|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 6, 2019 16:05:57 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/report-burisma-hired-firm-tried-to-leverage-ties-to-hunter-biden-to-get-u-s-government-meetings/Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings hired a consulting firm that attempted to capitalize on the business’s relationship with former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter to secure meetings with the U.S. State Department, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, citing emails. The firm’s overall efforts to secure a meeting with the State Department and improve Burisma’s image in Washington came amid Ukraine’s corruption investigations into the Ukrainian company and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky. Hunter served on Burisma’s board of directors from 2014 until April of this year. The Obama administration cleared Hunter to work for the Ukrainian company despite having received warnings that the company was corrupt from a top U.S. State Department official. Breitbart TV Play Video CLICK TO PLAY Charlie Kirk: Did You Notice No One Brought Up Mueller Report in Dem Debates? According to the email exchanges between State Department staffers, Karen Tramontano, the chief executive of the firm Blue Star, mentioned Hunter’s position within Burisma in trying to secure a meeting with a senior official at the State Department. The Wall Street Journal noted: In the contacts with the State Department, Ms. Tramontano said that Burisma hadn’t engaged in corruption and wanted to change the view of the company in Washington. The former official said that Hunter Biden’s position on the board wasn’t the reason that [the State Department] took the meeting and that no further action was taken after it took place. State and Blue Star declined the Journal’s request for comment. The government released the emails in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest nonprofit, on behalf of John Solomon, who shared the obtained information with the Journal. On Tuesday, the Journal reported: The documents—email exchanges between State Department staff members made public this week—show that the consulting firm, Washington-based Blue Star Strategies, used Hunter Biden’s name in a request for a State Department meeting and then mentioned him again during the meeting as part of an effort to improve Burisma’s image in Washington. … It isn’t clear whether the younger Mr. Biden knew his name was being used by Blue Star in its contacts with State Department officials on Burisma’s behalf in early 2016. A lawyer for Mr. Biden didn’t respond to a request for comment. In 2015, the Obama administration “rebuffed” warnings from the top State Department official who oversees policy towards Ukraine, George Kent, that Burisma was corrupt, the Washington Post reported on October 18. Kent made the revelation while giving a deposition in the Democrat’s impeachment inquiry on October 15. At the heart of the probe is a “whistleblower” complaint accusing President Donald Trump of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma-linked corruption allegations against the Bidens, allegedly in exchange for aid. Trump, Ukraine, and some impeachment probe witnesses have denied the existence of the alleged quid pro quo at the center of the inquiry in which Trump coerced Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in return for U.S. security assistance. Meanwhile, however, some witnesses have “presumed” that a quid pro quo did take place, citing second-hand knowledge. Hunter worked for Burisma when his father, while serving as vice president, was charged with overseeing U.S. policy towards Ukraine, prompting corruption accusations by Republicans. Hunter admitted to ABC News that his father’s political position helped him secure the lucrative appointment to Burisma’s board of directors. Joe Biden gloated about pressuring Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor in 2016 who had been investigating corruption allegations against Burisma and its owner.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 5:53:12 GMT -6
The whistleblower's attorney gives away the game plan with these latest tweets:
Seems readily apparent that this attorney is doing everything they can to support the coup that they have supported since 2017.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 6:02:22 GMT -6
President Trump brings up the whistleblower's lawyer's comments from 2017 at a recent Louisiana rally:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 6:08:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 6:18:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 6:19:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 7:49:14 GMT -6
Props to Rand Paul on this move: www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-blocks-senate-push-to-protect-trump-whistleblowerSen. Rand Paul, R.-Ky., on Wednesday blocked a resolution to reaffirm whistleblower protections, accusing Democrats of “selective outrage.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., and Sen. Mazie Hirono, D.-Hawaii, made a unanimous consent request, meaning all 100 senators must agree with no objections, to adopt a resolution underscoring the importance of protecting whistleblowers. “I support whistleblowers, and I do think they have a role to play in keeping government accountable … but what we have seen over the last few years is that we have a system that we should continue to refine,” said Paul, as The Hill reported. Paul suggested that Democrats drop their resolution and instead pass whistleblower legislation that he introduced earlier that day.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 7:54:47 GMT -6
