|
Post by redstripe on Oct 30, 2019 13:23:41 GMT -6
This wasn’t even fair. MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson made the mistake of inviting Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on her show to discuss the latest coup attempt by Democrats and their media against President Trump. During the discussion Jackson pushed the debunked conspiracy that President Trump withheld foreign aid to Ukraine unless the government investigate the Biden Crime Family. This was debunked weeks ago when President Trump released the transcript of his call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. President Zelensky has also debunked this conspiracy by his many statements to the press. Democrats don’t care. They’re going to run with the lies anyway. During the segment on Thursday Jackson pressed Gaetz on the impeachment-related testimony of acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor via what had been leaked to the public via Adam Schiff and the Democrat Party. The discussion got heated as Hallie continued to push the popular liberal media conspiracy that President Trump threatened the Ukrainian government. (Which we already know is not true.) Rep. Gaetz went off: “You just keep blowing through these things like they’re facts but they’re not. Just stop mischaracterizing stuff. I have to fact check you in real time.” This was another great segment by Republican Matt Gaetz. Really good rebuttal from Gaetz.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 18:52:45 GMT -6
Breitbart’s Joel Pollak wrote about the several flaws in the proposed resolution that eliminates equal justice for Republicans or the White House.
1. The resolution gives authority to the House Intelligence Committee that it has never had before.
2. The resolution does not provide the minority with equal subpoena power, as in the past.
3. The resolution waters down minority powers over the release of Intelligence transcripts.
4. The resolution does not compel the release of past testimony.
5. The resolution restricts the president’s right to be represented.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 18:55:53 GMT -6
Gregg Jarrett schools FBN resident Trump hater Neil Cavuto:
Gregg Jarrett: “In my recent column I call Adam Schiff sort of the “poor man’s Harry Houdini, an illusionist with cheap parlor tricks.” He’s trying to fool Americans that opinion is evidence and facts are not. The facts are contained in the transcript and the statement of the two participants in the transcript, Zelensky and Trump. There’s no quid pro quo, no pressure, no demand…
Neil Cavuto: (interrupting) But now there are people who believe that the transcript was maybe not entirely accurate?
Gregg Jarrett: Yeah, so if you have an auto accident with 20 witnesses, then you are going to have 20 versions of it. So Lt. Colonel Vindman says, “Well, that’s not how I remember the conversation.”
Cavuto: But he was listening in on the call.
Jarrett: Yeah, he was but he’s offering his interpretation. He’s saying I didn’t think it was proper. That’s an opinion. Opinion is not fact. Facts are stated in the transcript itself. And somebody came up to me in the train station and said, “I read this transcript. What’s wrong with it?” And that’s the fundamental question…
…Neil Cavuto: Is your whole thing that if you fail with Mueller, you’re going to fail with this, Democrats?
Gregg Jarrett: I actually think this is twice as ludicrous as the original Trump-Russia collusion hoax and witch hunt.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 18:59:01 GMT -6
This was fantastic. Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) went point-by-point highlighting the absurdity of the Democrat Party’s impeachment resolution that gives all power to leaker-liar Adam Schiff.
Democrats must really be worried about this impeachment stunt if they are so scared to make the process public!
Debbie Lesko DESTROYED the Democrats, “I’m sorry, Adam Schiff is NOT and independent counsel!”
Not surprisingly, The Democrat Rules Committee voted today to make the process unfair and hidden from the American public.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 19:02:51 GMT -6
Hmmm, this seems rather improtant. The believed CIA leaker has ties to the DNC operative Aleandra Chalupa nd helped with the now debunked & discredited Trump/Russia hoax. This might be one of the many reasons why Schiff is so fearful of Republican cross examination, etc. www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.htmlAnd Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine. With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 19:08:46 GMT -6
Some more information on the "Whistleblower" :
We also know that Ciaramella was involved in the transfer of money from the IMF to the Ukraine –
And apparently Ciaramella is in pretty tight with Nuland and crazy Kavalec, sending them a classified email while working for the NSC –
Ciaramella was also on the distribution for a Deep State trip to Russia involving Nuland who is all over the Russia collusion hoax –
Cairamella was also involved in loan guarantees with the Ukraine –
And, of course when reporting on the Ukraine, how can you leave out the corrupt Bidens –
Interesting how when one starts to dig into the scenes here, the same names keep popping up over & over.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 19:12:38 GMT -6
When the Republicans retake the House in 2020,(as it is appearing to be highly possible), Gaetz would be on my short list of people to be Speaker of the House. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) filed an ethics complaint against House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Wednesday. The popular pro-Trump conservative cited “rules broken” and “false statements” in Adam Schiff’s role in the secret basement impeachment hearings. Gaetz accused liar leaker Adam Schiff of: Distorting @potus’s call with President Zelensky -Lying to the public about “Russian collusion” -Blocking Members of Congress from attending impeachment depositions
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 19:19:25 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/10/30/hoyer-on-impeachment-vote-i-dont-know-whether-we-are-going-to-get-every-democrat/On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said he was not sure if every House Democrat will vote for the impeachment inquiry resolution scheduled for Thursday. On the need for a formal vote on the impeachment inquiry tomorrow, host Chuck Todd said, “There are some members, he’s not alone, he voiced it, that not everybody’s convinced you need this vote tomorrow. Make the case.” Hoyer said, “They’re correct. We don’t need the vote tomorrow. The court has indicated that we can proceed as we have been proceeding. However, what Jerry didn’t mention is we are contemplating changing from what is essentially the investigatory phase of this matter into the open hearing—public hearing—phase of the consideration of whether or not there is evidence to believe that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.” “And in that public hearing, we want to make sure that everybody understands this is going to be due process,” he continued. “This is going to be fair. It’s not going to be like the trial in the Senate, but it will be a forum in which the president is given the opportunity to call witnesses, to cross-examine, to have his representatives present. And for the president himself to be present. So this is … in the fact that this is a procedural matter, it’s not necessary to carry out our constitutional duties, but we think appropriate.” When asked if he expected all House Democrats to vote for the impeachment inquiry, Hoyer said, “I hope we don’t lose any Democrats.” He added, “Jim Clyburn and I have talked, and I don’t know whether we’re going to get every Democrat.