James Comey

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Ukranian officials are saying Schiff's upcoming Special Witness is a liar. Pretty damning from those who keep blowing up Schiff's narrative:

www.penmediainc.com/2019/11/13/ukraine-aid-serhiy-shefir-reveals-lev-parnas-lied-about-trump/?fbclid=IwAR2aUwySaD6oxbuvv1nn5nbmygVKnbk4VW5zy0OqEFT2ft0734NEB1mHuZs

Serhiy Shefir, the first aid to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, revealed that Democrat witness Lev Parnas lied about a meeting where he claimed he threatened to withhold military aid.

Parnas told the New York Times last week that he and Shefir discussed withholding $400 million in aid form Ukraine unless they investigated the Bidens. Shefir, however, doesn’t remember it that way.

Serhiy Shefir told Kyiv Post, an English language Ukrainian newspaper, that his meeting with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman was “neither long nor informative”.

According to him, the only thing that Parnas and Fruman discussed was trying to set up a meeting between President Zelensky and Rudy, something they apparently didn’t even take seriously.

“We said that we will gladly meet with him, but only officially, after the inauguration, and that there can be no meeting now.”

Shefir said that Fruman and Parnas told him the point of the meeting was “they want to help this country” since they are Ukrainians themselves. Shefir, however, was not convinced.

“The meeting took place before we started at the job, and we didn’t get very deep into what their ‘help’ would be. These were general words said over a cup of tea.”

Serhiy Shefir also said that he didn’t really give any weight to either Lev Parnas or Igor Fruman, saying they didn’t consider them representatives of President Trump.

“We didn’t perceive them as representatives of the White House. Even now, I don’t understand what their role was. It was a meeting of private citizens with a private citizen.”

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Relates to General Flynn :

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

AOC gave away the DNC strategy behind the impeachment sham:

www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ocasio-cortez-impeaching-trump-is-about-preventing-a-potentially-disastrous-outcome-in-2020

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez admitted that the Democrats’ efforts to investigate President Trump are, in part, meant to prevent him from winning reelection in November 2020.

The freshman New York congresswoman made the admission in an interview on CNN Wednesday evening, hours after the House had its first public hearing in the impeachment investigation into Trump’s foreign policy decisions regarding Ukraine.

“I think many of those considerations will be taken up by the Judiciary Committee when all of this evidence is brought forth,” Ocasio-Cortez stated. “We’ll see. I personally do believe that the president has engaged in flagrant violations of the emoluments clause. I’m concerned that we would allow this corruption to continue. But at the end of the day, we have to be able to come together as a caucus, and if it is this Ukrainian allegation that is what brings the caucus together, then I think we have to run with however we unify the House.”

[soonernvolved]

thehill.com/homenews/house/470472-pelosi-trump-bribed-ukraine-makes-nixons-offenses-look-almost-small#.Xc2JtAkYKFo.twitter

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday accused President Trump of “bribery” in his dealings with Ukrainian leaders, linking the president’s actions to the Constitution’s impeachment clause even while emphasizing that Democrats remain undecided on whether they’ll draft impeachment articles.

“That is in the Constitution, attached to the impeachment proceedings,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol.

She then explained the basis for the charge, which stems from a whistleblower’s complaint that has since supported by numerous government officials, that Trump leveraged U.S. military aid to Kyiv to secure political favors from Ukrainian leaders.

“The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections,” she said. “That’s bribery.”

Pelosi declined to say if the bribery charge would become an article of impeachment, insisting Democrats — even as they move ahead with their investigation — have not concluded Trump committed impeachable offenses.

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/paul-craig-roberts-rages-latest-false-trump-impeachment-news

As the media are all out to get Trump, there is no way to get any valid information about the so-called impeachment. But you don’t have to pay too much attention to notice that the Democrats and the presstitutes are constantly changing the focus. The alleged whistleblower, who only had hearsay information, if that, has dropped out of the picture, being too compromised by his affliations and prior meetings with Adam Schiff during which the “whistleblowing” was planned as an attack on Trump.



