|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 10:16:36 GMT -6
The Justice Department on Friday responded to Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell’s motion to compel production of Brady Material and to hold prosecutors in contempt. Sidney Powell filed a motion a couple weeks ago revealing that General Flynn was indeed set up by the FBI with an ambush, damaging leaks and altered 302 reports. Powell revealed that former FBI lawyer Lisa Page EDITED General Mike Flynn’s 302 report, then lied to the DOJ about the edits. A 302 summary report consists of contemporaneous notes taken by an FBI agent when interviewing a subject. The DOJ on Friday argued in a surreply that Sidney Powell’s motion should be denied because there were “no material changes made after 2/10/2017 to the draft of the January 24 interview report.” However, there is evidence to the contrary. See below for all of the blue-lined insertions [e.g. Russian Ambassador describing a Russian response] are material, via Techno Fog: It appears the DOJ admitted in their surreply that the original 302 report by Strzok was lost or went missing. Here the DOJ argues that “even if the original STILL existed” meaning THE ORIGINAL 302 IS MISSING! And here they are admitting the evidence was destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 10:33:10 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/01/pelosi-impeachment-meetings-in-schiffs-secret-lair-will-continue-as-long-as-they-remain-productive/Pelosi: Impeachment Meetings in Schiff’s Secret Lair Will Continue as Long as They Remain ‘Productive’ ............................ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told Bloomberg reporters during a roundtable discussion on Friday that she “would assume” that public impeachment hearings will take place this month but added that depositions – held in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) secret impeachment chamber – will continue as long as they remain “productive.” Pelosi’s admission follows reports of additional secret meetings scheduled over the next several days, despite the Democrats’ claim that their partisan resolution addressed Republican demands for transparency. House Democrats on Friday passed the impeachment inquiry resolution 232-196. Two Democrats – Reps. Van Drew (D-NJ) and Collin Peterson (D-MN) – voted against the resolution alongside every single Republican. The sharp party-line divide speaks to the unprecedented partisan nature of the inquiry, which Democrats never authorized with a full House vote. Pelosi, speaking to Bloomberg reporters on Friday, said that public impeachment hearings could come this month but added that Democrats will continue to hold depositions behind closed doors in Schiff’s secret impeachment room in the basement of the Capitol, as long as they remain “productive.” “I don’t know what the timetable will be — the truth will set us free,” she said, according to Bloomberg. “We have not made any decisions on if the president will be impeached.” She also signaled that the inquiry could drip into 2020. “There is — I should say — a mountain of concerns to be brought up,” she said, according to Bloomberg. “When does the law of diminished returns set in?” “There has to be clarity,” she continued, arguing that President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky “changed everything in the public mind,” seemingly ignoring the polls suggesting otherwise. A National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies October 1-3, 2019, found that the majority of voters in key congressional districts do not view Trump’s phone call with Zelensky as an impeachable offense. As Breitbart News reported: The poll shows the majority, 59 percent, do not view the conversation as an impeachable offense, while 37 percent view it as impeachable. While opinions on impeachment are largely divided on party lines, the majority of independents– 57 percent – do not view the conversation itself as impeachable. Additionally, a USA Today/Suffolk poll released this week found that the majority of registered voters, 51.2 percent, “either disapprove or strongly disapprove of Speaker Pelosi’s job performance as she moves towards impeaching President Trump.” As Breitbart News reported, the resolution does virtually nothing to guarantee transparency moving forward, as it merely states that the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Schiff, shall conduct “an open hearing or hearings.” It also does not require Democrats to release the transcripts of previous testimonies which were unnecessarily held in secret, as they did not contain classified information. The resolution passed Friday supposedly outlines rules and procedures moving forward, but Republicans say that Democrats crafted the resolution under the guise of transparency. Therefore, it does little to nothing to satisfy their mounting concerns. For example, one of the provisions in the resolution provides a loophole for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, allowing them – under Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler’s (D-NY) leadership – to reject White House witnesses as a form of retribution. Roll Call asked Nadler about the provision, which he described as a precautionary measure. “I hope we don’t need to use it,” he said, according to Roll Call.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 12:06:33 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/11/02/alexander-vindman-brit-hume-fallacy/Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reportedly “deeply troubled” by what he saw as President Donald Trump’s efforts to “subvert U.S. foreign policy,” but Fox News commentator Brit Hume pointed out a “huge fallacy” in that line of thinking. “[Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen,” The Washington Post reported Friday, referring to the NSC official’s Tuesday impeachment inquiry testimony. Hume, however, used Twitter to point out the fact that there is a “huge fallacy” in Vindman’s reasoning. “Anyone know what it is?” Hume asked in the Saturday tweet. The answer, as nearly every respondent to Hume’s tweet pointed out, is that it is the president himself who is tasked to set United States foreign policy. Not long after his House testimony, several commented on Vindman’s distaste for Trump’s “America First” foreign policy and his apparent desire for a hand in setting policy himself.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 15:59:08 GMT -6
This would be hilarious if it happened lol : thegreggjarrett.com/will-the-whistleblower-be-implicated-in-fisa-report/If this information is true, it is possible that this “whistleblower” could be one of the individuals who might need a defense lawyer in the coming weeks when the findings of the FISA report are made public. The reported direct relationship with James Brennan, the “Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” and Susan Rice makes them a likely candidate to be at the very least called as a witness in the cases that are likely to start following the FISA report. In addition, his area of expertise is reportedly Russia and Ukraine; two of the reported locations where information used in the anti- Trump Russian Dossier was “gathered.” The name that Real Clear Investigations revealed is also listed as a source in one of Robert Mueller’s footnotes in his report.