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 19:23:14 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/10/30/anti-trump-whistleblower-worked-with-dnc-operative-who-sought-dirt-on-trump-from-ukrainian-officials/Anti-Trump ‘Whistleblower’ Worked With DNC Operative Who Sought Dirt On Trump From Ukrainian Officials OCTOBER 30, 2019 By Madeline Osburn A new report from RealClearInvestigations reveals that the anti-Trump “whistleblower” who prompted the current impeachment proceedings against President Trump is a registered Democrat who worked with a Democratic National Committee opposition researcher who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.htmlFederal documents reveal that the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, previously worked in the Obama administration with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. RealClear reports that Ciaramella remained there into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council, eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017. He then “left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia,” RealClearInvestigations reported. Ciaramella is a Yale graduate who reportedly speaks Russian, Ukrainian, and Arabic. Officials told RealClear that Ciaramella strongly opposed Trump’s foreign policy. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies,” a former senior White House official said. Politico reported on a Ukrainian-American woman who consulted for the Democratic National Committee, and “met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.” The woman, Alexandra Chalupa, was paid $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016 by the DNC. Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the White House, RealClear reported, documents confirming one occasion in November 2015. She also visited the White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Chalupa said she shared her findings with both the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Politico reports that “Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, ‘I felt there was a Russia connection.'” Chalupa also said that the Ukrainian embassy worked directly with reporters digging for Trump-Russia ties. Before Ciaramella filed his “whistleblower complaint,” he sought “guidance” from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff and other Obama-era NSC staff recently employed by Schiff’s office. Before this “guidance” was public knowledge, the Chairman was adamant on hearing the “whistleblower” testimony. “We need to speak with the whistleblower,” Schiff and other Democrats proclaimed. As soon as Ciaramella’s partisanship and collaboration was discovered, Schiff and the Democrats flipped to preventing the testimony from happening and moving their hearings behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 22:46:49 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/30/spooky-pelosis-halloween-impeachment-plan-vote-scares-democrats-splinters-house-majority/House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) proposal to vote on formalizing procedures for the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump has splintered members of her own caucus. Earlier this week, Pelosi and the rest of the House leadership announced they would hold a vote on Thursday—Halloween—to establish procedures governing the ongoing impeachment probe. The Speaker, who for weeks had argued the House had no constitutional requirement to vote on authorizing an impeachment inquiry, relented after coming under fire for keeping the process in the shadows. The decision, though, has engendered criticism from the 31 freshman and moderate Democrats representing districts that Trump won in 2016. Some, like freshman Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ), have signaled they will not vote for the resolution on the grounds that impeachment would “not be good for Democrats or Republicans.” Van Drew, who represents a district in southern New Jersey that, prior to 2016, had not voted Republican at the presidential level since before the 1980s, even suggested the vote could backfire on the House majority. Van Drew told Politico on Wednesday, before adding the GOP was clamoring for such a vote: I didn’t know that it was really necessary at this point. So if they very much want it, it would mean they want to help us a whole lot and really think it’s a good idea, or they think that it was going to put us in a tight spot. The congressman’s office did not respond to questions for this story. Although Van Drew was the first to announce his opposition, at least two more vulnerable Democrats— Reps. Colin Peterson (D-MN) and Anthony Brindisi (D-NY)—have expressed unease with the strategy House leadership is utilizing ahead of the vote. Peteron’s office confirmed to Breitbart News that the congressman has not indicated how he will be voting on Thursday. The Minnesota Democrat, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, has suggested in recent weeks that he opposes “a partisan impeachment” process. A spokeswoman for Peterson told Breitbart News, “As of now, Rep. Peterson has not indicated how he will vote on Thursday.” She pointed to a statement he made in September that expressed doubt over impeachment: “Without significant bipartisan support, impeachment proceedings will be a lengthy and divisive action with no resolution.” Brindisi, on the other hand, did not respond to requests for comment from Breitbart News. The congressman did, however, openly discuss his doubts about the timing of the resolution and the overall process in which it was crafted with Politico on Wednesday. “It looks like things are moving quicker than a lot of people had anticipated,” the New York Democrat told the outlet. “For me, I’m in no rush here.” Brindisi, who ousted former Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) last year in an expensive race that was decided only after a recount, is already a top GOP target in 2020. Apart from Peterson, the 30 other House Democrats representing districts that Trump carried in 2016 did not respond to requests from Breitbart News about how they would be voting on Thursday. Prior to this week, at least twenty had indicated they were fully supportive of the impeachment inquiry. The fact that Pelosi and the Democrat leadership are having serious difficulties keeping their members in line does not bode well for the impeachment inquiry. Compounding problems is that Republicans have become more emboldened and unified against the impeachment inquiry and the forthcoming vote on Thursday. Republicans, in particular, have been buoyed by polling showing only 36 percent of the American public believe the House should vote to impeach Trump. There is also increasing skepticism from even GOP moderates about the way Pelosi and the Democrat leadership are breaking House precedent in their push towards impeachment. Most pointedly, the resolution being voted on Thursday gives extraordinary powers to the House Intelligence Committee chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who has been accused of abusing the powers of his committee to promote the impeachment agenda. The resolution also limits the ability of House Republicans to properly conduct their own impeachment reviews by curtailing minority subpoena power. Such heavy-handed tactics by Pelosi and the Democrat leadership have removed any hopes the impeachment inquiry would be bipartisan. While it’s still not final, several GOP sources on Capitol Hill told Breitbart News they expect the minority to unite against the resolution on the floor Thursday. If that happens, the veneer of bipartisan respectability that Pelosi and her leadership team have attempted to stage around the impeachment inquiry would be shredded and the entire proceeding would be seen as a partisan affair. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) made such an argument during an appearance on Fox News Wednesday. The Republican leader claimed that Pelosi had proven the impeachment inquiry “process is a sham” by flip-flopping on whether to hold a vote on the procedures governing the probe. McCarthy detailed during the interview how the move towards impeachment has divided and even radicalized some freshman Democrats from swing districts. When making his case, the House Republican leader cited Rep. Max Rose (D-NY)—a first-term Democrat who represents Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, New York — in October said that Trump should be given the chance to “prove his innocence.” “I do not want to be here. This is the last thing I want to be doing,” Rose said at the time. “But no one is to blame but the president. The president says he is innocent, so all we are saying is ‘prove it.’ But that is not what they are doing. They are not cooperating, and we need to get to the bottom of it.” Rose was one of the 30 House Democrats that declined to elaborate on their support for the impeachment procedure resolution when reached out to by Breitbart News. McCarthy said Wednesday that Rose’s comments serve as a symbolic sign of how freshman Democrats face an ever-increasing pressure to back impeachment, despite the potential damage it might have for their House majority. “It only takes 19 seats to win the majority, they have 31 Democrats sitting in seats that President Trump carried, and we’re going to carry those again,” the minority leader said. To be sure, though, not every single freshman Democrat is taking the safe route, like Rose. Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ), who initially resisted calls for Trump’s impeachment during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, reversed course in October, announcing he now supported the idea. “We can’t overlook what has actually happened in terms of the president’s abuse of power,” Kim told constituents at a recent town hall in his New Jersey district. Still, however, the fact that there are such divergent opinions on the impeachment inquiry within the House majority is cause for concern among leadership. That’s partially why, earlier in the week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer — Pelosi’s number two — has begun downplaying the seriousness and gravity of the vote. “We’re going to have to consider whether or not it’s ready to go on Thursday. I hope that’s the case,” the majority leader told reporters on Tuesday when asked about the planned vote.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 22:49:32 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/30/democrat-alcee-hastings-who-was-impeached-and-removed-makes-impeachment-rules/Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) is the second-ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, which is setting the rules for the “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump. Hastings himself was impeached and removed from office in 1989 — one of only eight federal officials, all of whom have been judges, so be so relieved of their duties. Hastings was removed for bribery, one of the causes enumerated in the Constitution’s Impeachment Clause (Article II, Section 4): “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As the New York Times reported in 1989: In a solemn two-hour proceeding, the Senate today removed Federal District Judge Alcee L. Hastings from the bench by convicting him of eight impeachment articles, including one charging that he had conspired to obtain a $150,000 bribe. Judge Hastings sat silently facing the senators as Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia called out on the first article, ”Senators, how say you, Is the respondent guilty or not guilty?” The vote was 69 to 26, providing five votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office, and he left shortly after the vote. Democrats, who control the majority on the House Rules Committee, rejected all 17 amendments proposed by the Republican minority on Wednesday. In one telling exchange, Hastings argued that due process rights did not apply to the president during impeachment, which he likened to the grand jury stage of a criminal trial. Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) countered that grand jury proceedings are meant to be secret, yet Democrats keep leaking bits of testimony to the media.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 30, 2019 22:51:01 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/30/new-york-times-upshot-siena-college-poll-majority-of-voters-oppose-impeachment-and-removal-in-battlegrounds/New York Times Upshot/Siena College Poll: Majority of Voters Oppose Impeachment and Removal in Battlegrounds A New York Times Upshot/Siena College Poll released on Wednesday shows residents of six battleground states oppose impeaching and removing President Trump from office by a 52 percent to 44 percent margin, but support the House impeachment inquiry by a 51 percent to 44 percent margin. Broken down even further, the poll’s results show that 42 percent of respondents oppose both the House impeachment inquiry and impeaching and removing the president, while 41 percent support both the House impeachment inquiry and impeaching and removing the president. Eight percent of respondents support the House impeachment inquiry but oppose impeaching and removing the president, while nine percent were categorized having “other” views. Registered voters in six key battleground states–Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were surveyed in the poll. The somewhat contradictory results that show a majority oppose the impeachment and removal of the president from office by an eight point margin, while a majority support the House impeachment inquiry by a seven point margin may be explained by the framing of the questions asked respondent. The first question is posed as follows: Do you support or oppose impeaching President Trump and removing him from office? The second question is posed in this way: Do you support or oppose the impeachment inquiry being conducted by the House of Representatives? That framing of the second question may be understood by the 25 percent of respondents who say, when questioned, how closely they are following the discussion of President Trump, the Ukraine, and impeachment either “not closely” or “not at all” to be similar to a broader question regarding the ability of the House of Representatives to conduct oversight hearings of the administration. A more precise understanding of voter sentiment towards the current House impeachment inquiry would be elicited by framing the question this way: Do you agree with Republican criticisms that the current House impeachment inquiry is a sham process that denies the president his due process rights? Several elements of the poll’s methodology were unusual. First, the poll was conducted over 14 days, covering the two week period from October 13 to October 26. Most polls provide a sample of opinion during a very tight snapshot of time–typically two to four days–because intervening events over longer periods of time can influence the opinions of respondents. Second, the results of the portion of the poll conduted during the first eight days of polling–covering the period October 13 to October 20–were released as a separate poll last week. During those eight days, a total of 1,934 respondents were questioned, but, as Breitbart News reported, cross tab results at a state level were not released. During that first eight day period, 53 percent of