The Democrats and presstitutes then shifted focus to state department types who also heard second hand from “staff” about the alleged conversation containing a quid pro quo, a claim unsupported by the transcript of the telephone call or by the President of Ukraine. So now a new alleged phone call has emerged, or been invented. The acting ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, a sleazy State Department type, today (Nov. 13) testified that a member of his staff heard Trump in another telephone call asking Sondland about the Ukraine investigation of the Bidens. This second-hand information is described by the presstitute media as a “bombshell.” God help us. It is nothing of the sort. But the presstitutes will repeat it until it is.



A person has to wonder how many members of staffs are permitted to listen to telephone conversations between heads of state. In my day it was zero.

What I want to know, and what we all should want to know, is why are the Democrats serving up hearsay information? Why aren’t the staffers themselves who allegedly heard the conversations on the stand testifying? The testimony should come under oath from those who allegedly heard the conversations. Are the House Democrats going to impeach the President of the United States on second-hand hearsay information?

As for the investigation of the Bidens and their payoffs for blocking Ukraine’s investigation of the corruption in Burisma, the Ukrainian company that hired the protection of Biden, Trump doesn’t need to ask for it in exchange for $1 billion. Ukrainian officials have released the records. www.stationgossip.com/2019/11/ukrainian-officials-release-records-of.html The presstitutes have not reported the release. Don’t expect the whores to report any true facts. They are incapable of it.

Burisma holdings paid Hunter Biden $3,166,000 for protection according to the records released by Ukraine. More importantly, the information released by Ukraine, according to the report, revealed that Burisma pressured the corrupt Obama State Department to intervene to end the Ukrainian investigation of Burisma for corruption. This is precisely what the Obama regime did. Joe Biden forced the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor by giving the President of Ukraine 6 hours to fire the prosecutor, thus ending the investigation, or forfeiting $1 billion.

We all need to ask ourselves why it is Trump who is under investigation and not Biden and Obama. We already know the reason. The American media is corrupt beyond the meaning of the word. The Democrats are the most corrupt political party on the face of the earth. And the military/security complex intends to deep-six Donald Trump for threatening their budget and power by normalizing relations with Russia.

If Trump goes down, America goes with him.

Most of the world will say, “Good Riddance.”

As for the Republicans, they will not choose Trump over the campaign contributions and protection of the military/security complex. Where is Trump’s attorney general Barr? Where are the Justice Department reports of the investigations of the felonies committed by the FBI and Obama’s Justice (sic) Department in the Russiagate hoax? Hasn’t Trump noticed that his own Justice (sic) Department has hung him out to dry? Indictments for the Russiagate felonies would blow the Democrats’ impeachment of Trump out of the water. Where are the indictments? The felonies have been known without doubt for a long time. A number of former US Attorneys and Assistant US Attorneys have described the felonies committed by the Russiagate hoax in detail.

Trump’s Justice (sic) Department is going to sell him out, and democracy in America will be the casualty.

Neither political party wants the profitable swamp drained.

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account

Leaked Bank Records Confirm Burisma-Biden Payments To Morgan Stanley Account

Documents allegedly leaked by the Ukrainian General Prosecutor's office to CD Media have shed light on payments from Burisma Holdings to Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC, a corporation controlled by Hunter Biden partner (and fellow former Burisma board member) Devon Archer.

Archer was Yale roommates with John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz - the two of whom opened investment firm Rosemont Capital with Joe Biden's son, Hunter. Rosemont Capital is the parent company of Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC - the entity which receive the Burisma payments and in turn aid Biden.

The newly leaked records show 45 payments between November 2014 and November 2015 totaling $3.5 million, mostly in increments of $83,333.33. The payments correspond to Morgan Stanley bank records the New York Times reported on earlier this year. The records were submitted as evidence in a case against Archer who was convicted in a scheme to defraud pension funds and an Indian tribe of tens of millions of dollars. Archer's conviction was overturned in November by a judge who felt that he may not have willingly participated in the scheme.

What's more, there are several payments from "Wirelogic Technology AS" and "Digitex Organization LLP" in the amounts of 366,015 EUR and $1,964,375 US based on credit agreements - while $1,150,000 went to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden.



Looking through the Rosemont Seneca Bohai bank records reveals that it was essentially a slush fund used for payments to Biden, expensive toys, an investment in the ill-fated Indian tribe scheme, and other miscellaneous expenses.







Indian Scheme

On September 25, 2014 a wire of $15,000,000 was received from Florida attorney, Clifford A Wolff. It was subsequently used to buy a $15 million bond from Wakpamni Town Center - the scheme linked to Archer's overturned conviction.

