bk2x
Quarantined
Posts: 68
|
Post by bk2x on Oct 28, 2019 14:50:52 GMT -6
The comments are great.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Oct 28, 2019 16:50:29 GMT -6
Funny how it's never their fault. Ms. Hill blamed her abusive husband, the right-wing media and Republican opponents for the inappropriate relationship with her staffer and naked bong party scandal. She may be leaving because there's more to come.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Oct 28, 2019 16:51:50 GMT -6
I saw one of her tweets yesterday and 99% of the comments were brutal. Every so often she'd get a white knight.
|
|
|
Post by redrex on Oct 28, 2019 17:34:55 GMT -6
Bitch
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 17:42:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 17:45:09 GMT -6
WaPo lawsuit related: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/28/nick-sandmann-covington-catholic-student-washingto/A federal judge in Kentucky has reopened the $250 million defamation case filed by a Covington Catholic student against the Washington Post after dismissing it in July, allowing the lawsuit to proceed but narrowing its focus.
U.S. District Court Judge William Bertelsman agreed to permit discovery on three of 33 allegedly libelous statements in the Post’s coverage of the Jan. 18 incident pertaining to teenager Nicholas Sandmann. The Post has insisted that its reporting was fair and accurate.
All three flagged statements from the newspaper’s coverage refer to Omaha Nation elder Nathan Phillips being blocked or impeded by Nicholas, a student at Covington Catholic High School, during their viral encounter at the Lincoln Memorial stairs.
“The Court will adhere to its previous rulings as they pertain to these statements except Statements 10, 11, and 33, to the extent that these three statements state that plaintiff ‘blocked’ Nathan Phillips and ‘would not allow him to retreat,’” said Judge Bertelsman in his Monday order.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 17:46:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 17:47:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 17:50:04 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/10/28/pelosi-its-not-an-impeachment-resolution/Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Monday that the House vote on a resolution to formalize the next steps of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump will not be an “impeachment resolution.” Pelosi was asked by NBC News about the resolution, which she announced earlier in the day, and responded by saying “it’s not an impeachment resolution.” The legislation will be the first floor vote on impeachment since Pelosi and House Democrats launched their inquiry a month ago. “We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives,” Pelosi said in a letter to Democrats early Monday. Despite Pelosi’s early reluctance to push for impeachment, there are currently 228 Democrats who support impeachment or an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi has said she believes Trump is “goading” Democrats to impeach him because he thinks it will help him fire up his base. The Republican National Committee (RNC) raised approximately $1 million dollars the day after Pelosi came out in favor of the impeachment of Trump for the first time after meeting with her caucus. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: We Asked Every GOP Senator About Impeachment. Seven Ruled It Out.) Democrats have continued to send congressional subpoenas to those close to Trump for documents related to the ongoing scandal regarding Trump’s phone call with the President of Ukraine and whether Trump asked him to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden in exchange for U.S. military aid to Ukraine. The House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees are all investigating Trump, his cabinet members, and closest allies. Many of Pelosi’s Democratic colleagues previously pushed for impeaching Trump, including Democratic Texas Rep. Al Green, who broke with Pelosi when he vowed to force a vote to impeach Trump in late March. Green, who previously had several bills to impeach Trump overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Representatives, called for a third impeachment vote. Pelosi said impeachment was “just not worth it” in a March interview. (RELATED: Nancy Pelosi Comes Out In Favor Of Impeachment) Pelosi previously said she would not hold a full vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry, which Trump has continued to call for.