respondents opposed impeaching and removing the president, while 43 percent supported it. Fifty percent supported the House impeachment inquiry, while 45 percent opposed it. The poll results released on Wednesday apparently added the results from 1,832 respondents surveyed during the six days from October 21 to October 26 to the results from the 1,934 respondents surveyed during the eight days from October 13 to October 20 reported in the first iteration of the poll released last week. The poll results released on Wednesday did provide cross tab results, broken down by state, as follows: In Arizona, where 652 registered voters responded to the survey between October 13 and October 23, 52 percent opposed impeaching and removing the president, while 45 percent supported it. Fifty-three percent supported the House impeachment inquiry, while 40 percent opposed it. In Florida, where 650 registered voters responded to the survey between October 13 and October 26, 53 percent opposed impeaching and removing the president, while 42 percent supported it. Forty-nine percent supported the House impeachment inquiry, while 44 percent opposed it. In Michigan, where 501 registered voters responded to the survey between October 13 and October 25, 51 percent opposed impeaching and removing the president, while 42 percent supported it. Fifty percent supported the House impeachment inquiry, while 46 percent opposed it. In North Carolina, where 651 registered voters responded to the survey between October 13 and October 26, 53 percent opposed impeaching and removing the president, while 43 percent supported it. Fifty percent supported the House impeachment inquiry, while 45 percent opposed it. In Pennsylvania, where 661 registered voters responded to the survey between October 13 and October 25, 52 percent opposed impeaching and removing the president, while 45 percent supported it. Fifty-three percent supported the House impeachment inquiry, while 44 percent opposed it. In Wisconsin, where 651 registered voters responded to the survey between October 13 and October 26, 51 percent opposed impeaching and removing the president, while 45 percent supported it. Fifty- perceonent supported the House impeachment inquiry, while 44 percent opposed it. The methodology of the poll was summarized in Wednesday’s press release as follows: This New York Times Upshot/Siena College Battleground Polls were conducted October 13-26, 2019 by telephone calls in English and Spanish to 3,766 voters across Arizona (652), Florida (650), Michigan (501), North Carolina (651), Pennsylvania (661) and Wisconsin (651). Voters were weighted within each state by age, education, gender, likely voter probability, state region, party imputation and race/ethnicity. State samples were aggregated to form the Battleground and weighted such that each state formed an equal percentage of the ‘Battleground.’. This Battleground poll has a margin of error of +/-1.7 percentage points subject to the design effects of weighting. Individual state margins of error are: AZ, +/- 4.4, +/- FL, +/- 4.4, MI, +/- 5.1, NC, +/- 4.4, PA, +/- 4.4, WI, +/- 4.4 . Calls were made to a stratified weighted sample of voters from the L-2 Voter list via both land and cell phones.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 31, 2019 12:33:49 GMT -6
And Schiff’s Sham takes a major hit: www.zerohedge.com/political/nsc-official-morrison-schiff-nothing-illegal-trump-zelensky-callA top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Volodomyr Zelensky, Tim Morrison, told House investigators on Thursday that he does not believe anything illegal was discussed, according to The Federalist. thefederalist.com/2019/10/31/nsc-official-tim-morrison-to-schiff-i-was-not-concerned-that-anything-illegal-was-discussed-in-trump-ukraine-phone-call/#.XbsWpVM37Vo.twitter"I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed," said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders.
Morrison also testified that the transcript of the phone call which was declassified and released by the White House "accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call."Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call. “I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” Morrison said. That is the same day that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chief anti-Trump inquisitor in the U.S. House of Representatives, disclosed on Twitter that funding had been held up. Politico also published a story that day, sourced to anonymous leaks, that military funding had been temporarily held up. -The Federalist Notably, Morrison quit the day before his testimony. Last week, Morrison was named during testimony earlier this month by William Taylor, Trump's top envoy to Ukraine, according to Politico.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 4:07:06 GMT -6
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), who was in Thursday’s closed-door deposition of White House national security official Tim Morrison, joined Lou Dobbs on Thursday night following the Democrat vote on the Schiff Empowerment Plan.
Perry told Lou Dobbs that Democrats had to tell their fellow lawmakers “not to cheer” after the partisan vote on the impeachment process.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 4:16:57 GMT -6
Looks like Mr. Sperry hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 8:41:48 GMT -6
Whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid posted a series of tweets threatening anyone who discloses the name of their DNC operative attempting to overthrow the Trump White House.
Interesting since the left love outing Republicans, etc that they don't agree with.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 8:44:50 GMT -6
Was the CIA whistleblower and the person mentioned in the Page text messages/emails as "Charlie" the same person and where they sent into the Trump White House to spy on him? At about the 10 minute mark:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 8:46:48 GMT -6
CNN Political Director David Chalian warned wild-eyed Democrats that Thursday’s vote will backfire hugely.
David Chalian: This plays out district by district which is why some of those Democratic members of the House, the majority makers, who come from districts Donald Trump won in 2019, they voted with Nancy Pelosi on this today for the most part. And Republicans are pouncing to hang that vote around their neck because in their districts back home where Donald Trump won this idea of impeaching or removing him is not a popular one.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 8:56:25 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/10/31/chris-cuomo-adam-schiff-crime/CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pressed California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff about the lack of impeachment inquiry witnesses overtly claiming that President Donald Trump committed a crime.
The Thursday night “Cuomo Prime Time” conversation came after Timothy Morrison, White House senior director for European affairs, testified in hearings that he did not believe “anything illegal” occurred during the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. After Schiff stated his belief that Trump considered himself “above the law” with “no accountability,” Cuomo pointed out the fact that, other than “I guess” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s testimony, no other witnesses seemed to consider Trump’s actions on the call illegal or an abuse of power, though many have expressed dissatisfaction in other ways.
“Do you think that hurts you?” Cuomo asked. “Because it certainly bolsters the courage of Republicans to say, even Mr. Morrison today, ‘yeah, they all saw it for what it was but they didn’t think it was a crime.'”
