government prosecutor in Ukraine. That exchange never happened. Additionally, the complainant alleged that a specific State Department official had listened in on the phone call between the two leaders. The State Department stated last week that particular official did not listen in on the phone call.

The anti-Trump complaint that was released last week, which congressional Democrats are using as the basis for impeachment proceedings against the president, is riddled not with evidence directly viewed by the complainant, but repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

In fact, the ICIG admitted in its Aug. 26 letter to the DNI that its office never even reviewed the transcript of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky prior to determining whether the complainants hearsay allegations about the phone call were credible.

“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, wrote.


“I decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’” he stated.

Although the ICIG stated in its Monday press release that the complainant claimed on his whistleblower form to be in possession of firsthand evidence of criminality by Trump, the complaint released to the public contains no such firsthand evidence. A congressional official told The Federalist on Monday that the House Intelligence Committee has not received the underlying whistleblower complaint form submitted by the anti-Trump complainant.

Michael Atkinson, the ICIG, is slated to testify under oath before the House Intelligence Committee later this week.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Curiouser & curiouser:

amgreatness.com/2019/09/30/inspector-generals-ties-suggest-ukraine-scandal-is-just-more-collusion-hoax/

One critical period in Atkinson’s resume, however, has been overlooked—probably intentionally—by his boosters in the media: His work as a top deputy in the Justice Department in 2016 and 2017 during the very same time that the DOJ was investigating Trump campaign aides and, after the election, incoming administration officials. Atkinson worked directly for two figures involved in both the counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign and the set-up of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

In July 2016, the exact month that former FBI Director James Comey officially opened a case against the Trump campaign, Atkinson was named senior counsel to John Carlin, the head of the National Security Division. Carlin was Robert Mueller’s chief of staff when he ran the FBI and was appointed NSD chief by President Obama in 2013.
Carlin’s name has surfaced numerous times in the congressional inquiry into the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. According to closed-door testimony by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Carlin regularly was briefed by former deputy FBI Director Andy McCabe on the Trump-Russia collusion probe…

…Carlin’s shop was involved in handling the FISA warrant on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The original FISA warrant, signed by former FBI Director James Comey and Carlin’s colleague, former deputy attorney general Sally Yates, used the bogus Steele dossier as evidence to obtain the FISA court’s permission to spy on Page for one year. The warrant accused Page of being a foreign agent yet he has never been charged with a crime.

In September 2016, Carlin moderated an NSD event that featured speeches by Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former CIA Director John Brennan and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. Carlin abruptly resigned shortly thereafter amid controversy related to his handling of FISA material.

Carlin was replaced by Mary McCord: Atkinson stayed on as her senior counsel. A few days after Trump was sworn-in, McCord accompanied Sally Yates to a meeting with White House counsel Don McGahn. The purpose of the meeting was to warn the White House that Mike Flynn may have violated an arcane federal law and was at risk of being “blackmailed” by the Russians.

[soonernvolved]

This should put another Pluto sized dent in the impeachment narrative. On April 4, 2019 Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) wrote an op-ed in the Politico which effectively ends the current witch hunt against President Trump by the power-crazed Democrats.

In the op-ed — back in April — Inhofe supported President Trump’s statement about why he delayed (not “withheld” in quid pro quo) the military aid for Ukraine— a decision made long before his phone conversation with the Ukraine president, on July 25th, that started Pelosi’s latest garbage impeachment inquiry.

archive.is/jAeCA

Except:

“Last year, Ukraine received its first lethal aid from the United States thanks to the Trump administration’s approval of a sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles — a critical step the Obama administration refused to take despite bipartisan support in Congress. The Trump administration also notified Congress in February that, for the first time since its creation in 2015, funds for the Department of Defense’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative will be used to provide lethal aid, including sniper rifles and shoulder-fired grenade launchers. I commend the administration for these two “firsts.”

Now it’s time to increase funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, as well as the State Department’s security assistance programs. And a larger share of this funding should go to support defensive lethal aid that will make Ukraine a more difficult target for Putin’s aggression.