[soonernvolved]

Late night hosts reactions to Impeachment hearings:

"It's finally here, it’s finally arrived,” Colbert declared. “The first day of live impeachment hearings. It’s what we’ve been praying for since the beginning of the Trump presidency: the end of the Trump presidency.”

“Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Washington being what it is, who knows what’s going to happen,” he continued. “Today’s live testimony as dramatic as it was historic. It was the biggest ratings boost for C-Span III since ‘Drunk History,’ starring Brett Kavanaugh".

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/11/14/nancy-pelosi-snaps-reporter-talking-points/



Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi snapped at a reporter during a press conference Thursday, referring to him as “Mr. Republican talking points.”

“I wonder if you could explain to the American people why the legal rights of the whistle-blower should prevail in this political setting over those of President Trump who should ordinarily enjoy a right to confront his accuser?” Sinclair reporter James Rosen asked.

“Well, let me just say this. I will say to you, Mr. Republican talking points, what I said to the president of the United States,” Pelosi replied. “When you talk about the whistle-blower, you’re coming into my wheelhouse.”

“I have more experience in intelligence than anybody in the Congress anybody who has ever served 25 years on the committee as top Democrat, ex officio, as speaker and leader. I was there when we wrote the whistleblower laws,” she continued.

“The whistleblower is there to speak truth to power and have protection for doing that, and any, any retribution or harm coming to a whistleblower undermines our ability to hear truth about power.”

The House kicked off public impeachment hearings Wednesday, with Democrat House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff focusing on charges related to abuse of power and possible obstruction. (RELATED: Pranksters Fooled Adam Schiff With Offer Of Donald Trump Kompromat

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/11/14/this-impeachment-inquiry-is-really-about-who-sets-u-s-foreign-policy/

This Impeachment Inquiry Is Really About Who Sets U.S. Foreign Policy
If Trump thinks it’s in the national interest to root out corruption in Ukraine and get to the bottom of 2016 election meddling, that’s his prerogative.

John Daniel Davidson By John Daniel Davidson
NOVEMBER 14, 2019

Despite the hysterical headlines in the mainstream media, there was no bombshell on the first day of public testimony in the House impeachment inquiry. It was actually very boring and tedious.

But for those who had the patience to sit through it on Wednesday, the testimony of veteran State Department officials William Taylor and George Kent did help clarify what this impeachment inquiry is all about: a disagreement between President Trump and a coterie of career State Department bureaucrats about what U.S. policy should be in Ukraine.


To put it more bluntly, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is about whether the president or unelected officials in the State Department should be able to determine U.S. foreign policy and define U.S. national interests abroad.

What we heard Wednesday was a lot of opinions from Taylor and Kent about what U.S. policy should be in Ukraine and what serves the national interest there. But if President Trump has a different view, whose opinion should matter? Clearly, the president’s opinion is the one that counts because the president, not State Department officials, sets U.S. foreign policy.

But in Democrats’ telling, which has been dutifully parroted by the media, the impeachment inquiry is all about whether Trump made U.S. security aid to Ukraine dependent on an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens—a quid pro quo, an investigation of Trump’s political rival in exchange for hundreds of millions in U.S. aid. To maintain this narrative, Democrats have had to insist there could be no other motive for Trump to want to such an investigation.

That’s why Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman kept referring to “political investigations” during Wednesday’s hearing. Trump wanted dirt on Joe Biden because he thought it would help him win reelection in 2020, end of story.


But of course there are perfectly valid reasons to think that corruption investigations in Ukraine might serve other, broader interests that go beyond just Trump’s reelection. Kent himself testified that such investigations were in fact legitimate, given the history of endemic corruption in Ukraine and specifically a record of corruption at Burisma, whose owner had first been investigated during the Obama administration using U.S. funds.

Moreover, given the lingering questions about the extent to which the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee solicited Ukrainian officials for dirt on Trump during the 2016 election, it’s easy to see how any investigations into these matters would go beyond the narrow interests of Trump and encompass U.S. interests more broadly.

Democrats have painted themselves into a corner here, arguing that only their narrow interpretation of Trump’s motives is valid, when clearly there are other more plausible interpretations that are better supported by the facts.