This means that with the Democrats starting the impeachment inquiry the “whistleblower” may be a witness, or a defendant, in a separate case where real evidence has been produced of criminal wrongdoing. In this case, their feelings, opinions, and rumors that they heard will not be important. The facts and potentially illegal actions that took place to start the witch hunt against President Trump will be concrete evidence that the Democrats and the media will be unable to spin politically.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 16:03:40 GMT -6
Maybe Pelosi is trying to play the long game here with impeachment:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 5:24:24 GMT -6
Judicial Watch once again with the heavy lifting. We now know that Obama State Department Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer funneled the bogus ‘Steele Dossier’ to Democrat Lawmakers in late November 2016. This would seem to be slightly important: www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/in-the-news/tom-fitton-steele-laundered-dossier-into-doj-through-obama-state-dept-contact/Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation today released 18 pages of documents revealing former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer coordinating with then-House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) national security advisor, Daniel Silverberg to work on Russia dossier materials provided by Christopher Steele,” Judicial Watch released.
The documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after requests for communications about the dossier were ignored by State Department officials. They show direct conversations between Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson, Winer and Nuland about getting together for a meeting about a “Russia related issue.”
From Hoyer’s office, Daniel Silverberg praised Nuland’s work on the issue and called her a “warrior.” “It was a delight to speak today, notwithstanding the context. You’ve been a warrior on these issues, and I look forward to speaking further to preserve and wherever possible strengthen the important work you have done. I’ll follow up regarding a possible working group meeting,” Silverberg wrote to Nuland on November 28, 2016.And this week Judicial Watch discovered that just weeks after his meeting with Democrat lawmakers Jonathan Winer had a 10-minute phone call with with Alexey Vladimirovich Skosyrev, the “political chief” at the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC. www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-state-department-official-in-contact-with-russian-embassy-political-chief-one-month-before-trump-inauguration/Following Winer’s December 23 call with Russian political operative Skosyrev, State Department official Anne Sackville-West provides a “read-out” of the call to department colleagues in which she updates the “S-Lavrov points” (Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov). The body of the read-out is entirely redacted as classified for reasons of national security or foreign policy. Despite the classification, Eric Green, then-director of the Office of Russian Affairs in the Eurasian Bureau of the State Department, forwarded the exchange via his unsecure BlackBerry to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Kathleen Kavalec, to Obama Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Ambassador Victoria Nuland, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary John Heffern. Kavalec then responds, saying “Jonathan called me after first trying to get through to Toria and John. He relayed this readout, noting that Skosyrev emphasized that [redacted].”
“The State Department has still not fully explained its role in collecting and disseminating Christopher Steele’s false allegations about President Trump’s ties to Russia,” said Daily Caller News Foundation President Neil Patel. “The latest documents obtained by Judicial Watch on behalf of The Daily Caller News Foundation raise new and important questions about the role played by Jonathan Winer, who played a key role as Steele’s conduit to U.S. diplomats.”Sedition much?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 6:25:25 GMT -6
MSM talking heads wondering if Impeachment will only make Trump stronger, etc.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 6:43:40 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/02/dem-chief-deputy-whip-kildee-i-regret-that-some-dems-decided-that-they-wanted-to-impeach-long-before-ukraine/On Saturday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “America’s News HQ,” House Democratic Chief Deputy Whip Dan Kildee (D-MI) said he regrets that some Congressional Democrats “had already decided that they wanted to impeach” President Trump before the Ukraine issue came up, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore what we know about Trump’s behavior. Kildee said that the impartiality of Congressional Democrats in light of some of them prejudging impeachment is “a legitimate issue, and I regret the fact that some of my colleagues, long before even the Ukraine question came forward, had already decided that they wanted to impeach the president. You know, many of us came to the conclusion a little bit later in the process, but I don’t think because of that, we can ignore the fact that we do now…see behavior that we think does rise to the level of an impeachment inquiry, but I think it’s a fair point, and I think it’s a dangerous thing for either side.” He later added that “some members, I think legitimately, have decided, that, based on the president’s own admissions, that he violated his oath. That’s a fair conclusion for people to draw based on his own admissions.” Kildee also stated, “I think it’s fair to say that Republicans ought not come to the conclusion that, no matter what the evidence shows, President Trump will be exonerated.” .......................................................................... From the comments section: The six Dem Senators / presidential candidates have already publicly convicted Trump. If there is a Senate trial to remove Trump from office, they are part of the jury. They’ve not only decided on the verdict before the trial, they stand to personally benefit from either Trumps removal from office or the damage that’s being done to his campaign. When Hillary went on her crime spree in 2016 she couldn’t even be investigated, let alone charged with a crime because she was a presidential candidate. “And justice for all”. Unless you’re an enemy or friend of the Deep State.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 9:34:17 GMT -6