After Putin’s Black Sea attack, Ukraine’s maritime capabilities must be enhanced by accelerating acquisition of coastal defense radars, patrol boats, coastal defense and anti-ship missiles and other systems. On the ground, Ukraine needs more Javelins, other anti-tank weapons, electronic warfare systems and advanced counter artillery radars. And in the air, we should examine how to assist Ukraine in improving its air defenses.

Of course, the response of the free world to Putin’s aggression is not the responsibility of the United States alone. Canada, Lithuania, Poland and the United Kingdom have been providing security resources to Ukraine. We need more allies and partners to step up with action rather than talk”.

[soonernvolved]

The video starts in November of 2016:

Reactions:

[kcrufnek]

Oct 2, 2019 10:19:57 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

The video starts in November of 2016:

Reactions:

Because being elected and not being Hillary are impeachable offenses.

[soonernvolved]

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) learned about the Deep State CIA spy’s accusations against President Trump several days before the officer filed a whistleblower complaint.

Outed by the New York Times:

www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html

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.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. 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 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.
.......

[soonernvolved]

The report by the Times seems to contradict Chairman Schiff’s earlier statement about not meeting the whistleblower:

Whistleblower broke rules?

[soonernvolved]

Schiff panics and denies meeting:

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Looks like someone else made the same comparison as KC did earlier:

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/10/02/breaking-anti-trump-whistleblower-colluded-with-house-democrats-before-filing-complaint/

COLLUSION
BREAKING: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

The anti-Trump whistleblower and his CIA colleagues actively colluded with House Democrats before filing a complaint with the inspector general.
By Sean Davis
An anti-Trump whistleblower at the center of ongoing Democratic efforts to impeach President Donald Trump coordinated with Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his Democratic staff prior to filing his whistleblower complaint, The New York Times reported on Wednesday afternoon. The bombshell report that the whistleblower and his Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) colleagues actively worked exclusively with congressional Democrats before filing the complaint raises serious questions about whether the complainant followed federal laws providing whistleblower protections for employees within the U.S. intelligence community.

“Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer,” The New York Times reported. “Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump.”


The New York Times noted that the anti-Trump complainant only notified the committee’s Democrats of his allegations.

“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,” The New York Times wrote.

Under federal law, whistleblowers within the intelligence community are required to report any allegations of wrongdoing to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in order to receive statutory whistleblower protections for their disclosures. The law does not provide any protections to employees or contractors who bypass the process required by law and go directly to Congress, nor does it provide any avenue to disclose classified information to Congress without first going through the ICIG. If the complainant or a colleague leaked classified information to Schiff or his committee, those individuals could be subject to criminal liability for illegal and unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

“The employee may contact the intelligence committees directly [after filing a complaint with the inspector general] if the employee…before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the intelligence committees directly…and obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices,” the federal whistleblower law, known as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, states.


The full anti-Trump complaint, which was declassified by the president and released on September 25, included no first-hand evidence of wrongdoing by the president. Instead, it offered a litany of second-hand allegations, gossip, and hearsay, much of which was shown to be false when compared to the actual transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.

As The Federalist first reported last week, the ICIG changed its internal rules and guidance regarding whistleblower complaints to eliminate a requirement that the complaints contain first-hand information. The ICIG confirmed that reporting on Monday when it admitted it had altered its forms and procedures after the anti-Trump complaint was filed with the ICIG.

Top lawmakers in both the Senate and House sent letters to the ICIG earlier this week demanding to know precisely when the first-hand information required was discarded. Under the whistleblower law, the ICIG has near-total authority to determine how whistleblower evidence is weighed and ultimately whether complaints are considered credible.

The ICIG admitted in a September 13 letter to Congress that he never reviewed the transcript of the July 25 call before determining that the anti-Trump complaint “appear[ed] credible.”


“As part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President,” ICIG Michael Atkinson wrote.

Both the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient and did not qualify under the law as an “urgent concern” that needed to be provided to the relevant congressional oversight committees.