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 19:09:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 19:10:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 19:20:43 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/there-is-no-basis-for-barr-to-recuse-himself-over-ukraine/There Is No Basis for Barr to Recuse Himself Over Ukraine By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY October 28, 2019 1:35 PM Even if he did what the Democrats claim (which he didn’t), it would contain nothing to justify recusal. Here’s a question: If Dianne Feinstein didn’t recuse herself from the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, why should anyone ever be recused from anything? Senator Feinstein is in the news, making the characteristically hyperpartisan and frivolous claim (on Twitter) that Attorney General Bill Barr should recuse himself from matters related to Ukraine because of concerns about his role in President Trump’s efforts to damage a political opponent and undermine the Russia investigation. Feinstein says she is speaking for Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, all of whom have signed a letter to the AG. There is no basis for Barr to recuse himself. First, before we ever get to the law, the Democrats’ claim is factually vacant. The AG has no role in President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Barr did not ask the president to intercede with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky for the purpose of seeking assistance with the ongoing Durham probe of the Russia investigation. Despite the president’s reference to Barr in the July 25 Zelensky phone call, Barr did not communicate with Trump about Ukraine before the call. Barr did not follow up with the Ukrainians, nor did he discuss Ukraine with the president or the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Being mentioned on a phone call is not a basis for recusal. Second, it is commonplace for the Justice Department to seek assistance from foreign governments in gathering evidence or providing access to witnesses, in both the investigative and the trial phases of criminal cases. With respect to Ukraine specifically, the United States has had a treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters for nearly 20 years. President Clinton directed that the treaty be signed in 1998 and ratified it in early 2001 with Senate consent. That is, if Attorney General Barr had explicitly asked President Trump to seek Ukraine’s assistance, that would have been completely appropriate and routine. In point of fact, the AG made no such request. Had he done so, though, he would have been properly functioning as attorney general in a Justice Department investigation. There would not be a scintilla of basis for recusal even if Barr had had the “role” that Feinstein wrongly claims he had. Third, we come to Feinstein’s claim about Barr’s role in the president’s purported effort to “undermine the Russia investigation.” This brings us back to what I warned about three weeks ago. The Democrats have been laying the groundwork for the argument that they pounded away at this weekend: The Barr/Durham investigation is not a legitimate Justice Department investigation; it is a political initiative of the Trump 2020 campaign. It’s not true, but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it. –– ADVERTISEMENT –– You have to admire the Democrats’ chutzpah. Consider: They know full well that the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to remove the president from power if the Democratic-controlled House impeaches him. And they are still so worried about being punished by voters for overplaying their hand that they won’t take an accountable vote to have the House as an institution — the institution constitutionally vested with impeachment power — conduct the “impeachment inquiry” that the Democrats are pursuing. Their impeachment gambit, with its secret hearings and strategic leaks, is blatantly political. Yet even as they engage in precisely the political abuse of impeachment power that the Framers feared, they loudly claim it is the Justice Department that is abusively politicizing its powers. The best defense is a good offense, but they shouldn’t get away with it. We do not know to what extent, if any, Ukraine factors into the Barr/Durham investigation. As I recount in Ball of Collusion, there is public reporting that the Obama administration used its considerable influence over Ukraine — which included financial aid that Kyiv desperately needed — to affect Ukraine’s law-enforcement investigations. This reportedly included pushing Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors to investigate Paul Manafort, who was affiliated with the Trump campaign for several months (four of them as its chairman). It is sheer speculation, however, that this alleged episode forms any part of the Justice Department’s look at the origins of the Russia investigation. Even if we assume that it does, though, Ukraine still provides no basis for the attorney general to recuse himself. This is not a Jeff Sessions situation. Barr’s predecessor, AG Sessions, recused himself from the Russia investigation (which became the Mueller investigation) because it presented a fact pattern in which Sessions had been an active participant: The FBI and DOJ were conducting a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign’s purported “collusion” with Russia, under circumstances in which Sessions had been a top delegate of the Trump campaign and had had contacts with Russian officials. Ukraine is nothing like that. Again, we do not know if the reported Ukrainian activities are part of Durham’s probe, but Barr was not a government official in 2016. He had no part in the Obama administration’s dealings with Ukrainian officials. Moreover, as outlined above, he also had no role in President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine; but even if he had had such a role, the Trump–Zelensky negotiations are not the focus of the Justice