President Bill Clinton was impeached because an independent special counsel found that he committed 11 crimes, including multiple counts of lying and obstructing justice. Today the Democrat led House is attempting to impeach President Donald Trump after a corrupt and biased Mueller Special Counsel found no crimes – zero! Courtesy of the left leaning Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/icreport.htmI. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath as a defendant in Jones v. Clinton regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
(1) He denied that he had a “sexual relationship” with Monica Lewinsky (2) He denied that he had a “sexual affair” with Monica Lewinsky (3) He denied that he had “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky (4) He denied that he engaged in or caused contact with the genitalia of “any person” with an intent to arouse or gratify (oral sex performed on him by Ms. Lewinsky) (5) He denied that he made contact with Monica Lewinsky’s breasts or genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify A. Evidence that President Clinton Lied Under Oath During the Civil Case 1. President Clinton’s Statements Under Oath About Monica Lewinsky 2. Monica Lewinsky’s Testimony (i) Wednesday, November 15, 1995 (ii) Friday, November 17, 1995 (iii) Sunday, December 31, 1995 (iv) Sunday, January 7, 1996 (v) Sunday, January 21, 1996 (vi) Sunday, February 4, 1996 (vii) Sunday, March 31, 1996 (viii) Sunday, April 7, 1996 (ix) Friday, February 28, 1997 (x) Saturday, March 29, 1997 (xi) Two Subsequent Meetings 3. Phone Sex 4. Physical Evidence 5. Testimony of Ms. Lewinsky’s Friends, Family Members, and Counselors (i) Catherine Allday Davis (ii) Neysa Erbland (iii) Natalie Rose Ungvari (iv) Ashley Raines (v) Andrew Bleiler (vi) Dr. Irene Kassorla (vii) Linda Tripp (viii) Debra Finerman (ix) Dale Young (x) Kathleen Estep 6. Summary
II. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
A. Background B. The President’s Grand Jury Testimony C. Summary
III. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath during his civil deposition when he stated that he could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky and when he minimized the number of gifts they had exchanged.
A. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath when he testified that he could not specifically recall instances in which he was alone with Monica Lewinsky. 1. The President’s Civil Deposition Testimony 2. Evidence That Contradicts the President’s Testimony 3. The President’s Grand Jury Testimony 4. Summary B. There is substantial and credible information that the President lied under oath in his civil deposition about gifts he exchanged with Monica Lewinsky. 1. The President’s Civil Deposition Testimony About His Gifts to Monica Lewinsky 2. Evidence that Contradicts the President’s Civil Deposition Testimony 3. President’s Civil Deposition Testimony About Gifts from Monica Lewinsky to the President 4. Evidence that Contradicts the President’s Testimony (i) Monica Lewinsky’s Testimony 5. Grand Jury Testimony of the President and Ms. Currie 6. Summary
IV. There is substantial and credible information that the President lied under oath during his civil deposition concerning conversations he had with Monica Lewinsky about her involvement in the Jones case.
A. Conversations with Ms. Lewinsky Regarding the Possibility of Her Testifying in the Jones Case 1. President Clinton’s Testimony in His Deposition 2. Evidence that Contradicts the President’s Civil Deposition Testimony (i) Ms. Lewinsky’s Testimony (ii) The President’s Grand Jury Testimony 3. Summary B. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition when he denied knowing that Ms. Lewinsky had received her subpoena at the time he had last talked to her. 1. Evidence 2. Summary
V. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by engaging in a pattern of activity to conceal evidence regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky from the judicial process in the Jones case. The pattern included:
(i) concealment of gifts that the President had given Ms. Lewinsky and that were subpoenaed from Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones case; and ii) concealment of a note sent by Ms. Lewinsky to the President on January 5, 1998. A. Concealment of Gifts 1. Evidence Regarding Gifts 2. The President’s Grand Jury Testimony 3. Summary of Gifts B. January 5, 1998, Note to the President 1. Evidence Regarding the January 5, 1998 Note 2. President Clinton’s Testimony 3. Summary on January 5, 1998, Note
VI. There is substantial and credible information that
(i) President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky had an understanding that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their relationship; and (ii) President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by suggesting that Ms. Lewinsky file an affidavit so that she would not be deposed, she would not contradict his testimony, and he could attempt to avoid questions about Ms. Lewinsky at his deposition. A. Evidence Regarding Affidavit and Use of Affidavit B. Summary of President’s Grand Jury Testimony C. Evidence Regarding Cover Stories D. The President’s Grand Jury Testimony on Cover Stories E. Summary
VII. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness against him were she to tell the truth during the Jones case.