Trump Versus the ‘Deep State’

One thing that emerged quite clearly from Wednesday’s hearing is that Taylor and Kent, and likely many other State Department officials, disagree with Trump’s view of Ukraine and have a quite separate policy agenda than the White House on Ukraine.

During his opening statements, Taylor talked about a separate, “irregular” diplomatic channel to Ukraine that included Rudy Giuliani, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, and others. This irregular channel seems to have troubled Taylor.

But here again we come to the question of the president versus the bureaucracy. If Trump thought he needed a separate policy channel to pursue what he viewed as legitimate U.S. interests in rooting out corruption in Ukraine and getting to the bottom of what happened in 2016, that’s his prerogative as president—especially if he felt that the career bureaucrats at the State Department were not going to pursue these matters or take them seriously.

To take one example, Taylor said Wednesday he doesn’t think Ukraine owes the United States anything other than “appreciation.” Well, many Americans, including the president himself, might disagree with that. There are perfectly good reasons to think Ukraine, or any other country that receives U.S. aid, might owe the United States something more than “appreciation.” Maybe such countries also owe America some level of cooperation in advancing U.S. national interests—as defined by the president of the United States, not Ambassador Taylor or any other unelected bureaucrat.


This is in fact exactly how the Trump administration views the matter, which is likely the reason Trump and other administration officials have been so adamant that there was no quid pro quo. The administration’s interest in the Bidens and Burisma and 2016 election meddling appears to have been backward-looking, not forward-looking.

Trump wanted to know why the Bidens weren’t investigated and who in the Ukrainian government worked to undermine his 2016 campaign. Getting to the bottom of these things and ensuring they don’t happen again would be a reasonable condition to the receipt of hundreds of millions in security aid.

If Taylor and Kent and other State Department officials don’t agree with Trump about this, that’s fine. They are free to disagree. They are also free to be annoyed or even concerned about an “irregular channel” of Ukraine diplomacy. After all, the existence of such a channel itself is a sign that the president lacks confidence in State Department staff.

But Taylor went beyond expressing annoyance or concern in his testimony on Wednesday. He said this irregular channel of diplomacy was running “contrary to longstanding U.S. policy.” That’s a phrase he repeated several times, echoing the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who said that in the spring of 2019 he became aware of “outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.”

As Mark Hemingway has pointed out, in this context the “interagency consensus” appeared to be in opposition to the actual foreign policy of the United States, which is determined by the president, just as the “interagency consensus” opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria despite Trump having campaigned on a promise to do just that.

Taylor also claimed Wednesday that Ukraine is important to U.S. security, and that Russian aggression cannot stand. But Russian aggression was allowed to stand when Moscow invaded Georgia during the George W. Bush administration, and again when Russian troops occupied Crimea during the Obama administration. What was the “interagency consensus” back then, and why was Ukraine not considered important enough to U.S. security to prompt any pushback against Russia?

The answer is that the president sets foreign policy, not the unelected bureaucrats of the administrative state. So far, the entire impeachment inquiry hinges on this fact, and the more the American people get to see the impeachment debate play out in public hearings, the clearer it will become that Democrats are relying on an incredibly narrow and highly subjective interpretation of the facts to justify their claims that Trump tried to set up a quid pro quo with Ukraine.

[soonernvolved]

So, Pelosi says Trump has to prove his innocence to the impeachment inquiry. Two things wrong with that.

#1: It is the job of the prosecutors to prove guilt. Hence the fundamental tenet of Western Civilized law of "Innocent until proven guilty ".

#2: Robert Mueller's investigation tried the same tactic, it didn't work then either,(but it blew up splendidly in the faces of the liberals, MSM, etc).

[soonernvolved]

Hunter Biden has company. Now up, Nancy Pelosi's son:

Flashback:

Currently:

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/17/company-co-founded-nancy-pelosis-son-charged-secur/?

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged a company cofounded by Paul Pelosi Jr. with fraud on Wednesday after learning that two convicted criminals were running the business.

Paul Pelosi Jr., the son of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), was the president and chief operating officer of Natural Blue Resources Inc., an investment company he cofounded that focuses on “environmentally-friendly” ventures.

The SEC charged four individuals with fraud, including former New Mexico Gov. Toney Anaya, and suspended trading in the company’s stock. Pelosi owned over 10 million shares in the company in 2009.