“You know, Chris, I can’t go into the substance of the testimony,” Schiff responded. “I wouldn’t agree with the general characterization you’ve made of it, but you’ll have the opportunity to read the transcripts very soon for yourself and decide what does the evidence show.” (RELATED: CNN’s Cuomo Eats Crow After Slamming Analyst Who Suggested Schiff Had Whistleblower Complaint In Advance) Despite there being “differences between the witnesses and their opinions” and “recollections,” Schiff stated that he believes there is a “consistent narrative here about what took place.” He then called on the American people to “make their own judgment” when they hear from the “witnesses directly.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 9:04:59 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/political/thank-god-deep-state-intel-traitors-admit-they-want-take-out-trumpThese are people who are doing their duty or responding to a higher call.” Two former intelligence heads bragged about how the deep state is engaged in a coup to remove President Trump Thursday, with one even praising God for the existence of the deep state. During an interview with Margaret Brennan of CSPAN, former CIA head John McLaughlin along with his successor John Brennan both basically admitted that there is a secretive cabal of people within US intelligence who are trying to ‘take Trump out’. “Thank God for the ‘Deep State,’” McLaughlin crowed as liberals in the crowd cheered. “I mean I think everyone has seen this progression of diplomats and intelligence officers and White House people trooping up to Capitol Hill right now and saying these are people who are doing their duty or responding to a higher call.” he added. “With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else,” McLaughlin said, referring to the unnamed ‘whistleblower’, who it seems worked for Obama, Biden And Brennan. “This is the institution within the U.S. government — that with all of its flaws, and it makes mistakes — is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth,” McLaughlin claimed. “It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that makes or implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth — it’s engraved in marble in the lobby.” he continued to blather. Brennan also expressed praise for the deep state and admitted that the goal is to remove the President. “Thank goodness for the women and men who are in the intelligence community and the law enforcement community who are standing up and carrying out their responsibilities for their fellow citizens.” he said. There you have it. Two former CIA heads admitting that there is a plot to take out a duly-elected President.
Brennan lecturing anyone about telling the truth is also a complete joke, given that he publicly lied to Congress without any repercussions.
Americans reacted in droves to these intel slugs laughing about trying to remove Trump: We have nothing to add..
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 9:10:09 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/11/01/alex-vindmans-impeachment-testimony-completely-rested-on-his-personal-opinions/Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Completely Rested On His Personal Opinions Alex Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it. John LucasBy John Lucas NOVEMBER 1, 2019 A lot of rhetoric is being thrown around, both in print media and on TV, about Lt. Col. Alex Vindman’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about President Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine. He has been lauded by Democrats and the press (excuse the redundancy), and most of the commentary and reporting ignores any analysis of his allegations about the call. In Vindman’s testimony, I see more appeals to emotion than to analysis and reason. For example, he talks about how he served in combat as an infantryman, holds a Purple Heart for wounds, and was an immigrant as a child. I therefore venture this analysis of his prepared statement and whether Vindman “has done nothing more or less than his duty,” as some have suggested, as well as the significance of his highly touted “personal knowledge” of that call. Because committee Chairman Adam Schiff has kept Vindman’s oral testimony secret, I focus on Vindman’s prepared statement, which is public. I will also address only his testimony about the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky. All About Vindman’s Opinions, Not the Facts First, as discussed below, Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it. His testimony about the substance of that call consists of five sentences at the end of his prepared testimony. Those five sentences basically comprise two opinions. Here is what he said: “I was concerned by the call. [1] I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. [2] I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.” The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others. Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government. Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party. There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot. So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic. Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine. If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president. It’s Not This Guy’s Duty to Second-Guess the President So, with the understanding that Vindeman’s relevant statements were opinion, not fact, was he merely doing his duty as his officer’s oath demands? Many have relied on the argument that he is not an anti-Trump activist because he was subpoenaed and therefore had no choice but to testify. Thus, his supporters have argued that he did not decide to become involved but was merely a pawn in the political theater, just a honorable soldier doing his duty. That would be a better argument if Vindman had been subpoenaed involuntarily and then had to give honest answers to factual questions. But that is not what happened. He said he was “appearing today voluntarily pursuant to a subpoena.” Appearing “voluntarily pursuant to a subpoena” is what people do when they are trying to cover their rear end. That is a statement by someone who is willing or affirmatively wants to testify but thinks he needs a subpoena commanding his presence to be able to claim that he had to testify. Lawyers deal with that every day. The “just doing his duty” argument also is flawed because even if his duty required him to testify about facts (itself a debatable proposition) it did not require him to offer his personal opinions critiquing his commander-in-chief. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, being subpoenaed does not obligate any witness to make an opening statement. That is something they do if they want to. Vindman wanted to; it was a purely voluntary act. That desire to offer his personal opinions to impeach the president’s decisions does indeed support the argument that this officer is an active member of the “resistance.” We All Have the Same Firsthand Knowledge Now Second, many have touted Vindman’s “firsthand knowledge” of what was said on the July 25 call, in order to distinguish that “firsthand knowledge” from the allegations by the “whistleblower,” whose “second- or third-hand knowledge” was the catalyst for the present impeachment circus. The anti-Trump media initially ran with that story line and others have fallen into the same trap. Vindman’s public volunteering of his personal opinions contrary to those of his commander-in-chief violates the fundamental rule that military officers should be publicly apolitical. It is correct that Vindman has “firsthand knowledge” of the call. However, his personal knowledge of that call is not important. Why not? Because the president released the transcript and we know what was said. In fact, Vindman’s prepared statement indicates he believes that the released transcript is accurate. He said: “As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.” If Vindman had contended that the transcript was not accurate, then his recollection might be material. But that is not what he claimed. Although some left-leaning media outlets now claim the transcript has omissions and is not accurate, Vindman did not make that claim or dispute the accuracy of the transcript. If he later changes course and claims, contrary to his prepared statement, that the transcript is not accurate, then such a shift would raise obvious credibility issues. But that discussion is for another day, if it happens. I will close with one final observation: Vindman’s public volunteering of his personal opinions contrary to those of his commander-in-chief violates the fundamental rule that military officers should be publicly apolitical, in order to keep the armed forces out of political disputes. I respectfully submit that honoring that fundamental separation is more in line with an officer’s duty than what Vindman did in this case. The fact that he elected to testify in uniform, thus attempting to add the imprimatur of the U.S. military to boost his credibility, makes it worse. John Lucas is a practicing attorney in Tennessee who has successfully argued before the U. S. Supreme Court. Before entering law school at the University of Texas, he served in the Army Special Forces as an enlisted and then graduated from the U. S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969. He is an Army Ranger and fought in Vietnam as an infantry platoon leader. He is married with four children.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 12:10:21 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-johnson-clinton-obama-emails-democrats-impeachment-inquiryIn a letter to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Johnson, R-Wis., said summer 2016 communications from FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok to FBI Director James Comey’s Chief of Staff James Rybicki hinted at the existence of the Clinton-Obama messages that were relevant to the issues raised by her private server. Johnson noted that on June 28, 2016, a week before Comey’s public statement declaring that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Clinton, Strzok wrote, “Jim – I have the POTUS – HRC emails [Director Comey] requested at end of briefing yesterday. I hesitate to leave them, please let me know a convenient time to drop them off.” “I write to request email communications between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama,” Johnson wrote, setting a deadline of Nov. 14, 2019. “In January 2018, I requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) produce emails Secretary Clinton sent to President Obama while she was located in the ‘territory of a sophisticated adversary.'” He added: “Given that DOJ acknowledged that they ‘are not in a position’ to produce emails to the committee that contain ‘equities of other executive branch entities,’ I ask that, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, you please provide all email communications between Secretary Clinton and President Obama.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 12:39:10 GMT -6
On “CBS Evening News,” Norah O’Donnell asked Schiff, “Republicans say they’re concerned that the Democrats will block the witnesses that they want to hear from. Can you assure them that you won’t reject those witnesses?”