A. Evidence B. Summary
VIII. There is substantial and credible information that the President lied under oath in describing his conversations with Vernon Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky.
A. President’s Testimony in the Jones Case B. Evidence That Contradicts the President’s Civil Deposition C. Summary
IX. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by attempting to influence the testimony of Betty Currie.
A. Evidence 1. Saturday, January 17, 1998, Deposition 2. Sunday, January 18, 1998, Meeting with Ms. Currie 3. Conversation Between the President and Ms. Currie on Tuesday, January 20, 1998, or Wednesday, January 21, 1998. B. The President’s Grand Jury Testimony C. Summary
X. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the federal grand jury investigation. While refusing to testify for seven months, he simultaneously lied to potential grand jury witnesses knowing that they would relay the falsehoods to the grand jury.
A. The Testimony of Current and Former Aides 1. John Podesta 2. Erskine Bowles 3. Sidney Blumenthal 4. Harold Ickes B. The President’s Grand Jury Testimony C. Summary
XI. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton’s actions since January 17, 1998, regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky have been inconsistent with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
A. Beginning on January 21, 1998, the President misled the American people and Congress regarding the truth of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. B. The First Lady, the Cabinet, the President’s staff, and the President’s associates relied on and publicly emphasized the President’s denial. C. The President repeatedly and unlawfully invoked the Executive Privilege to conceal evidence of his personal misconduct from the grand jury. D. The President refused six invitations to testify to the grand jury, thereby delaying expeditious resolution of this matter, and then refused to answer relevant questions before the grand jury when he testified in August 1998. E. The President misled the American people and the Congress in his public statement on August 17, 1998, when he stated that his answers at his civil deposition in January had been “legally accurate.”Here is a list of all the crimes President Trump committed leading to the current corrupt impeachment hearings going on by the corrupt Democrat House – Zero-nadda-none The corrupt Mueller Special Counsel gang led by the most conflicted, biased and criminal gang of Democrat crooks in US history could not find a single crime after spending $40 million of tax payer money on a fraudulent ‘Russia Collusion’ scam. The President was never allowed to defend himself or call out in court any of the abuses and crimes the Mueller gang took part in during the scandalous investigation. Today the Democrats are creating their own investigation of a phone call President Trump had with the newly elected Ukrainian leader into their own hands. 1. The Democrats investigation is taking place in the Democrat led House. 2. They are holding it behind closed doors in a room in the basement of the capital. 3. They are leaking anti-Trump smears daily as a result of their investigation. 4. The corrupt media is doing all it can to promote the fraudulent investigation, like it did with the fraudulent Mueller sham. 5. The Republicans are not allowed to call witnesses. 6. Only one person in Congress knows who the whistleblower is – the same individual who is running the sham investigation – Lying and chronically dishonest Adam Schiff. 7. Schiff and the Democrats are interrupting any questions allowed by the Republicans in the House. 8. Schiff is coaching witnesses. Yes, sounds fair and impartial here lol.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 9:55:32 GMT -6
Former Czech Ambassador to Russia and then Ukraine Jaroslav Bašta spoke to iDNES.cz news last week. The discussion centered around the 2016 US presidential election and the current political situation in the United States. Bašta, who is familiar with the politics in Ukraine, accused the FBI, CIA and US Democrats, along with the former Ukrainian government, of colluding in the interest of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Bašta added, “And it is not just some conjecture, everything is well documented by the Ukrainian authorities and now also based on the first court decision.” Bašta also told iDNES.cz that what Joe Biden and his son did in Ukraine is much worse than anything Donald Trump did, saying, “It can be said that Stalin behaved as arrogantly as Biden to Ukraine.”
Ambassador Bašta also claims the FBI, CIA and Democrat party are acting behind the scenes to remove the duly elected president, “It’s a thing typical of dictatorships.”www.idnes.cz/zpravy/zahranicni/ukrajina-trump-biden-zelenskyj-jaroslav-basta.A191030_151422_domaci_rik?&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sharecd&utm_campaign=desktopThat would mean, however, that the Democrats, with the help of Ukraine, had actually done something to blame him and Russia. With the difference that they did something worse than what they blamed Trump. They knew very well how much lump of butter they had on their heads, and so they probably resisted a preventive counter-strike. And I also understand why they are so terribly nervous now that they have rushed to impeachment as another preventive counter-strike. The first thing was that even if Trump had done everything they blame him now – as I didn’t think he did – then Biden had done something much worse. Secondly, they are aware of the fact that if all these things were investigated in Ukraine and brought to justice, it would be devastating for them and all their icons. Following the judgments of the Ukrainian courts, a major investigation in the FBI, the CIA and the state apparatus would necessarily have to be launched.