The SEC said Wednesday the company was “secretly controlled” by James E. Cohen and Joseph Corazzi, both of whom had previous fraud convictions. Corazzi violated federal securities laws and was barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company. Cohen was previously incarcerated for financial fraud.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

And just like that, the bribery/impeachment narrative died:

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine/us-envoy-sondland-did-not-link-biden-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.

Trump and his allies are accused by Democrat opponents of freezing nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open investigations into Biden, Trump’s main rival for the 2020 presidential race.

Trump calls the inquiry a witch hunt.

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.

Prystaiko’s comments came a day after William Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, testified in the first televised hearing of the impeachment inquiry.

In a disclosure that drew the most attention, Taylor pointed to Trump’s keen interest in getting the eastern European ally to investigate Biden and reiterated his understanding that $391 million in U.S. security aid was withheld from Kiev unless it cooperated.

Taylor said a member of his staff had overheard a July 26 phone call between Trump and Sondland in which the Republican president asked about investigations into the Bidens, and Sondland told him that the Ukrainians were ready to proceed.

That call occurred a day after Trump had asked Zelenskiy during a phone call to conduct the investigations.

“I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance,” Prystaiko was quoted as saying by Interfax. “Yes, the investigations were mentioned, you know, in the conversation of the presidents. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

[soonernvolved]

Adam Schiff seems to know a bunch of questionable people:

Top Democrat donor and Adam Schiff friend Ed Buck was finally arrested in September after a third man overdosed in his apartment.

Maybe, we need to start investigating the other side slightly more?

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/hearsay-your-honor

Hearsay, Your Honor!

Watching Day 1 yesterday of the impeachment inquiry that isn’t one, I was thinking about an old children’s game, which is just as useful for adults, in which, in a wide circle of persons, no. 1 tells no. 2 a story, no. 2 tells no. 3, and so forth. If the total numbers of persons in the circle is large enough, it’s certain that the story, if it has enough details, will have changed unrecognizably by, say, no. 20.

That little game is a nice illustration of why you’ve all heard the words “Hearsay, Your Honor” spoken by some lawyer or another in 1000+ movies and TV series. And hearsay was all there was yesterday from “witnesses” Bill Taylor and George Kent. They are both “witnesses” who didn’t witness anything related to the hearing in course and neither ever met or spoke to President Trump, but both claim to know exactly what he was thinking, why he did what he did, and said what he said, based on things they heard from third parties, quite a few of whom remain anonymous.



Little of what they said would therefore be ruled admissible in a court of law. But the House inquiry is not a court of law. It can probably best be compared to a grand jury, a very one-sided format designed to let a prosecutor find and present enough evidence to let a case go to court. If Taylor and Kent had been in a court room, you would have heard “Hearsay, Your Honor” about once in every ten seconds. That gets old fast.

So why do we have this circus going on when it is obvious that round 2 (or 3, if you think the basement hearings were round 1), the Senate trial which must follow if the Dems decide to impeach Trump, has to acquit him because the House based its entire case on hearsay? I don’t know, but perhaps we see some of it in Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley (IL)’s statement: “Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct … and it’s certainly valid in this instance”

Note that Quigley in that little video got shut down very rapidly in his enthusiasm for using hearsay by someone (I can’t see who) saying none of the exceptions he seemed to refer to applied to “this testimony”. And that’s the crux here: courts may have in the past, after much deliberation, allowed hearsay in specific cases, but Quigley tries to make it look as if that is now some general rule, and that is certainly not true.

Before I forget, something that struck me at the start yesterday was how both Adam Schiff and Bill Taylor in their openings emphasized their focus on Russia, while this case is not about that, but about Ukraine. And Russia Russia Russia has been shot down along with Robert Muller in his memorably awful “defense” of his failed report a few months ago.

Schiff’s opening words:

In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation’s embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s desire to rebuild a Russian empire. In the following years, thirteen thousand Ukrainians died as they battled superior Russian forces.