“Well, we’ve asked them for proffer of which witnesses they think are relevant, and I have to say, we have concerns that they’re going to propose a bunch of witnesses that have no bearing, that they can use merely to smear the president’s opponents or for other improper purposes,” Schiff said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 12:43:50 GMT -6
Retired Lieutenant Colonel (LTTC) Jim Hickman worked with then Major Vindman during military exercises with Russia in Germany.
LTC Hickman says he had to discipline then Major Alex Vindman back then for inappropriate and partisan behavior.
The exercises took place in July 2013.
LTC Jim Hickman: I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision 12 in Grafenwoher, GE. He worked w/the Russian Embassy & I was assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), w/in USAREUR (US Army Europe). He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, & I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner. The following account of LTC Vindman’s words & actions are completely accurate to the best of my recollection & have been corroborated by others. We interacted on several different occasions throughout the planning cycle, but it was during the actual execution of the exercise, that we had an issue relevant to his recent testimony. As stated earlier, Atlas Vision 12 was conducted at JMTC in the VBS2 (Virtual Battle Simulations 2) Classrooms for Simulation. Vindman, who was a Major at the time, was sitting in one of the classrooms talking to the US and Russian Soldiers, as well as the young Officers & GS Employees about America, Russia, & Obama. He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable. He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel.
It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed. One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American’s falsely thinking they’re exceptional, when he said, “He [Obama] is working on that now.” And he said it w/a snide ‘I know a secret’ look on his face. I honestly don’t know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say. Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama’s plan, etc…I’d had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside.
At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I’ll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself. The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you…he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 12:50:25 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-suddenly-wont-testify-lawyers-break-negotiations-house-amidTrump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that he worked with Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative who sought dirt on President Trump from officials in Ukraine's former government. According to the Washington Examiner, discussions with the whistleblower - revealed by RealClearInvestigations as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, "and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first's claims." Ciaramella complained that President Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in 2016. On Thursday, a top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky testified that he saw nothing illegal about the conversation. "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed," said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders. Tim Morrison And now, the partisan whistleblowers have cold feet; "There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees. There is no further discussion ongoing between the legal team and the committees," said the Examiner's source. The whistleblower is a career CIA officer with expertise in Ukraine policy who served on the White House National Security Council during the Obama administration, when 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was "point man" for Ukraine, and during the early months of the Trump administration. -Washington Examiner In other words, House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually testify about it (for now...). On Thursday, the House passed a resolution establishing a framework for Trump impeachment proceedings, belatedly granting Republicans the ability to subpoena witnesses, but only if Schiff and fellow Democrats on the Intelligence Committee agree. Mark Zaid, who along with Andrew Bakaj is an attorney for both the original whistleblower and the second whistleblower, told the Washington Examiner the legal team was willing to work with lawmakers so long as anonymity is ensured. “We remain committed to cooperating with any congressional oversight committee's requests so long as it properly protects and ensures the anonymity of our clients,” Zaid said. On Wednesday, Zaid and Bakaj declined to confirm or deny in a statement to the Washington Examiner that Eric Ciaramella, 33, a career CIA analyst and former Ukraine director on the NSC, was the whistleblower after a report by RealClearInvestigations. -Washington Examiner In September, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, who lied about contacts with Ciaramella (and hired two Ciaramella associates as staffers) said that the whistleblower "would like to speak to our committee." We have been informed by the whistleblower’s counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so. Once Ciaramella's status as a CIA officer and his links to Biden emerged, however, Schiff backtracked. On October 13 he changed his tune, saying "Our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected." Meanwhile, once the House impeaches Trump - which it most certainly will - the tables will turn in the Senate, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence, they'll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they desire as we head into the 2020 US election. Nancy Pelosi saw this coming and caved to her party anyway. There isn't enough popcorn in the world for what's coming.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 16:41:17 GMT -6
amgreatness.com/2019/10/31/the-impeachment-schiff-show/The Impeachment Schiff Show Just as his impeachment drive is heating up, the California Democrat’s Ukrainian chimera is falling apart. Julie Kelly - October 31st, 2019 After preparing a failed bill of particulars against the president—Russian election collusion, porn star payoffs, income tax evasion, obstruction of justice, the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment, the Charlottesville rally, the two Michaels (Avenatti and Cohen), Deutsche Bank, Alfa-Bank, and Orange Man Bad—Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) finally has Trump dead-to-rights: A quid pro quo without the quid, the pro, or the quo. The House of Representatives voted Thursday largely along party lines, with only two Democratic defectors, to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, will manage the initial stage of the sham inquiry; hearings are expected to begin in a few weeks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), departing from tradition, handed off the impeachment grunt work to her most dependable grunt rather than to the House Judiciary Committee. Pelosi pleaded the Democrats’ case on the morning of Hallowe’en, titillating her caucus of ghouls, witches, tramps, and thieves with tales about the scary monster in the White House. “Sadly, this is not any cause for any glee or comfort,” Pelosi assured her gleeful Democratic colleagues. “This is something very solemn, something