And that triggered the impeachment? In this context, it is quite interesting that the basic information about Trump’s conversation with Zelenský, which launched a campaign of democrats and then impeachment, was brought to the world by a CIA employee … pre-election political struggle overwhelmed by confidential talks of statesmen, which are conducted in a certain way, style and language precisely because they are confidential.
You spent many years in the diplomatic service. It seems to me that the very fact that information about the conversation of his top boss, the head of state with another president, is brought directly by a secret service employee, is not very common. It’s a thing typical of dictatorships.
And what does it mean when it happens in a democratic country? It may mean that there is a struggle inside these services. But in any case, this suggests, in my opinion, that some members of the secret services are engaged in a political struggle for the American Democrats and against their President.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 11:53:22 GMT -6
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-vindman/trump-says-more-information-soon-to-be-released-about-white-houses-vindman-idUSKBN1XD007U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday that more information would be released shortly about Alexander Vindman, the U.S. official who told Congress he was concerned that Trump’s call with Ukraine’s leader threatened national security.
Vindman, a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and National Security Council official, has been targeted by Trump since his Oct. 29 congressional testimony was released. Trump tweeted that day that Vindman was a “Never Trumper witness.”
Asked whether he regrets calling the Vindman a “Never Trumper,” Trump told reporters on Saturday, “Well, you’ll be seeing very soon what comes out and then you can ask the question in a different way.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 12:05:51 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/liz-cheney-calls-on-pelosi-to-end-selective-leaking-of-impeachment-testimonyRepublican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) penned a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday demanding that the Democrat-led committees immediately release the transcripts of the closed-door hearings that have taken place as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. “Despite the vote in the House on October 31, House Democrats continue to conduct the partisan effort to impeach the President in secret,” Cheney wrote in the letter. “Your duty to the Constitution and the American people, as well as fundamental fairness, requires that you immediately release the full transcripts of all depositions taken since you pronounced the beginning of an impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019.” “The selective leaking in which the House Intelligence Committee has been engaged must end immediately and the full and complete record must be provided for the American people to see,” she added. Cheney’s request comes only a day after the full House voted on a resolution establishing the process for the impeachment investigation into the president. The measure passed largely along party lines, 232-196, with only two Democrats defecting on the vote. The resolution outlines how the House Intelligence Committee will proceed with the hearings and gather evidence before turning over the process to the House Judiciary Committee to craft the articles of impeachment, but, Cheney argued, it does not bring additional transparency to the process. Republicans have been sounding the alarm over how secretly Democrats have been conducting the impeachment hearings. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee and has been a vocal critic of the process, revealed earlier in October that Democrats have only made the testimony from two witnesses even available to committee members — that of U.S. special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Even then, Democrats have severely restricted the availability of transcripts. “This has been a closed-door, unfair, and unprecedented process. Tens of millions of Americans should know that their member of Congress has had no access to any of the transcripts. In fact, no member has been able to read every transcript,” Stefanik told reporters on October 22. “We were notified this week at our staff level that they would only be printing one transcript for every single member, whether you’re on the committee or not, and you would have to read it with a member of Democratic staff,” Stefanik explained further. “That is unprecedented and unfair.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is leading the impeachment charge, promised to begin releasing transcripts “as early as next week.” Schiff, however, has been facing backlash for not only conducting close-door hearings in the basement of the Capitol Building, but for promulgating theories that have later been debunked. Accordingly, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) filed an ethics complaint against Adam Schiff on Wednesday for his “blatant and clear-cut violation of longstanding parliamentary precedent” over the impeachment inquiry. The California congressman has been making the rounds on news programs and press conferences discussing private information that has leaked from witnesses’ closed door depositions. While the source of the leaks has not been confirmed, many lawmakers have been pointing at Schiff himself.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 16:35:51 GMT -6
On Sunday morning President Trump spoke with liberal reporters on the White House lawn before his trip to Kentucky. President Trump called out the liberal fake news media for not reporting on the far left whistleblower. President Trump: As you know the whistleblower gave a VERY inaccurate report. And, as you know, certain of the media released information on a man that they said was the whistleblower. I don’t know if that’s true or not. But what they said is he’s an Obama person. He was involved with Brennan. Susan Rice, which means Obama. He was like a big, big anti-Trump person, hated Trump and they said terrible things. Now I don’t know if it’s true or not but that was reported by some of the media so you’ll have to find out. Idon’t know why the media’s not on it because the whistleblower gave a very inaccurate report… You know who it is you just don’t want to report it. CNN knows who it is they just don’t want to report it. You’d do a public service if you did…
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 16:37:45 GMT -6
So, another lie from the whistleblower and his side.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 4:13:05 GMT -6
On Thursday investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson opined that Ciaramella may have filed the second-hand complaint now because he is worried the Trump admininistration, including Attorney General Bill Barr and Prosecutor John Durham, are getting close to uncovering the Democrat-Deep State crimes in the 2016 election. sharylattkisson.com/2019/10/who-is-the-whistleblower-thats-trying-to-take-down-trump/If the reporting is correct, it implies the “whistleblower” could have been worried Trump was getting close to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine’s interference in US elections in 2016.RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official’s status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate” — as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint. RealClearInvestigations, Oct. 30, 2019
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 5:02:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 5:06:21 GMT -6
One has to wonder if this is due to the addition of Paul Ryan, etc to their board? Here’s the new Fox logo:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 12:47:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 12:50:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 12:52:37 GMT -6
On Monday former US Attorney General Matt Whitaker told Harris Faulkner that the “whistleblower” is NOT guaranteed anonymity and should testify in public.