A curious thing took place around early September around the time the ICIG sent a letter dated September 9 to House Intelligence Committee about the anonymous whistleblower complaint–the man alleged to be the whistleblower asked that his nearly year-old online book review of Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine by Anne Applebaum be taken down. It was later reportedly reposted but in edited form with his bio stripped. The Washington Examiner reported Wednesday that the editor in chief of the Washington Independent Review of Books, Holly Smith, said that took place at the request of Ciaramella. www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vindman-and-whistleblower-still-work-together-on-u-s-policy-towards-ukraineSeptember 9 letter by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 10:39:49 GMT -6
Democrats yanked the subpoena for ex-aide to former National Security Adviser John Bolton a week after a federal judge had put the case on the fast track. “The subpoena at issue in this matter has been withdrawn and there is no current intention to reissue it,” said a letter filed by lawyers for top Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff. In the letter, the chairmen of the committees leading the impeachment inquiry asked Kupperman’s attorneys if he would accept a separate ruling on a subpoena that involves former White House counsel Don McGahn. McGahn’s case is “much closer to resolution by the court than Dr. Kupperman’s flawed suit. Unless your lawsuit was admittedly only for purposes of delay, and without a subpoena in force, the Committees expect that your client will voluntarily dismiss the complaint he filed in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia on the same day he received Committee’s subpoena and be guided by the decision in McGahn,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff (D-CA.), Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY), and acting Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) wrote. “A House Intelligence Committee official explained why the House withdrew the subpoena for Kupperman, noting the court process ‘would only result in delay.’ ” CNN reported. www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/charles-kupperman-subpoena-house-investigators/index.html“There is no proper basis for a witness to sue the Congress in court to oppose a duly authorized congressional subpoena,” the official said. “Nevertheless, given the schedule of our impeachment hearings, a court process that leads to the dismissal of Dr. Kupperman’s flawed lawsuit would only result in delay, so we have withdrawn his subpoena.” The House told Kupperman’s attorney on Tuesday it still would be interested in speaking with him in the impeachment inquiry, and that he should sit for a deposition if another federal judge knocks down the White House’s blocking tactic in McGahn’s case. McGahn was subpoenaed in April to discuss the President’s attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation. Kupperman had filed suit after receiving the subpoena to get a ruling on whether he must testify. The White House, citing immunity for White House officials, said he need not appear.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 12:57:40 GMT -6
Facebook is threatening to ban any pages that would name the whistleblower.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 13:04:40 GMT -6
Myth: It is illegal to reveal the identity of the whistleblower.This is another myth designed to prevent the American people from learning anything about the origins of the impeachment scam. Whistleblowers are guaranteed protection from being fired, but § 3033 (g)(3)(A) does NOT forbid anyone other than the Inspector General from revealing the whistleblower’s identity. As NPR put it: donaldtrumpcampaign.cmail20.com/t/r-l-jdhljrtl-ukhkjtndk-h/Similarly, if a news outlet, member of Congress or member of the public outed the whistleblower, legal experts said, no criminal law would be violated. ‘There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law,’ said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. ‘Congress has never provided that protection.’”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 13:08:55 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/11/07/jim-jordan-republicans-subpoena-whistleblower/Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan announced Thursday that Republicans plan to subpoena the whistleblower as a witness in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Jordan told reporters that he wants the whistleblower to testify both publicly and privately, an idea that Democrats are likely to reject, according to The Hill. The whistleblower spurred an impeachment inquiry earlier this fall, when he filed a complaint over Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Jordan is currently the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and a close ally of the president’s. House Republicans have flirted with the idea of moving Jordan over to the House Intelligence Committee to counter Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff, who has been criticized by Republicans for his handling of various probes into the Trump administration and the president’s past business dealings. (RELATED: Here’s Video Of Adam Schiff Reportedly Lying To The National Press)
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 15:42:16 GMT -6
Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a letter Thursday asking for documents related to Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden and other firms owned/tied to Biden.