prayerful.” But ringing in the ears of every Democrat and NeverTrumper across the land were the iconic words of #TheResistance hero Rep. Rashida Talib (D-Mich.): “We’re gonna impeach the motherfucker!” You will recall that the freshman Democratic congresswoman from Michigan didn’t waste any time before uttering that profundity. She shouted it on January 4, 2019, just hours after she was sworn in. 00:00 Lies In Plain Sight Now, in a fair and just world where lying scoundrels are dispatched either to the unemployment line or to the set of MSNBC, Schiff long ago would have experienced a swift exit from the halls of power. Schiff lied to the American people and to Congress for more than three years that he had circumstantial and significant and direct and in-plain-sight and clear evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to throw the 2016 presidential election. Last month, he had to walk back his fake impersonation of President Trump after he made up the content and context of the hotly disputed phone call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He leaked nonpublic information to the news media to smear Team Trump, including the president’s son, and embarrassingly accepted a call from Russian pranksters who claimed to have naked photos of Donald Trump. So, of course, Schiff is the perfect point man for a damaging, dishonest, and nakedly partisan crusade to oust the sitting president. Acting as if no one has been paying attention to him for the past few years—if only we could unsee his 3,074 appearances on CNN and “Meet the Press”—Schiff denied that he would relish his role as the president’s impeachment tormentor. “I do not take any pleasure in the events that have made this process necessary,” Schiff said from the House floor on Thursday morning, presumably with all of his toes and fingers crossed. That’s funny because Schiff himself is the person responsible for manufacturing all of the events that now animate this charade, including the fabricated controversy about an alleged “quid pro quo” between Trump and Zelensky. Not coincidentally, the nub of Schiff’s current impeachment fever dream, Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky, occurred one day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s disastrous testimony on Capitol Hill. Whistleblower FolliesWith the release of the flaccid Mueller report and a cringeworthy appearance by the doddering special counsel on July 24, Schiff’s fantasy of watching Robert Mueller haul Trump out of the Oval Office in handcuffs was gone. So Schiff scrambled to concoct another impeachment scheme: How the president withheld U.S. aid to Ukraine until the country’s new president agreed to investigate the son of Trump’s likeliest 2020 Democratic opponent. A courageous “whistleblower,” a dogged inspector general, a patriotic ambassador, and a decorated military hero would play starring roles in Schiff’s newest “Get Trump” drama. All of the key figures, we have been assured by Schiff’s toadies in the media, are of unassailable character—just brave Americans risking it all to protect the Constitution and whatnot from a lawless, corrupt president. But just like Schiff’s repeated promises of evidence of Russian collusion, it’s all a ruse. Schiff’s staff met with the “whistleblower” in early August before the complaint was prepared even though Schiff denied it in an interview. But the “whistleblower” is not a concerned professional intelligence official, as he’s been portrayed in the press. He’s a Democratic Party operative. “Federal documents reveal that [Eric] Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” according to Real Clear Investigation’s Paul Sperry. Ciaramella left the Trump White House in 2017 amid suspicions he was leaking information to the press; he ended up back at the CIA. The Impeachment Narrative Is Falling ApartMichael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community inspector general, also is an Obama holdover with clear ties to the Obama Justice Department’s probe into the Trump presidential campaign. As I wrote last month, Atkinson worked directly for two top Justice Department officials involved in the illicit investigation. Atkinson’s office also reworked their whistleblower form to validate Ciaramella’s hearsay complaint. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called Atkinson’s closed-door Senate testimony last month “insolent and obstructive.” Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine who also has testified about his concerns regarding the Trump-Zelensky conversation, met with Schiff’s staff in late August in Ukraine as Schiff was hatching the “whistleblower” scandal. Taylor sent a text to his EU counterpart on September 9, claiming it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” a charge his colleague quickly rejected. That text, coincidentally, was sent the same day Atkinson sent his letter to Schiff about a dispute over the “whistleblower” report. (Trump’s White House released the aid on September 11.) The latest hero, Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s Ukranian expert, attempted to edit the call’s transcript. Vindman also admitted he shared copies of that transcript with several people, a potential violation of federal law since the document is classified government material. Vindman has his own ties to the Obama White House: He worked with former U.S. Ambassador Mike McFaul, one of the authors of Obama’s Russian “reset” policy. “I served with [Vindman] in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, where he was everything you would want in a military attaché: smart, knowledgeable about the country, fluent in Russian and absolutely dedicated to the mission of advancing U.S. national interests,” McFaul cooed in an October 30 Washington Post column. McFaul was sworn in by his boss, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in 2012 and was an Obama confidant even after he left his post in 2014. McFaul also is friends with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, a central figure in the Russia collusion hoax. So just as his impeachment drive is heating up, Schiff’s Ukrainian chimera is falling apart. Further, the transcript of Trump’s phone call is public; the funds were released to Ukraine nearly two months ago. Public opinion is almost evenly split among voters who believe Trump should be impeached over the call; those who think he did nothing wrong; and voters who want the House to stop investigating the president altogether. But none of this matters to the California Democrat who, unfortunately, the American people will see a lot more of over the next several weeks. The Schiff Show is here, whether we like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 1, 2019 17:16:53 GMT -6
On “CBS Evening News,” Norah O’Donnell asked Schiff, “Republicans say they’re concerned that the Democrats will block the witnesses that they want to hear from. Can you assure them that you won’t reject those witnesses?” “Well, we’ve asked them for proffer of which witnesses they think are relevant, and I have to say, we have concerns that they’re going to propose a bunch of witnesses that have no bearing, that they can use merely to smear the president’s opponents or for other improper purposes,” Schiff said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 4:04:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 4:20:52 GMT -6