Matthew Whitaker: A whistleblower is never guaranteed anonymity. All they’re guaranteed is that they won’t be retaliated against from a workplace and a job standpoint. For me, I believe this whistleblower does need to publicly testify and be subject to cross examination which is consistent with the American legal traditions that we all believe make this a great country.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 15:06:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 15:10:41 GMT -6
Several White House officials on Monday told House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff to pound sand and didn’t show up for testimony in the Dems’ Soviet-style impeachment inquiry. Four Trump Administration officials who were scheduled to testify on Monday were a no-show. Among the witnesses who were subpoenaed to testify include top White House attorney John Eisenberg and a top advisor to Mick Mulvaney. The White House directed the four officials not to testify because the subpoenas were denying the witnesses the ability to bring administration lawyers in the hearing with them, reported the Wall Street Journal. www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-officials-not-expected-to-show-for-testimony-in-impeachment-inquiry-11572863402The officials who House committees had scheduled to testify in private session on Monday were Robert Blair, a senior adviser to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney ; John Eisenberg, deputy counsel to the president for national security affairs; Michael Ellis, Mr. Eisenberg’s deputy; and Brian McCormack, an associate director at the White House budget office.
On Sunday evening, the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas to Mr. Ellis and Mr. Blair.
A lawyer for Mr. Blair didn’t respond to a request for comment. The Financial Times reported that the lawyer said the White House had directed his client not to testify. A lawyer for Mr. Ellis said he wouldn’t testify in response to the subpoena, citing the White House directive. The committees also subpoenaed Mr. Eisenberg, according to a letter from his lawyer, who said the White House had instructed him not to testify, arguing he was “immune” as a senior adviser to the president from compelled congressional deposition.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 15:17:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 15:17:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 15:18:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 15:25:56 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/scoop-cia-fbi-informant-was-washington-post-source-for-russiagate-smears/SCOOP: CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears These close connections between the Washington Post’s David Ignatius and people connected to U.S. and U.K. intelligence raise grave concerns about the deep state using media to push propaganda. Margot ClevelandBy Margot Cleveland NOVEMBER 4, 2019 The Federalist has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this conclusion. Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case. In last week’s court filing, Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment. Powell wrote: Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense. Lokhova has known of Halper’s role in targeting Flynn since Halper was outed as a CIA and FBI informant in May 2018. She then sued Halper and several media outlets for defamation after they falsely repeated Halper’s lies that she was a Russian spy engaged in an intrigue with Flynn. This honey pot storyline originated with Lokhova’s mentor at Cambridge, the official MI5 historian, Professor Christopher Andrew, when on February 19, 2017, Andrew penned an article for the London Sunday Times, “Impulsive General Misha Shoots Himself in the Foot.” That article portrayed the unnamed Lokhova’s brief meeting with Flynn during a dinner event two years prior at Cambridge as the beginning of a compromising relationship between Flynn and a Russian spy. Andrew’s article later served as the second confirmation needed for outlets like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post to run stories about Flynn and a supposed Russian spy. But before those pieces hit the press, Lokhova remained in the dark about the media’s interest in her. “Halper had been pushing the story that I was a Russian spy and Flynn’s mistress since December of 2016,” Lokhova told me. “The New York Times’ Mathew Rosenberg told me a source had been circulating these stories since December 2016,” Lokhova said, “but they held the story until they could find a second source and someone at the Cambridge dinner.” In his book “The Plot Against the President,” Lee Smith confirms that the story about a Flynn-Lokhova intrigue was circulated to the press starting in December 2016. But it wasn’t until the Wall Street Journal published its March 17, 2017, article suggesting she had inappropriate contacts with Flynn that Lokhova discovered the earlier article Andrew had written about her for the Sunday Times, Lokhova said. Before then, within days of February 28, 2017, several journalists reached out to her for comment, including two working for the Wall Street Journal, but Lokhova didn’t know why. She also didn’t comprehend who the inquiring journalists were at