Department’s probe of the Russia investigation’s origins. Of course, if Congress, in its oversight capacity or even if it seeks to impeach the president, decides to explore the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine, it is undeniably within Congress’s power to do so. Nevertheless, the fact that Congress chooses to examine the executive branch’s activities is not a basis for the relevant executive-branch officials to be disqualified. Senator Feinstein’s claim, on behalf of Judiciary Committee Democrats, that Attorney General Barr should recuse himself is nonsense, both factually and legally. He should ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 23:24:04 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/10/28/dan-crenshaw-chris-cuomo-impeachment/Texas Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw and CNN host Chris Cuomo got into a back-and-forth on the question of whether President Donald Trump committed actual “wrongdoing” by asking the president of Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings in the country. Appearing on Monday’s edition of “Cuomo Prime Time,” Crenshaw took the debate right to Cuomo, pressing the CNN host on why something can’t be in the “public interest” and also good for the president. The debate eventually forced Cuomo to appeal to campaign finance laws, an assertion Crenshaw immediately dismissed as a “stretch.” Cuomo introduced the topic of the ongoing House impeachment inquiry by trying to get Crenshaw, as a Republican, to agree with the premise that what the president did was “wrong” but he should not be “removed.” “I’m not sure I agree with the premise that he’s done something wrong,” Crenshaw said, refusing to take the bait. “I understand that there’s a theory about wrongdoing, but the facts don’t back that up.” “You don’t think he asked a foreign power to help him with a political opponent?” Cuomo pressed. Crenshaw made the case for a legitimate “public interest” because “our former vice president had a clear conflict of interest with his son being being a board member of a company that was being prosecuted by somebody that the vice president was trying to get fired.” The CNN host insisted that Trump “went after Biden because he thought it would be good for him.” “But you just made an assumption there,” Crenshaw calmly shot back. “You just read his mind, right?” “That’s a little bit of a game people play in politics,” said Cuomo. “You don’t need to play that kind of game because you have reason on your side here which is ‘I think he had a legitimate public interest.’ Maybe, but it doesn’t have to be his only interest.” Crenshaw asked Cuomo what the “right answer” would be if something is in the pubic interest but also “good for the president.” At which point Cuomo appeared to appeal to campaign finance laws: “Under the law — you can look at the FEC guidelines about this — if you have multiple points of interest in something and one of them helps you in the election, you’ve got trouble.” (RELATED: Chris Wallace Puts Eric Swalwell On The Spot On Impeachment: ‘How Can You Be Considered An Impartial Fact-Finder?’) “Now you’re trying to make this a campaign finance law thing, and that’s a stretch,” said the Texas lawmaker. “That’s an enormous – it’s really difficult to make that kind of political leap.” “Those case do stink and I think the enforcement of them is even worse but this is a conversation the country will have to have and men and women like you of goodwill are gonna have to vote on it,” Cuomo concluded as the segment ended.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 23:31:39 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/28/pollak-pelosi-ran-out-of-legal-excuses-not-to-vote-on-impeachment-inquiry/Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) backed down Monday by announcing that the House would hold a vote Thursday on whether or not to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Pelosi’s decision was likely a reflection of the fact that her secretive, sham impeachment process — run in Adam Schiff’s basement, as Trump put it — was a political disaster. But she was also running out of legal options, and had painted herself into a corner. The question of whether the House can begin an impeachment inquiry into the president without a formal vote to authorize one is complicated. Judge Beryl Howell, who presided over the grand jury impaneled by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, ruled last Friday that the House Judiciary Committee could gain access to normally-secret grand jury testimony partly because Pelosi had declared the House was officially launching an impeachment inquiry. Normally, such testimony would not be made available, except as part of a judicial proceeding. Judge Howell held that an impeachment inquiry was a judicial proceeding — and held, further, that there was no need for the House to hold a formal vote to launch one. Though it had done so in prior impeachments involving a president, it had often begun its investigations before such votes, and it had not held similar authorization votes in impeaching judges. The Department of Justice appealed Howell’s ruling on Monday. One of its arguments in doing so was that the House Judiciary Committee no longer needed Mueller’s