There is so much wrong and debatable and leading and what not in just those few words, I don’t even know where to start. I guess perhaps I should be shouting out “Hearsay, Your Honor” at the top of my lungs. Then there’s Taylor:

After his opening statement, Taylor answers questions. He tells committee members: “If we withdraw or suspend or threaten to withdraw our security assistance” to Ukraine, it sends a “message to Ukrainians, but its just as important to the Russians who are looking for any sign of weakness”. “That affects us” he adds. It affects the world that we live in; that our children and grandchildren will grow up in,” he adds, appearing to become emotional. “Ukraine is on the front line of that conflict,” he concludes.

These statements are important because they tell us that Schiff and Taylor both see the world through the same glasses. The Russians are looking for signs of US weakness that they can use to advance their grand plan to (re) build a grand empire. That comes with the idea that the US didn’t cause the mayhem in Ukraine in 2014 with their coup, no, it was Russia which reacted so it wouldn’t lose its only warm water port.

Back to the hearing.

Taylor said it was his “clear understanding” that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine until the Bidens and other matters were investigated. At the very least there is no proof of that. It’s much more likely from what we know today that Ukraine didn’t know Trump withheld the aid until after the July 25 phone call this whole thing rests on. It was suggested yesterday that they didn’t know until the end of August, but I’ve seen people claim that they knew a few weeks earlier. But Zelensky didn’t know on July 25, that we can agree on.

And anyway, this is merely Taylor’s opinion. Based on hearsay. Based on what some guy told him some other guy told him etc etc. And though Taylor never met Trump, the very idea of withholding aid to one of the most corrupt nations on the planet scares the heebees out of him because Russia Russia Russia.

Taylor is a career diplomat who has bought hook line and sinker into established US policy in the region, and who will defend it until his dying breath. And if that means going against the president of the country he allegedly serves, who has every right to rebalance that policy, Taylor will do it. That is what he was saying.

Taylor came close to matching Mueller’s uber-bumbling performance the other day, though he didn’t quite get there. Kent was not quite that bad, but he’s in the same camp, the same career field, and the same deep state, FBI-CIA controlled policy-making no matter who gets elected president. And looking at Bill Taylor, how can one not question the wisdom of people like him making decisions on matters such as that?

Republican counsel Steve Castor started off strong, at least from what I saw, but seemed to fizzle out a little because he became lost in his own one question every five seconds model.

Perhaps it was the format, maximum time limits etc., which you don’t have in a courtroom. Jim Jordan did well, he just got named to the committee, but he could have been more effective as well. Still, this part was strong:

Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump & Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the President?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: And you’re their star witness.

All in all, if you thought yesterday was a good day for the Democrats, for the inquiry, or for Adam Schiff, you really need to check a few fundamental issues. All Schiff managed to bring to the table was hearsay. And it’s only because of the grand jury-like format that he even gets to start day 2. No judge would have let him. But there is no judge, and there is no jury. There’s only an executioner.

PS I found this thing from the BBC intriguing and illustrative:

Bill Taylor, the acting US ambassador to Ukraine, said a member of his staff was told Mr Trump was preoccupied with pushing for a probe into Mr Biden. He was speaking at the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry.


[..] During a detailed opening statement, Mr Taylor said a member of his staff had overheard a telephone call in which the president inquired about “the investigations” into Mr Biden. The call was with Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, who reportedly told the president over the phone from a restaurant in Kyiv that “the Ukrainians were ready to move forward”. After the call, the staff member “asked ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine”, Mr Taylor said. Mr Taylor said: “Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden.”

First, it argues that a member of Taylor’s staff was told something by a third party, but later it changes to him/her hearing the president “live”. Albeit through an allegedly private phone call in which Trump may have sounded a bit loud. You want to impeach your president on the basis of a maybe overheard phone call that someone told you someone told someone else about?

By the way, that phone call allegedly was between Trump and Gordon Sondland, hotelier cum US ambassador to the EU, the same person who testified in the famous Schiff basement and whose laywer at some point contested Taylor’s statements about what Sondland told him, after which the latter went back to the basement to change his testimony. He said she said but then he said and then she said and so on.



What’s on the schedule for the circus tomorrow, is it the clowns or the elephants? I may take a day off. We have weeks more of this. And already I have no idea left of who told whom what.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/14/nolte-impeachment-backfire-trumps-numbers-rise-as-bidens-crater/

An objective look at the latest polling proves the Impeachment Hoax is backfiring against Quid Pro Joe Biden.
Obviously, it was not supposed to be this way. Democrats and their establishment media allies were certain they had crafted a silver bullet that would accomplish two things at once: 1) doom President Trump’s re-election chances, and 2) shield Old Joe from the fact he and his son are guilty of looting China and Ukraine.