the time. That remained true even after her mentor and unknown betrayer, Andrew, wrote Lokhova telling her that “David Ignatius of Washington Post is in UK at moment. I’ve known him for years and trust him. I’ve given him your email and he accepts that if you don’t wish to respond, that an end to it.” Then, significantly, Andrew noted that “Flynn’;s [sic] career for years past is obviously going to continue to be investigated. David has an inside track on that which I think he’d share with you if you’re interested.” What “inside track” Andrew meant is unknown—and when asked what his “inside track” on Flynn was, Ignatius did not respond—but his note came a mere month after Ignatius reported the illegally leaked details of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador, which eventually led to Flynn’s firing. Ignatius’ introductory email to Lokhova also proves informative, with the long-time Washington Post journalist branding the MI5-connected Andrew “my friend,” and stressing that Andrew invited him “to speak to his seminar a dozen years ago.” Lokhova did not talk to Ignatius at the time, but her partner, David North, later forwarded Ignatius an email he had sent to the Wall Street Journal on March 1 2017, making clear that Lokhova had no relationship with Flynn, having “met General Flynn on only one occasion at a dinner in Cambridge in February 2014. The dinner was attended by upwards of a dozen people, and she had a twenty-minute public conversation with General Flynn and others. They have not met or spoke since then.” Nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal ran a story about Flynn meeting Lokhova at Cambridge, and for that she is now suing the media mogul for defamation. When the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets picked up on the story, Lokhova also did not know Halper’s role in the rumor-mongering. “I had known Halper at Cambridge,” Lokhova told me for a previous story, “but he was just a boring old academic. I couldn’t see why he was painting me as a Russian spy until Halper was exposed as an informant. Then the pieces all fit together.” After Halper was outed as a CIA and FBI informant in May 2018, Lokhova contacted Ignatius. In an email recently obtained by The Federalist, Ignatius replied to Lokhova that he’d “like very much to ask you about Stefan Halper.” When they spoke, Lokhova registered surprise about Halper’s role. That prompted Ignatius to say “he always found Halper reliable as a source,” Lokhova told me. “When I said ‘Wow, he was your source,’ Ignatius hung up. We never spoke again.” Ignatius also did not respond to questions about his use of Halper as a source. These close connections between the Washington Post’s Ignatius and individuals connected to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting that has taken place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare of the soft coup aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda. Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 15:36:17 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/media/andy-mccarthy-trump-impeachment-trump-best-defenseMcCarthy: Trump's best defense is that Democrats' charges do not rise to the 'level of impeachment' President Trump's best defense against impeachment is that the House Democrats' charges do not rise to the level of impeachment, former U.S. Assistant Attorney Andy McCarthy said Friday. On Thursday, to the chagrin of protesting Republicans, the House of Representatives voted to endorse the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry into the president. The vote was 232 to 196 to approve a resolution that sets out rules for an impeachment process for which there are few precedents. It was just the third time in modern history that the House had taken such a vote. ANDY MCCARTHY: TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY'S SNEAKY NEXT CHAPTER According to an October ABC/Washington Post poll, 49 percent of a group of 1,003 adults think that President Trump should be removed from office, while 47 percent are opposed to impeachment. Appearing on the "Outnumbered" couch, McCarthy explained that you don't need a crime for impeachment. "For impeachment, they need to have an abuse of power that's sufficiently egregious, that it goes to the trust that we repose in an officeholder. It can be a felony if you have a felony, but it doesn't need to be," he said. Andy McCarthy: You don't need a crime for impeachment, you only need abuse of powerVideo "So, all this chatter about quid pro quo...there's quid pro quo in every single exchange. The question is, is the exchange in this instance an abuse of power?" he asked. McCarthy believes that Trump is "freezing his defense in place" by repeatedly claiming his call with the president of Ukraine was "perfect" and that the White House should shift its messaging. "His best defense here is that this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. To make that case, you need to confront what they say was wrong and why it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment," he said. "As long as they're saying...as long as their defense is, 'It's perfect and there's no quid pro quo,' they will never get to that," McCarthy added. "You can't impeach someone for having a dirty mouth."