“In April 2014, Vice President Biden reportedly became the “public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.” Around the same time, the Vice President’s son, Hunter Biden, and his business associate, Devon Archer both began serving on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company,” the letter stated, adding that Hunter was being paid as much as $30,000 per month (it was actually more).
Grassley and Johnson also stated that Joe Biden bragged about threatening to withhold a billion in aid from Ukraine if they didn’t fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma.
“Well son of a bitch. He got fired,” Biden said of Viktor Shokin in 2018 to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The GOP Senators also referenced recent FOIA docs obtained by award-winning journalist John Solomon in their letter to Pompeo.
New memos obtained by John Solomon this week revealed 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.
The memos 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.
On page 4 of the letter, the Senators asked for a specific list of documents related to Burisma, Rosemnot Seneca, Blue Star Strategies, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, Christopher Heinz and Karen Tramontano.
All State Department records[17] relating to Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, Christopher Heinz, and Karen Tramontano. All State Department records relating to Burisma Holdings, Rosemont Seneca Partners, Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC, Rosemont Capital, and Blue Star Strategies. Based on the February 24, 2016 e-mail cited above, it appears that Ms. Tramontano wanted to meet with then-Under Secretary Novelli. Did this meeting occur? If so, when and who attended? Please produce all records relating to the meeting. With respect to the March 2, 2016, meeting between Devon Archer and Secretary Kerry, did that meeting take place? If so, when did it occur, what was it about, and who attended? Please produce all records relating to the meeting. With respect to the May 27, 2015, and July 22, 2015, meetings between Hunter Biden and Antony Blinken, did these meetings take place? If so, when did it occur, what was it about, and who attended? Please produce all records relating to the meeting. In the February 24, 2016 e-mail cited above, a State Department employee wrote that, “Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that [Burisma] is corrupt.” Based on this e-mail, it appears that the U.S. had “determin[ed]” Burisma to be corrupt. Is this accurate? Please explain. Has the State Department requested that the Office of the Legal Adviser or the Office of Inspector General review potential concerns and conflicts of interest related to Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma while Vice President Biden reportedly acted as the United States’ top official in Ukraine? If not, why not? The documents must be released to Grassley and Johnson by November 20.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 15:44:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 15:46:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 15:49:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 15:54:04 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/11/07/the-view-blasts-trump-jr-outing-whistleblower/Donald Trump Jr. fired back at the ladies on ABC’s “The View” during a heated segment Thursday about exposing whistleblowers. Abby Huntsman was the first to raise the issue, saying that Trump Jr. may have endangered lives when he tweeted the name of the alleged whistleblower with regard to President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Huntsman asked why Trump Jr. had gone public with the name, and he began by pointing out the fact that he was not the first to do so. “I think the reality of the answer is the whistle-blower’s name was on a little website called the Drudge Report a couple of days ago. I literally quote tweeted an article that had the guy’s name in the title of the article.” The president’s son went on to argue that the outrage over the whistleblower’s name being mentioned was disproportionate to the outrage when his family received a package filled with white powder. “It’s not a level playing field in terms of outrage. We live in an outrage culture,” he said. “There were millions of people, and for days he has been out there in the media,” Trump Jr. continued. “The name has been out there for five days,” Kimberly Guilfoyle added. “ABC is right now chasing down a whistle-blower about all of the Epstein stuff because those stories were killed. So if we’re going to have the conversation about the outrage about whistle-blowers —” Trump Jr. mentioned the news that just broke earlier in the day that CBS, with a tip from “The View’s” own host network ABC, had fired the person they believed to be responsible for leaking the footage of anchor Amy Robach claiming that the network had killed her Epstein bombshell. “Can we stay on the —” Whoopi Goldberg interrupted. “You worked with CBS to oust the whistle-blower to come up with a story,” Trump Jr. pressed. (RELATED: CBS Allegedly Fires Former ABC Employee Who Had Access To Amy Robach Video) “We ask one question and we stick to it,” Goldberg protested. “You work with them. That broke this morning,” Trump Jr. said again. “Can we stick to what she asked?” Goldberg said again, changing the subject as everyone began talking over each other.