What a fail.

Breitbart TV



Play Video
CLICK TO PLAY

Surrogates for Joe Biden Spin After Tough Debate


As of this writing, Trump sits at a relatively healthy job approval rating of 44.1 percent per the RealClearPolitics poll of polls. That’s only a single point lower than when the media and Democrats launched their Impeachment Hoax.

What’s more, in less than three weeks, Trump’s job approval has climbed almost four points.

Oh, and Slow Joe…?

The Impeachment Hoax has backfired spectacularly on Slow Joe.

As the media and Democrats attempt to find an impeachable offense, as they hold secret hearings, as they move the goalposts from a quid pro quo that can’t be proved (and would not be impeachable if it were) to the crime of — LOL — bribery, as Democrats and the media founder around stepping on rakes, the Impeachment Hoax Spotlight is instead exposing the Biden Family Crime Syndicate.

Barack Obama put his vice president in charge of diplomatic relations with Ukraine and China, and Biden thanked him by sending his son Hunter in to loot both countries.

Unlike Trump asking Ukraine to investigate corruption, and tying federal aid to that request (which is appropriate), Joe and Hunter Biden’s brazen looting is a very simple crime for the American people to understand.

Hunter has no experience in the energy field, does not speak the language in Ukraine, and still he was awarded a seat on the board of the energy company Burisma, a company owned by a crooked oligarch who did not want to be investigated for corruption. While Burisma was in the middle of paying Hunter millions, Joe Biden used the threat of U.S. aid to force Ukraine to fire a prosecutor looking into Burisma.

See how easy it was to explain the Biden’s jaw-dropping corruption?

Watch me do it again…


Hunter hitched a ride on Air Force Two while Slow Joe visited China on behalf of the United States, and guess who secured a $1.5 billion — with a “B” — deal for his company while he was in China? Guess who secured that deal with the Chinese government through a state-owned bank? And we are talking about a deal that could be worth tens of millions of dollars to the Biden family.

With Biden’s corruption so brazen and easy to explain, the Impeachment Hoax is not working as intended… Trump’s doing fine…

Joe…?

Not so much.

Joe’s national lead in the Democrat field is sinking. He was up double digits pre-Impeachment Hoax. Now he’s down to a five point lead in the RCP poll of polls and Elizabeth Warren beats him by three in the most recent polling.

In Iowa, Biden has slipped to third place behind Warren and Pete Buttigieg. Pre-Impeachment Hoax, Slow Joe earned 29 percent support, and a ten point lead over second place. Now he’s dropped to just 17 points and is less than a point ahead of fourth place Bernie Sanders.

That is what you call a collapse.

In New Hampshire, Biden was edged out the pack with support in the low-20s pre-Impeachment Hoax. Now he’s at 19.7 percent support, tied with Warren and hardly a point ahead of Bernie.

Biden appears to be hanging on in Nevada and South Carolina, but there has not been much polling out of there of late. That could change quite dramatically, though, now that Obama has slapped Slow Joe with the most humiliating vote of “no confidence” in the history of the modern presidential campaign.

With former Gov. Deval Patrick joining the race (undoubtedly at Obama’s request), Biden now has some serious competition for the black vote that has so far kept him competitive.

The Impeachment Hoax is backfiring, is taking down the very guy who had the best chance of beating Trump in 2020.

Meanwhile, over in MAGA Land, on the horizon is Trump’s eventual vindication celebration when the Impeachment Hoax comes to its ignoble end, a roaring economy, a loyal base of support that can’t wait to vote for him, and a Democrat field filled with socialists, morons, Fake Indians, and looters.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/14/watergate-prosecutor-fumbles-in-debate-with-joel-pollak-impeachment-does-not-center-on-legal-illegal/

Watergate Prosecutor Fumbles in Debate with Joel Pollak: ‘Impeachment Does Not Center on Legal-Illegal



Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman bizarrely claimed impeachment does not “center on” whether a president has taken illegal actions, sparring Thursday afternoon in a debate with Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak.