evidence, because Pelosi had “announced that the House impeachment inquiry will focus narrowly on the whistleblower complaint and issues surrounding Ukraine.” Moreover, that inquiry is being led by the House Intelligence Committee, not the House Judiciary Committee. As Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe — who has demanded Trump’s impeachment since before the president took office — noted in June, it was a “gamble” to ask the courts to compel the release of Mueller’s grand jury testimony. The only way to guarantee that the grand jury testimony would be released to the House would be to hold a vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry. No doubt Pelosi’s vote will cite the Mueller and Ukraine cases. Thus the president will face an impeachment inquiry that alleges he obstructed justice to cover up his imagined collusion with Russia — while also colluding with Russia’s enemy, Ukraine, to smear a likely political opponent. Both charges are absurd. But Democrats never had a chance of booting Trump from office. The fact that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had 50 Republicans co-sponsor a resolution opposing the House procedures confirms that. What Pelosi and her party want most, evidently, is to produce as much dirt on Trump as possible. That is why they leaked bits of testimony from what they claimed, at the same time, was a “grand jury” proceeding (where leaks are forbidden). The Ukraine well ran dry the moment the White House released the transcript of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president. The Mueller grand jury testimony became important again: it was back to Square One. But Pelosi had boxed herself into a corner. Mueller found no collusion, so the only faint hope for impeachment was Ukraine. But Democrats had told the courts Mueller was the reason they needed the grand jury testimony. They won with Howell, a judge appointed by President Barack Obama; their chances looked slimmer going forward. So Pelosi had no legal options but to hold a vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry. Eventually, politics ran into the law.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 4:16:33 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/28/vice-president-mike-pence-democrats-have-abandoned-legislating-to-pursue-impeachment-strategy/Vice President Mike Pence says the Democrats on Capitol Hill have given up on trying to solve Americans’ problems in order to instead pursue a strategy of attempting to impeach President Donald Trump. In an interview with PBS’s Judy Woodruff that aired Monday evening, Pence made the case that reforms on guns, immigration, the economy, healthcare, and more seem “to have gone by the boards in this reckless pursuit of impeachment by the Democrats.” Pence said: This summer, we were talking with Republicans and Democrats about possible solutions that could go forward. Now, we’ll always protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of the American people, but there are things that we can do that would make the country safer. Pence added that Democrats have scuttled a number of different potential policy wins for American workers and families by pursuing this “reckless” strategy. In fact, as of this writing, as Breitbart News has reported multiple times, Democrats in the House majority have zero big-picture legislative accomplishments and have passed nothing but meaningless political resolutions and messaging bills that have no chance of becoming law. They have spent all their political capital on investigations in what has now become an impeachment fight. Pence said: We have a crisis of opioid abuse and addiction in this country. Our administration has made historic investments in supporting local law enforcement and healthcare providers. But there’s so much more we can do. And on the economy, even though President Trump was able to cut taxes across the board, roll back regulation, unleash American energy, and now 6.5 million jobs, records in the stock market, more Americans working than ever before — we believe, by passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, that we can add even more strength to this economy. The S&P set a record today, and we believe it’s all evidence to the fact that this economy is ready to grow if we’ll work together in ways that will continue to strengthen the opportunities the American people have. And so I think as the American people let their voice be heard to members on Capitol Hill, I think elected representatives are going to continue to hear the American people say, ‘Enough is enough. Enough with the endless investigations. We want Congress to roll your sleeves up, work with this President, and keep America safe and growing strong.’ Pence’s interview comes as House Democrats have announced that, more than a month into their so-called “impeachment inquiry” on Trump, they will finally on Thursday hold a vote to formalize the process. This comes after weeks of hearings, depositions, and transcribed interviews behind closed doors in a secret room in the basement of the Capitol controlled by House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Leaks from that room, selective in nature and often without full context of remarks, have portrayed a certain narrative against President Trump. Democrats defended doing it this way until they finally relented on Monday, a few days after GOP members stormed the Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) secretive room from which Schiff has been running these proceedings at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s direction. Pence, during the interview with Woodruff, ripped the Democrats’ secretive process: The American people have a right to know. Impeachment is a grave and serious matter in the life of this nation. And the way the Democrats are conducting this so-called impeachment inquiry on Capitol Hill, behind closed doors, is wrong. And they should open this whole process to the light of day. They should release all of the transcripts. Pence also said that if the House is going to move forward in this process, there should be transparency—something that the Democrats have lacked so far: In the last two impeachment inquiries — you know, Judy — there were rules that were established where counsel could be in the room, where due process rights of the President and of the administration were respected. And that’s simply not the case now. Pence added later in the interview that Congress has taken no position on this yet, because Pelosi cooked it up at a press conference. Now, remember, Judy, I was in the Congress for 12 years. The Congress acts by a vote in the majority. Even that hasn’t happened here. The Speaker of the House, unilaterally, initiated an impeachment inquiry. There’s been no vote. Members of Congress have taken no position on this inquiry. And most members of Congress have no access at all to what’s happening behind closed doors. And I think the American people just deserve better. Pence also said he challenges the conventional wisdom that Democrats are destined to impeach Trump, and that the Senate will clear him, a common expectation among the political class. He said when the public finds out how weak the Democrats’ case is, he thinks they will pressure their lawmakers to oppose voting for impeachment. Pelosi can only afford to lose a few more than a dozen votes, and given that 31 Democrats currently represent districts in which President Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton—13 of which Trump won by six percent or more—that does not seem impossible. “Well, let’s be clear, first, that I don’t take it as a foregone conclusion that the House will vote to impeach President Donald Trump,” Pence said. “I mean, as the American people take a look at the facts in this case, they read the transcript that was so mischaracterized by the whistleblower and grossly mischaracterized by Chairman Adam Schiff in his fabricated version of the phone call that he read into the committee — but when people read the transcript, they’ll see, despite the reckless allegations of many in the media, there was no quid pro quo. President Zelensky himself said there was no pressure, that it was a perfectly good phone call. The President did nothing wrong. And as the facts all come out, I think the American people will come to understand that. And I expect they’ll let their voice be heard on Capitol Hill.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 11:10:40 GMT -6
John Yoo, former Assistant Attorney General under President George W. Bush and architect of the ‘torture” memos, joined Laura Ingraham last night and suggested that political operative Vidman might be guilty of ESPIONAGE.
Of course the left lost their minds following Yoo’s remarks.
Morning Joe was outraged over the remarks.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 16:25:42 GMT -6
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is seeking the identity of Hillary’s staffers who “deliberately” transmitted classified information over a private server. apnews.com/14b14afc5d8647858489a2cf5385c28dGrassley blasted Hillary Clinton and her use of a private server while she was the head of the Department of State in prepared remarks on the Senate Floor (transcript below). Senator Grassley also ripped James Comey for his failed leadership and for exonerating Hillary Clinton as “extremely careless” during a July 2016 presser rather than “grossly negligent” which carries criminal implications under the Espionage Act. In March 2015, I began my investigation into Secretary Clinton’s use of non-government email for official business. Since then, I have written hundreds of letters, held hearings, and discussed my findings and concerns right here on the Senate floor. After all, the public’s business ought to be public. Today, we can add more findings to that ongoing list of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates’ wrongful conduct. The other week, I released a report from the State Department that finalized their administrative review of how Secretary Clinton’s private server setup caused hundreds of security violations. That review found the following: First, 91 valid security violations were identified and attributable to 38 individuals. That means 38 individuals mishandled classified information and were punished for it. The sanction for a violation includes suspension or revocation of their security clearance, suspension without pay, or termination, among other things. Second, an additional 497 valid violations were identified; however, the