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 15:56:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 16:04:32 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/07/adam-schiff-makes-up-new-rules-for-impeachment-inquiry-restricts-republican-witness-questions/House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) issued a set of restrictions on Thursday morning limiting Republicans to calling witnesses that can respond to three questions, all of which reflect Democrats’ views. The questions, detailed in a letter Wednesday from Schiff to ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) are: Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election? Did the President — directly or through agents — seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine? Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress, or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President’s actions and conduct? Schiff is also requiring Nunes to submit “detailed written justification” for each witness requested. In a letter to Nunes, Schiff lists the deadline as “Saturday,” November 8, at 11:20 a.m. However, Nov. 8 is a Friday. There is nothing in the House impeachment inquiry resolution passed last week that allows Schiff to limit the scope of questions to witnesses. All it says is that witnesses must provide “relevant” testimony. The minority may propose witnesses through the ranking member, and can appeal to the committee as a whole if the chair rejects those. (This resolution, unlike the resolution in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, does not allow the ranking member similar rights to veto witnesses called by the chair). Schiff and the Democrats could simply vote to exclude Republican witnesses for any reason. By setting out narrow criteria for “relevance,” he appears to be attempting to minimize the political damage from votes by the majority to exclude the so-called “whistleblower” and other witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 7, 2019 19:37:01 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/07/adam-schiff-makes-up-new-rules-for-impeachment-inquiry-restricts-republican-witness-questions/House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) issued a set of restrictions on Thursday morning limiting Republicans to calling witnesses that can respond to three questions, all of which reflect Democrats’ views. The questions, detailed in a letter Wednesday from Schiff to ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) are: Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election? Did the President — directly or through agents — seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine? Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress, or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President’s actions and conduct? Schiff is also requiring Nunes to submit “detailed written justification” for each witness requested. In a letter to Nunes, Schiff lists the deadline as “Saturday,” November 8, at 11:20 a.m. However, Nov. 8 is a Friday. There is nothing in the House impeachment inquiry resolution passed last week that allows Schiff to limit the scope of questions to witnesses. All it says is that witnesses must provide “relevant” testimony. The minority may propose witnesses through the ranking member, and can appeal to the committee as a whole if the chair rejects those. (This resolution, unlike the resolution in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, does not allow the ranking member similar rights to veto witnesses called by the chair). Schiff and the Democrats could simply vote to exclude Republican witnesses for any reason. By setting out narrow criteria for “relevance,” he appears to be attempting to minimize the political damage from votes by the majority to exclude the so-called “whistleblower” and other witnesses. When I see things like this I have to sometimes wonder what I'm missing. To me it looks like they are basically taking over and writing it as they go. Is anyone going to be able to put an end to this?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 5:42:57 GMT -6
Ed Henry announced on FOX News that Mitch McConnell is giving President Trump pointers on how to gain the votes from Republican senators in the sham House impeachment process.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 5:46:37 GMT -6
Whistleblower was Joe Biden's guest at State Department banquet: www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-was-biden-guest-at-state-department-banquetEric Ciaramella, the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, was a guest of Vice President Joe Biden at a glitzy lunch in October 2016 to honor the prime minister of Italy. Biden co-hosted the banquet with former Secretary of State John Kerry for then-Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Ciaramella, who is of Italian heritage, was among the U.S. officials who accepted an invitation. This week, the Washington Examiner reported that Ciaramella is now a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the National Intelligence Council, reporting to the director of national intelligence. Ciaramella, a career CIA analyst, was Ukraine director on the National Security Council during the end of the Obama administration and remained there during the early months of the Trump administration, when he was briefly acting senior director for European and Russian affairs. He is now accused of being the official who filed a complaint about a July 25 phone call in which President Trump urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into a conspiracy theory regarding CrowdStrike and investigate Biden, a Democratic candidate for president in 2020, in relation to his son Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine. Photos: 2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/photos/2016/10/263278.htmVideo: www.c-span.org/video/?417107-1/state-department-holds-luncheon-italian-prime-minister-matteo-renzi foia.state.gov/search/results.aspx?searchText=ciaramella&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=&publishedEndDate=&caseNumber=