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 4, 2019 18:03:51 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/scoop-cia-fbi-informant-was-washington-post-source-for-russiagate-smears/SCOOP: CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears These close connections between the Washington Post’s David Ignatius and people connected to U.S. and U.K. intelligence raise grave concerns about the deep state using media to push propaganda. Margot ClevelandBy Margot Cleveland NOVEMBER 4, 2019 The Federalist has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this conclusion. Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case. In last week’s court filing, Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment. Powell wrote: Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense. Lokhova has known of Halper’s role in targeting Flynn since Halper was outed as a CIA and FBI informant in May 2018. She then sued Halper and several media outlets for defamation after they falsely repeated Halper’s lies that she was a Russian spy engaged in an intrigue with Flynn. This honey pot storyline originated with Lokhova’s mentor at Cambridge, the official MI5 historian, Professor Christopher Andrew, when on February 19, 2017, Andrew penned an article for the London Sunday Times, “Impulsive General Misha Shoots Himself in the Foot.” That article portrayed the unnamed Lokhova’s brief meeting with Flynn during a dinner event two years prior at Cambridge as the beginning of a compromising relationship between Flynn and a Russian spy. Andrew’s article later served as the second confirmation needed for outlets like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post to run stories about Flynn and a supposed Russian spy. But before those pieces hit the press, Lokhova remained in the dark about the media’s interest in her. “Halper had been pushing the story that I was a Russian spy and Flynn’s mistress since December of 2016,” Lokhova told me. “The New York Times’ Mathew Rosenberg told me a source had been circulating these stories since December 2016,” Lokhova said, “but they held the story until they could find a second source and someone at the Cambridge dinner.” In his book “The Plot Against the President,” Lee Smith confirms that the story about a Flynn-Lokhova intrigue was circulated to the press starting in December 2016. But it wasn’t until the Wall Street Journal published its March 17, 2017, article suggesting she had inappropriate contacts with Flynn that Lokhova discovered the earlier article Andrew had written about her for the Sunday Times, Lokhova said. Before then, within days of February 28, 2017, several journalists reached out to her for comment, including two working for the Wall Street Journal, but Lokhova didn’t know why. She also didn’t comprehend who the inquiring journalists were at the time. That remained true even after her mentor and unknown betrayer, Andrew, wrote Lokhova telling her that “David Ignatius of Washington Post is in UK at moment. I’ve known him for years and trust him. I’ve given him your email and he accepts that if you don’t wish to respond, that an end to it.” Then, significantly, Andrew noted that “Flynn’;s [sic] career for years past is obviously going to continue to be investigated. David has an inside track on that which I think he’d share with you if you’re interested.” What “inside track” Andrew meant is unknown—and when asked what his “inside track” on Flynn was, Ignatius did not respond—but his note came a mere month after Ignatius reported the illegally leaked details of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador, which eventually led to Flynn’s firing. Ignatius’ introductory email to Lokhova also proves informative, with the long-time Washington Post journalist branding the MI5-connected Andrew “my friend,” and stressing that Andrew invited him “to speak to his seminar a dozen years ago.” Lokhova did not talk to Ignatius at the time, but her partner, David North, later forwarded Ignatius an email he had sent to the Wall Street Journal on March 1 2017, making clear that Lokhova had no relationship with Flynn, having “met General Flynn on only one occasion at a dinner in Cambridge in February 2014. The dinner was attended by upwards of a dozen people, and she had a twenty-minute public conversation with General Flynn and others. They have not met or spoke since then.” Nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal ran a story about Flynn meeting Lokhova at Cambridge, and for that she is now suing the media mogul for defamation. When the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets picked up on the story, Lokhova also did not know Halper’s role in the rumor-mongering. “I had known Halper at Cambridge,” Lokhova told me for a previous story, “but he was just a boring old academic. I couldn’t see why he was painting me as a Russian spy until Halper was exposed as an informant. Then the pieces all fit together.” After Halper was outed as a CIA and FBI informant in May 2018, Lokhova contacted Ignatius. In an email recently obtained by The Federalist, Ignatius replied to Lokhova that he’d “like very much to ask you about Stefan Halper.” When they spoke, Lokhova registered surprise about Halper’s role. That prompted Ignatius to say “he always found Halper reliable as a source,” Lokhova told me. “When I said ‘Wow, he was your source,’ Ignatius hung up. We never spoke again.” Ignatius also did not respond to questions about his use of Halper as a source. These close connections between the Washington Post’s Ignatius and individuals connected to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting that has taken place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare of the soft coup aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda. Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity. I gave up trying to keep track of who is sleeping with who in all of this. I don't think anything is going to keep this from blowing sky high. It seems as if they are just getting started.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 4:12:22 GMT -6
New memos reveal Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter. Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings. New memos released because of a FOIA lawsuit filed by award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon show Burisma Holdings contacted the Obama State Department several times during the 2016 election to discuss ending the probe. In fact, Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department. John Solomon reported: johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. (I filed that suit this summer with the help of the public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.) Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election. Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.” “Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption,” a Feb. 24, 2016, email between State officials read. “She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member). “Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt,” the email added. “According to Tramontano there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.” The emails show Tramontano was scheduled to meet Novelli on March 1, 2016, and that State Department officials were scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev. The records don’t show whether the meeting actually took place. The FOIA lawsuit is ongoing and State officials are slated to produce additional records in the months ahead. www.scribd.com/document/433389210/Bluestar-Novelli-Contacts
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 4:14:39 GMT -6
Rep. Devin Nunes: Remember, last Congress, they were hell bent on making sure that former Congressman Dana Rohrbacher testified. I said, I don’t think this is a very good idea having members of Congress come testify and give depositions. So, congratulations Democrats that are on the House Judiciary Committee. It’s now become the impeachment committee. They have set the precedent for members of Congress to give depositions and so you heard the Minority leader the Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, say that Schiff is our first witness. We have John Ratcliffe say Adam Schiff is our first witness. So, yes, he in fact is going to be our first witness.
|
|