State Department was unable to determine who was culpable. State was unable to identify culpability because some former Department employees didn’t sit for interviews, and because Secretary Clinton kept her server secret from government officials so it was impossible for the Department to monitor security protocols in real time. The review also noted that there was a five-to-nine-year gap between the beginning of Secretary Clinton’s State Department tenure when the security incidents began, and when she finally turned over the emails – which she initially refused to do. This many-years’-long gap made it very challenging to determine who was culpable for every violation. In total, Secretary Clinton’s use of a non-government server for government business caused 588 security violations for mishandling classified information. Some of that classified information was classified at the highest levels, including Top Secret/Special Access Program information. According to the FBI, Secretary Clinton sent and received emails that contained that highly classified information. It’s hard to fathom how that wouldn’t undermine our national security. If the average American did that, they’d lose their clearance, their job, and might even go to jail. That’s what happened to a Navy Sailor, Kristian Saucier. He took six photographs inside a submarine that exposed information classified at the Confidential level. He mishandled classified information. He pled guilty and was sentenced to one year in federal prison. Third, the review found the non-government server increased the risk of unauthorized disclosures. Fourth, the review found that the non-government server increased the risk of security compromises. Clinton’s server setup has been described as being so badly secured that it’s almost impossible to detect who attempted to attack it and gain access – anyone could have done it. Fifth, the review found that some classified information was deliberately transmitted via unclassified email and resulted in adjudicated security violations. Many in the press, as well as partisan Clinton defenders, have hung their hat on State’s finding that there was “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” Take, for example, the Washington Post. Their headline was, “State Department probe of Clinton emails finds no deliberate mishandling of classified information.” Well, that’s entirely wrong. Grassley is seeking the identity of the individuals named in the State Department’s report in order to criminally refer them to the DOJ.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 16:28:24 GMT -6
The text of the Democrat impeachment resolution was released Tuesday afternoon and it further confirms the Democrats are attempting to remove Trump via a coup under the guise of impeachment.
According to the impeachment resolution, Nunes can only issue subpoenas, call in witnesses and introduce evidence with Chairman Adam Schiff’s permission.
“To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member [Nunes] may submit to the chair [Schiff], in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing…” the resolution said.
The resolution blocks Nunes from subpoena power without Schiff’s permission:
“The ranking minority member [Nunes] of the Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair [Schiff], to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation — by subpoena or otherwise — the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition); and the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, and by interrogatory, the finishing of information.”
The resolution also states that if Schiff declines to concur with Nunes’s proposed action, Nunes has the right to refer to the Democrat-controlled committee for a decision.
What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 16:30:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 16:33:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 17:41:54 GMT -6
The White House on Tuesday afternoon blasted Schiff and Pelosi in response to the Democrat impeachment resolution scam. “The resolution put forward by Speaker Pelosi confirms that House Democrats’ impeachment has been an illegitimate sham from the start as it lacked any proper authorization by a House vote,” Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement. “The White House is barred from participating at all, until after Chairman Schiff conducts two rounds of one-sided hearings to generate a biased report the Judiciary Committee. Even then, the White House’s rights remain undefined, unclear, and uncertain – because those rules still haven’t been written.” Full statement from Grisham:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 17:46:20 GMT -6
During questioning on Tuesday Colonel Vindman admitted he shared the read-outs of President Trump’s call Ukrainian President Zelenzky “with others.” When Rep. Jim Jordan asked him who he shared the readouts with — Rep. Adam Schiff SHUT DOWN the questioning!
This is an effing Soviet style SHOW TRIAL!
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 17:48:50 GMT -6
Catherine Herridge on FOX News reported moments ago that Colonel Vindman may have violated the law by leaking the president’s call to several others. This is devastating for the Democrats and their coup attempt!