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 5:59:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 6:02:43 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/ukraine-whistleblower-trump-cease-and-desist/index.htmlcomplaint document triggered the House impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, has sent a letter to the White House warning the President to "cease and desist" attacking his client. "I am writing out of deep concern that your client, the President of the United States, is engaging in rhetoric and activity that places my client, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower, and their family in physical danger," Andrew Bakaj wrote to White House counsel Pat Cipollone in a Thursday letter obtained by CNN's Anderson Cooper. "I am writing to respectfully request that you counsel your client on the legal and ethical peril in which he is placing himself should anyone be physically harmed as a result of his, or his surrogates', behavior," he said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 6:09:23 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/07/nadler-possibility-senate-will-vote-to-remove-trump-from-office/On Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) stated that he thinks there is a “possibility” that the Senate will vote to remove President Trump from office, and said some Republicans in the Senate “may take a look at the election results the other day and start thinking, maybe I should be a little more fair and not dismissive.” Host Chris Hayes asked, “Do you see the process as possibly ending in the removal of the president of the United States? Is that a live possibility in your mind?” Nadler answered, “I think it is a possibility. I don’t know how to estimate the possibility, but I would certainly say it’s not a zero possibility. … I think it’s possible, depending how strong the evidence is, and depending on other political considerations, that maybe the Senate will act to remove the president. But I’m not going to give an estimate, and I can’t estimate that, but I will say I don’t think it’s a zero possibility. That’s a very cynical view that it’s a zero possibility. I also, to be political about it, I think some Republican senators may take a look at the election results the other day and start thinking, maybe I should be a little more fair and not dismissive.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 6:14:09 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/07/adam-schiff-makes-up-new-rules-for-impeachment-inquiry-restricts-republican-witness-questions/House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) issued a set of restrictions on Thursday morning limiting Republicans to calling witnesses that can respond to three questions, all of which reflect Democrats’ views. The questions, detailed in a letter Wednesday from Schiff to ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) are: Did the President request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the President’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the President’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 U.S. presidential election? Did the President — directly or through agents — seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the President’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to Ukraine? Did the President and his Administration seek to obstruct, suppress, or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the President’s actions and conduct? Schiff is also requiring Nunes to submit “detailed written justification” for each witness requested. In a letter to Nunes, Schiff lists the deadline as “Saturday,” November 8, at 11:20 a.m. However, Nov. 8 is a Friday. There is nothing in the House impeachment inquiry resolution passed last week that allows Schiff to limit the scope of questions to witnesses. All it says is that witnesses must provide “relevant” testimony. The minority may propose witnesses through the ranking member, and can appeal to the committee as a whole if the chair rejects those. (This resolution, unlike the resolution in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, does not allow the ranking member similar rights to veto witnesses called by the chair). Schiff and the Democrats could simply vote to exclude Republican witnesses for any reason. By setting out narrow criteria for “relevance,” he appears to be attempting to minimize the political damage from votes by the majority to exclude the so-called “whistleblower” and other witnesses. When I see things like this I have to sometimes wonder what I'm missing. To me it looks like they are basically taking over and writing it as they go. Is anyone going to be able to put an end to this? Which is what they are doing. Everything they have tried has failed big time. So, now they are going with a sham impeachment to try and remove him from office. Basically, Adam Schiff,(with the help of Pelosi and the Democrat majority in the House), has elected himself as a defacto "Special Prosecutor" where he can make up his own rules, etc in his investigation. The only way this ends is one of two ways. One: the removal of the President and Vice President,(thus giving us President Pelosi), or the Democrats lose the majority of the House and even more so in the Senate in 2020.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 9:11:27 GMT -6
So, she lied to Congress under oath?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 14:02:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 15:39:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 8, 2019 15:41:50 GMT -6
|
|