The communication between the whistleblower and House Democrats prior to the complaint’s filing also raises questions about whether Schiff and his committee staff coordinated with the ICIG regarding the watchdog’s whistleblower forms and guidance stating that first-hand information is required in order for the agency to properly investigate “urgent concern” complaints.

The new revelations that Schiff and his staff coordinated with the anti-Trump complainant and his colleagues prior to a formal whistleblower complaint also suggest Schiff was less than truthful about his interactions with the whistleblower. On August 28, nearly two weeks before the ICIG formally informed Congress of a pending “urgent concern” whistleblower complaint from an intel operative, Schiff tweeted allegations from the complaint without disclosing their source.


“Schiff was in on it and he lied about it,” a congressional G.O.P. staffer told The Federalist. “This impeachment initiative has as much genuineness as a three dollar bill.”

[soonernvolved]

Whitehouse, etc suing the Democrats for their consistent harassment of President Trump? This will be interesting to watch unfold.



Rudy Giuliani: You’re surprised that he (Adam Schiff) once again is conspiring to level false charges against the President of the United States. The guy who claimed he had direct evidence of Russian collusion. Lied to the American people. That’s part of the other conspiracy to frame. That’s why we’re considering a lawsuit with him as one of the principal defendants individually. Remember he doesn’t have immunity when he’s off the floor of Congress. And this statement about having this evidence of Russian collusion was made to a reporter. There’s a case, Supreme Court case that says, yes, say it to Congress you’re immune. Put it in a press release, you’re liable like anybody else… We are considering a lawsuit to vindicate the constitutional rights of the president, the president’s administration, to also remedy their trampling on the civil rights of many people… In the case of (Bill) Barr they’re obstructing justice.

[soonernvolved]

Awesome move by President Trump:

Yesterday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced he would refuse to allow State Department officials to testify before the Congressional committees on impeachment.

This was after Democrats in the House violated fundamental principles, contacted State Department officials directly and told them NOT to contact legal counsel.

Democrat lawmakers also requested documents from the Pompeo State Department on Ukraine.

Today the State Department sent over the documents.
But they weren’t what the Democrats were expecting!

The Trump administration sent over documents on Hillary Clinton’s collusion with Ukraine in the 2016 election and the Biden Family’s massive pay-for-play with the Ukrainian regime!

[soonernvolved]

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: Back to first principles. The predicate of your final question about objecting to what the folks on Capitol Hill have asked. It’s fundamentally not true. What we objected to was the demands that were put that deeply violate the fundamental principle of separation of powers. They contacted State Department employees directly. They told them NOT to contact legal counsel at the State Department. That’s been reported to us. They said the the State Department wouldn’t be able to be present. There are important constitutional prerogatives that the executive branch has to be present so that we can protect the important information so our partners, countries like Italy, can have confidence that the information they provide can have with the State Department will continue to be protected. So the response that I provided them was one that could acknowledge that we will of course do our constitutional duty to cooperate with this co-equal branch but we are going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the American system. And we won’t tolerate folks on Capital Hill bullying, intimidating State Department employees.

[soonernvolved]

Cuomo got served a nice helping of crow:

Drawing on his own experience with whistleblower complaints, Fleitz told Cuomo he thought this one “was very unusual.”

Fleitz:When I saw this one, I thought it was very unusual, not just that it was extremely well written, but it had legal references and footnotes. That was a little bit unusual, but I compared that with the fact that Adam Schiff was talking about the subject matter of this complaint throughout the month of August. He posted a tweet at the end of August that almost identically reflected this complaint.

“But you don’t know any of that,” Cuomo pushed back. “You’re raising it as questions. You know that is meaningless unless you can put some meat on the bones. Of course the Republicans are agreeing with you. That’s the whole state of play. Anything you say that’s negative about this guy or this woman they’re going to pick up on.”