Catherine Herridge: One thing that caught my attention is that Vindman said he shared it with people who were relevant and who had sort of a need to know and proper security clearance. And, it you could just bare with me, the reason that matters is that presidential phone calls are highly classified and if they’re shared with people who don’t have a need to know that would be a potential violation of the leaking statute that is 18 USC 798. And if you watched closely this afternoon Rep. Jim Jordan said that Chairman Schiff repeatedly shut down lines of questioning including who Vindman talked to after the July 25th phone call.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 17:54:52 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/10/29/schiff-directing-witnesses-not-to-answer-gop-questions/Schiff Directing Witnesses Not To Answer GOP Questions OCTOBER 29, 2019 By Tristan Justice House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who is overseeing the ongoing illegitimate impeachment inquiry set in motion by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is reportedly telling witnesses testifying not to answer questions asked by Republican lawmakers. Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., slammed the hidden process claiming Schiff was instructing witnesses testifying behind the closed doors of the SCIF not to answer questions asked by Republican members. “He’s directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn’t want the witness to answer if they’re asked by Republicans,” Scalise charged. “He’s not cut off one Democrat. He’s not interrupted one Democrat and told a witness not to answer Democrat members’ questions but today he started telling witnesses not to answer questions by certain Republicans.” One question that Schiff barred a witness from answering reportedly came from Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan who attempted to asked the initial anonymous “whistleblower” who they spoke with following the infamous July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president. “Adam Schiff says, ‘no-no-no we’re not going to let him answer that question,’” Jordan said as reported by Fox News. The latest charges against Schiff come as the ongoing impeachment process has been rot with allegations of bias where Schiff has been conducting a closed-door investigation interviewing witnesses whose testimony has been selectively leaked to the press to frame the president. The secrecy of the House proceedings followed by an array of leaked testimony to promote a false narrative being peddled by the corporate media prompted about 30 House Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, D-Fla., to storm the SCIF to demand previously denied records relating to the investigation. Schiff is blocking GOP lawmakers from asking critical questions in the proceedings two days before Pelosi has set a tentative full-chamber vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry. The text of the resolution was released Tuesday afternoon and denies Republicans subpoena powers. In both the Nixon and Clinton proceedings, the minority party was given this right.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 18:00:08 GMT -6
www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lawyer-for-cia-officer-accusing-trump-on-ukraine-worked-with-biden-on-2007-whistleblower-complaintLawyer for CIA officer accusing Trump on Ukraine worked with Biden on 2007 whistleblower complaint by Susan Ferrechio | October 29, 2019 05:00 AM Print this article 00:10 01:26 Sign up for Examiner Today Email Address The lawyer representing the anonymous CIA employee who blew the whistle on President Trump's dealings with Ukraine once assisted a whistleblower who worked with Joe Biden's staff to accuse the military of failing to provide armored vehicles to troops in Iraq. Whistleblower Franz Gayl, a Marine Corps civilian ground combat advocate, went public in 2007 with a now-disputed claim that the military had ignored or slow-walked requests for life-saving equipment, such as mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles and nonlethal offensive gear, that would have saved Iraqi civilians. Gayl was assisted by Andrew Bakaj, a former CIA officer who specializes in supporting whistleblowers. Bakaj is now the principal attorney for the career CIA officer who worked on the National Security Council under Presidents Barack Obama and Trump before departing and filing a whistleblower complaint with the Intelligence Community inspector general. The claim from Gayl helped build opposition to the war and to President George W. Bush, who was portrayed as incompetent, and fueled Obama's 2008 victory, which propelled Biden into the vice presidency. But it has come under renewed scrutiny in recent years. 00:01 00:46 Inside the Magazine: September 24 Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads Gayl's ability to connect with the staff of a powerful congressional committee, the laudatory media coverage of his complaints, and the link to Biden present striking parallels with the Ukraine whistleblower a dozen years on. In 2007, Biden, then a senator for Delaware, referred to the report in his criticism of Bush’s handling of the war. "I have absolutely no faith, none whatsoever, in this president to voluntarily do what should be done," he said. ”The only way it is going to happen is when our Republican friends stop voting with the president and start voting to end this war by supporting our troops." Erin Logan, a Biden adviser who worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, connected Gayl to USA Today, which wrote about Gayl’s complaint and exposed the problem to a national audience. Logan went on to become a senior Pentagon and National Security Council official in the Obama administration. House Democrats, who won back the majority six years into Bush’s term largely from voter opposition to the war in Iraq, weighed impeaching Bush over his handling of the war. But at least one report rejected Gayl’s claim about the vehicles. Bakaj conducted a “reprisal investigation” as a senior investigator for the Defense Department Office of the Inspector General after Gayl’s security clearance was revoked and he was punished with a pay reduction by the military for disclosing the matter. Like Gayl’s account, the anonymous whistleblower’s report about Trump’s call has been disputed. Republicans, suspecting political influence, are eager to find out the extent of the whistleblower's contact with senior House Democrats before the decision to file a whistleblower complaint. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California is working to shield the whistleblower's identity and said his testimony was no longer necessary after first describing it as critical to the inquiry. Republicans are demanding the whistleblower testify publicly about the complaint, which does not entirely match a transcript of the president’s call with Zelensky. Among the discredited claims, Republicans said, is one that Trump “instructed Vice President Pence to cancel his planned travel to Ukraine to attend President Zelensky’s inauguration.” The whistleblower also claimed that former Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland had “spoken with” Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, “in an attempt to contain damage to U.S. national security.” “In light of these inconsistencies between facts as alleged by the employee and information obtained during the so-called impeachment inquiry, the Committee ought to fully access the sources and credibility of the employee,” Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, and Michael McCaul wrote to Schiff last week. More than a decade ago, Bakaj helped Gayl after his damning claim that the military was allowing U.S. military and Iraqi civilians to die rather than pursue safer offensive and defensive equipment, namely armored Humvees to protect against an onslaught of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, which accounted for half of U.S. casualties in the war. A civilian report issued in 2017 by retired Marine Lt. Col. Steve Chill, who obtained documents and emails, countered the claim by Gayl and found an armored Humvee development program was long in the works and of the “highest priority,” contradicting Gayl’s whisleblower claim. “These perceptions about Marine Corps negligence surrounding the MRAP efforts reflect ignorance of the facts,” Chill said in his report. Pentagon officials reported success with the MRAPs and said the vehicles saved lives. “MRAP is singularly responsible for saving the lives and limbs of thousands of service members in Iraq and Afghanistan,” then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said in 2012. Bakaj is now fighting to keep the Trump whistleblower anonymous and is resisting the GOP’s call for him to testify. “NO Member of Congress knows the whistleblower’s identity. And that’s exactly the point — to make sure federal employees can come forward to report wrongdoing anonymously and without repercussion,” Bakaj told Jordan via Twitter last week.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Oct 29, 2019 18:36:55 GMT -6
There is a transcript of the phone call. What does this guy, or anyone else have to offer that will change that? All they can offer is an opinion and that has no bearing here.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 19:07:30 GMT -6
Matt Gaetz told Lou Dobbs that Republicans will call in Adam Schiff to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on his role in the latest Democrat Party coup attempt to remove President Trump from office.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Oct 29, 2019 22:45:10 GMT -6
So Vindman was given an "almost complete transcript" of the call? Why not just use the actual transcript? And he's going to accurately be able to fill in the blanks three months later?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 29, 2019 22:48:33 GMT -6
Vindman admitted during testimony that he tampered with and tried but failed to alter the transcript of President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian President www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.htmlLt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.
Colonel Vindman, who appeared on Capitol Hill wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military medals, told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions. But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made…
…The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call, which was first reported by the C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Oct 30, 2019 3:36:15 GMT -6
Vindman admitted during testimony that he tampered with and tried but failed to alter the transcript of President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian President www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.htmlLt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.
Colonel Vindman, who appeared on Capitol Hill wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military medals, told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions. But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made…
…The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call, which was first reported by the C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint set off the impeachment inquiry.Rachael Maddow cited him as a hero who bravely took shrapnel. She called his testimony explosive. AC105 walked all over and cut off a conservative but then allowed Max Boot to go on unchallenged.
|
|