Christopher Steele has been a busy person: amp.dailycaller.com/2019/11/01/christopher-steele-brexit-russiaReport: Christopher Steele Also Meddled In The Russia-Brexit Investigation British authorities included information from Christopher Steele, the author of the anti-Trump dossier, in a highly anticipated document about possible Russian meddling in the 2016 Brexit referendum, according to a report. Steele, a former MI6 officer, provided research to the British parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which has investigated possible Kremlin interference in British politics for more than a year, according to The Guardian’s Luke Harding, who wrote a book about Steele’s investigation of President Donald Trump. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/01/trump-russia-dossier-author-gave-evidence-to-uk-intrusion-inquiryIt is unclear what information Steele provided for the investigation, but the report will say British intelligence found no evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the Brexit vote, which was held June 23, 2016, two sources directly familiar with the report told BuzzFeed News. The Russia report became a source of controversy this week after Dominic Grieve, the member of parliament who chairs ISC, accused Prime Minister Boris Johnson of improperly withholding the findings. Grieve’s protests have led to some speculation that the investigation uncovered evidence of Russian involvement in the Brexit vote. The report states that the finding of no Russian meddling is categorical, according to BuzzFeed. It is unclear from the Guardian report what information Steele provided to British authorities, or when he shared it. Steele, who operates the firm Orbis Business Intelligence in London, was hired in June 2016 by Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm, to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia. The Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign had hired Fusion GPS months earlier to collect dirt on Trump. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on possible Trump-Russia collusion undercut several of Steele’s most explosive allegations, including that there was a “well-developed conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election. The Justice Department’s inspector general is set to release a report on whether the FBI properly handled information from Steele, which was used to obtain four surveillance warrants against Page. After Trump’s election win, Steele continued working with Fusion GPS on behalf of The Democracy Integrity Project, a U.S.-based non-profit group founded by Daniel Jones, a former Senate Intelligence Committee aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein. (RELATED: Firms Tied To Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele Were Paid $3.8 Million By Soros-Backed Group) TDIP’s tax filing in 2017 shows that the group paid Fusion GPS and Steele’s firm more than $3.3 million and $250,000, respectively. TDIP also paid nearly $150,000 to Istok Associates, a U.K.-based firm that has pushed the allegation that Russia interfered in the Brexit vote. According to TDIP’s tax filing, the group conducted research and analysis and managed “a network” of organizations aimed at tracking efforts by foreign actors “to interfere in democratic elections.” The tax filing does not specific TDIP’s work, but says the group shares information with “a variety of organizations … including government entities.” Neil Barnett, the CEO of Istok Associates, has been an outspoken proponent of the theory that Russian interference in Brexit. He asserted in a Nov. 11, 2017, article that evidence suggested that Russia had interfered in the Brexit referendum. He also said British officials were withholding information about Russian intrusion from the public. In an article July 26, 2016, Barnett questioned whether Arron Banks, a British entrepreneur who helped fund Leave.EU, a political campaign that supported the Brexit referendum, had ties to Russians. Neither Orbis nor Istok responded to requests for comment.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 7:28:33 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/11/01/hunter-biden-resignation-bhr-board/Business records accessed Friday show that Hunter Biden remains listed as a board member of a Chinese private equity firm, a position the son of former Vice President Joe Biden said he’d relinquish by the end of October.
Hunter Biden’s lawyer said he had resigned his seat on the board of BHR Partners; however, the lawyer did not provide the Daily Caller News Foundation any evidence of his departure. Hunter Biden was listed as an active director of BHR Partners in the firm’s file on China’s National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System when accessed on Nov. 1 by the DCNF. The most recent change to the firm occurred on Sept. 18, according to BHR’s business records. “Yes, Hunter has resigned from the board,” Hunter Biden’s lawyer, George Mesires, told the DCNF in a single-sentence statement Friday. It’s possible that Chinese business records don’t yet reflect Hunter Biden’s resignation from the BHR board due to a processing delay, but Mesires did not provide evidence of Hunter Biden’s departure, despite the DCNF’s repeated requests for a copy of his resignation letter to BHR or even a departure date. Mesires also did not provide an explanation as to why he didn’t provide such information. TOP ARTICLES 2/5 READ MORE SEC Week 10 Preview And Predictions: The World’s Largest Cocktail Party Mesires issued a statement in October that Hunter Biden would resign from BHR’s board “on or by October 31, 2019.” Hunter Biden obtained his seat on BHR’s board when the firm was founded in 2013. He traveled to China on Air Force Two in December 2013 and arranged for Joe Biden to shake hands with the CEO of BHR. At the time of the meeting, which Hunter Biden later described as social in nature, BHR was seeking to raise $1.5 billion from Chinese state-backed investors. The firm currently manages the equivalent of $2.1 billion in assets, according to its website. Hunter Biden said he has not received any compensation for serving on BHR’s board of directors. But between 2014 and 2015, Hunter Biden received, for undisclosed purposes, over $700,000 from a capital management company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai (RSB), which during that timeframe had obtained a 20% equity stake in BHR. (RELATED: ‘Fun Times In Beijing’: Hunter Biden Received $700,000 From Company That Held Stake In Chinese Investment Firm) BHR did not respond to multiple inquiries by the DCNF seeking confirmation that Hunter Biden had relinquished his board position. BHR’s business records accessed Friday also list Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, as the firm’s supervisor, a role that grants Schwerin the authority to oversee the firm’s financial affairs and oversee its board of directors. Hunter Biden obtained a 10% equity stake in BHR in 2017 through a Washington, D.C., company called Skaneateles LLC, which he and Schwerin were listed as directors as recently as Oct. 14, the DCNF previously reported. Skaneateles obtained its equity stake on the same day RSB divested its shares, according to business records. Hunter Biden was made the sole director of Skaneateles in an Oct. 22 report filed with the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs that removed Schwerin from his role with the company. The Joe Biden campaign did not return a request for comment.
|
|