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/ukraine-prosecutor-that-biden-got-fired-says-he-was-told-to-back-off-investigation-report-says

Former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin — who was fired after then-Vice President Joe Biden pressured the president of Ukraine to fire him as he investigated a company, Burisma, that employed Biden’s son, Hunter — says that he was told to back off the investigation into the company before he was fired.

“The fired prosecutor at the center of the Ukraine controversy said during a private interview with President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani earlier this year that he was told to back off an investigation into a natural gas firm that was linked to Joe Biden’s son, according to details of that interview that were handed over to Congress by the State Department’s inspector general Wednesday,” Fox News reported. “The interview allegedly conducted by Giuliani took place on Jan. 23, 2019 at an office on Park Avenue in New York City. Shokin was interviewed over the phone, and interpreters were used — one in Ukraine and one in New York, according to the notes obtained by Fox News.”

www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-prosecutor-biden-burisma-back-off-state-department-files

The notes obtained by Fox News state that “Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing.”

The most explosive part of the Fox News report was the allegations that in February 2016, Shokin, prior to his firing, had sought information on “multiple people in Ukraine” by issuing warrants.

“There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received,” Shokin said, according to the notes obtained by Fox News. “It is believed that Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission plus one million dollars. There were no documents or information on Hunter Biden, and Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.”

“President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko’s office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine,” the notes continued.

The documents were obtained by Fox News from sources who attended an “urgent” meeting held today by State Department Inspector General Steve Linick, which Democrats thought was going to be a meeting where there would be damaging on the president.

“Sources familiar with the meeting said the IG handed over a packet containing, among other old materials, news articles written this past spring by The Hill’s John Solomon about Democratic ties to Ukraine,” The Daily Caller reported. “The briefing was a huge blow to Democrats, who were expecting bombshell information regarding the Trump administration’s contact with Ukraine and investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden. In fact, several news outlets reported earlier in the day that the briefing would be about State Department leadership retaliating against career employees who wanted to cooperate with the Democrats’ investigation into Trump.”

[soonernvolved]

Hilarious is all I can say:

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/02/watch-pelosi-begs-reporters-to-ask-her-about-anything-but-impeachment/amp/

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) grew visibly frustrated during her weekly press conference on Wednesday morning when reporters asked about impeachment and seemed uninterested in the rest of her agenda.

She began her press conference with comments about H.R. 3, the “Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019”; as well as President Donald Trump’s U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement; and foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia and China. She then moved on to impeachment, and offered the podium to House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) — but then grew annoyed when reporters wanted to ask her about that topic.

“Do we have any questions, first, on the work to meet the needs of the American people in terms of USMCA and the H.R. 3? On that subject?” she began.

The first question asked her how she expected to do anything while impeaching the president: “How do you envision working with this president on these key Democratic agenda items — lowering prescription drug costs, you know, ensuring tougher gun safety measures as you are actively considering whether to remove him from office?”

The two had “nothing to do with each other,” Pelosi responded, claiming that she could work with President Trump while trying to impeach him because he had an interest in passing key legislative proposals for his own reasons.

After another question about the USMCA, the remaining questions were about impeachment, which she resisted:

”Anyone on H.R. 3? Does anybody in this room care about the cost of prescription drugs and what it means to America’s working families? From time to time you have asked those questions — does anyone care about the USMCA?”

President Trump later tweeted:

[kcrufnek]

Oct 2, 2019 20:36:18 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: Back to first principles. The predicate of your final question about objecting to what the folks on Capitol Hill have asked. It’s fundamentally not true. What we objected to was the demands that were put that deeply violate the fundamental principle of separation of powers. They contacted State Department employees directly. They told them NOT to contact legal counsel at the State Department. That’s been reported to us. They said the the State Department wouldn’t be able to be present. There are important constitutional prerogatives that the executive branch has to be present so that we can protect the important information so our partners, countries like Italy, can have confidence that the information they provide can have with the State Department will continue to be protected. So the response that I provided them was one that could acknowledge that we will of course do our constitutional duty to cooperate with this co-equal branch but we are going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the American system. And we won’t tolerate folks on Capital Hill bullying, intimidating State Department employees.

So the latest is that because he and other State Dept officials may be involved in the crime/cover up/etc the cannot have anything to do with with what could be considered impeding the investigation. Oh, and Pence needs to be impeached also. Hello, president Pelosi.

[soonernvolved]

Former CIA Director under Barack Obama, Trump-hater and the suspected architect of the Spygate scandal, will be questioned by US Attorney John Durham in the coming days.

Brennan told Nicole Wallace on MSNBC that he is “supposedly” going to be interviewed by US Attorney John Durham but that he just doesn’t understand why there is an active investigation on the Obama administration’s spying on the opposition candidate in the 2016 election.

John Brennan told Nicole Wallace: “I’m supposedly going to be interviewed by Mr. Durham as part of this non-investigation… I don’t understand the predication of this worldwide effort to try to uncover dirt… that would discredit that investigation in 2016.”

[soonernvolved]

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) told reporters during a break in Ambassador Kurt Volker’s testimony has been very impressive. And that his testimony conflicts with the accusations of Democrat leaders on Ukraine.

Rep. Jim Jordan: Ambassador Volker has been very impressive and as I said, has said NOTHING, nothing that coincides with what Democrats are saying with their whole impeachment narrative.

[soonernvolved]

Conflict of interest/hypocrite much?

“First from CNN, a source familiar with the whistleblower investigation tells me that the political bias referred to by the Intelligence Community Inspector General is that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat. That is the bias. The IG acknowledged the bias in his statement that said didn’t change the facts of the whistleblower complaint. The attorney for the whistleblower declined to give us a comment.”

[soonernvolved]

Sue her for slander, etc. The meltdown,(& then winning the court case), would be worth it.

[soonernvolved]

Liberal heads to explode shortly:

www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-top-prosecutor-says-hunter-biden-burisma-cases-will-be-reviewed

On Friday the top prosecutor in Ukraine announced he will investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine including the firing of former prosecutor Victor Shokin.
Ukraine’s top prosecutor said Friday that his office is “conducting an audit” of cases that have been previously investigated and closed, including the probe involving the energy giant Burisma, where Hunter Biden had served on the board.

Ruslan Ryaboshapka, the country’s prosecutor general, said at a news conference that his office was instructed to review cases that have been closed, fragmented or investigated to make sure they were fairly and thoroughly handled. He said no one attempted to influence him to make the call.

“We are now reviewing all the cases which were closed, fragmented or investigated earlier in order to make a decision on cases where illegal procedural decisions were taken,” he said.

The office plans to review 15 cases that previously were closed, including the Burisma case. This does not yet mean Ukraine is opening a new investigation involving Burisma or the Bidens.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

amp.dailycaller.com/2019/10/04/washington-post-gives-schiff-four-pinocchios-whistleblower-claim

The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff four pinocchios over his claim that neither he nor his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before he filed his complaint regarding a phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Schiff told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.”

[soonernvolved]

President Trump reminds reporters that former President Obama investigated him back in 2016:

President Trump: What I asked for and what I will always ask for is anything having to do with corruption with respect to our country. If a foreign country can help us with respect to corruption and corruption probes, I don’t care if it’s Biden or anybody else. If they can help us, if Biden is corrupt, when his son is corrupt. When his son takes out billions of dollars, billions, and he has no experience, he just got fired from the Navy. When they do that, that’s no good. So, just to finish your question, anything having to do with corruption, I actually feel I have an obligation to do that…

…If we feel there’s corruption like I feel there was in the 2016 campaign, there was tremendous corruption against me. If we feel there is corruption we have the right to go to a foreign country. And just so you know, just so you know, I was investigated, I WAS INVESTIGATED! Me! In my campaign, I ran, I won. You won’t say that will you? I was investigated and they think that it could have been by UK. They think it could have been by Australia. They think it could have been by Italy. So when you get down to it, I was investigated. By the Obama administration! By the Obama administration I was investigated. So as far as I’m concerned, we want to look at and we want to investigate anything having to do with corruption.