“Impeachment does not center on legal-illegal,” Akerman said during cross-examination with Pollak, who made the case against Democratic lawmakers’ ongoing impeachment inquiry targeting President Donald Trump. The “Great Impeachment Debate,” streamed by Mediaite and carried by SiriusXM, was moderated by Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal analyst and founder of Mediaite.

Akerman and Pollak clashed over allegations that President Donald Trump had leveraged foreign aid to Ukraine to assist his presidential reelection campaign by pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate possible corruption on the part of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. Akerman, a former SDNY Assistant U.S. Attorney, revealed a weak point in the Democrats’ case when he admitted — as he was questioning Pollak — that the argument has little to do with whether Trump has broken any federal laws.


This exchange occurred during the debate’s question-and-answer phase (beginning at 51:41). A partial transcript follows:

AKERMAN: Okay, Joel. Is it your position that it is proper for a President of the United States to condition military aid to a foreign country on the receipt of assistance with his campaign for reelection?

POLLAK: Objection, counsel. That assumes facts not in evidence.

AKERMAN: I’m not assuming anything, I’m just asking you that particular question. Assuming that the facts are as such —

POLLAK: — A hypothetical example? Is it proper to condition foreign aid on —

AKERMAN: — to condition military aid to a foreign country on the receipt of assistance with the president’s campaign for reelection.

POLLAK: Well, I reject the hypothetical. It’s a prejudicial hypothetical, and it’s not what we’re looking at, here.

AKERMAN: Yeah, but do you think, let’s say the facts came out that way. Do you think somebody should be impeached for that?

POLLAK: Well, you used a very interesting word, which was ‘improper’ and that word has come up over and over again.

AKERMAN: I used the word ‘proper.’ Is it proper for a —

POLLAK: — ‘Is it proper?,’ but you didn’t say, ‘Is it illegal?’, and I think that’s very interesting —

AKERMAN: — I’m not asking you that, because —

POLLAK: — Well, that’s what we’re here to talk about —

AKERMAN: — But impeachment does not center on legal-illegal, it’s a question of whether or not it’s an impeachable offense under the Constitution. All I’m asking you, ‘Is it proper?’ Forget even the Constitution. Is it proper for the President of the United States to condition military aid to a foreign country on the receipt of assistance with his reelection campaign?

While arguing in favor of impeaching the president, Akerman accused Trump of having committed “bribery,” “extortion,” and “conspiracy” to open an investigation of Joe Biden by Ukrainian authorities.

“It’s so bad because it put a country at risk — Ukraine –in terms of its funding, with Ukrainians being killed every day by the Russians,” said Akerman. “It put us in a bad way with a country that is trying to get itself out of corruption, elected a new president that ran on a platform of not being corrupt, and here we are trying to corrupt him through this whole process. … If ever there was an issue that a president ought to be removed on, this is it.”

Pollak described Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky as illustrative of the president’s execution of his presidential duties in relation to stewardship of U.S. foreign aid:

Donald Trump was acting in the public interest. Even George Kent, the diplomat in the State Department, admitted in the first day of testimony, that it was in the public interest to have Ukraine investigate Burisma for corruption. The president was carrying out the proper discharge of official duty, and certainly it would be odd to solicit a bribe, and then tell the target of that solicitation, to handle the bribe through the attorney general of the United States — that’s what [Donald Trump] says in the transcript, ‘Talk to the attorney general.’ You wouldn’t solicit a bribe and then tell the person you want the bribe from to talk to the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

Trump previously withheld aid from Ukraine in 2017 due to concerns about corruption, Pollak noted:

One of the witnesses, [Catherine Croft], talks about how this wasn’t the first time President Trump had withheld assistance to Ukraine. [Donald Trump] also did it in late 2017, and one of the reasons he did it — among others — was because of concern about corruption in Ukraine under then-President Poroshenko. In fact, she testified [that] the President of the United States sat President Poroshenko down in front of everyone and gave him a lecture about corruption in Ukraine. So the interest in Burisma stems out of a longstanding and earlier interest in cprruption in Ukraine that led to an earlier suspension in aid.

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution identifies the conditions for removal of a president’s removal from office: “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.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/14/sad-democrats-scramble-switch-impeachment-narrative-attempted-crimes-after-lackluster-hearing/

Democrats have been scrambling following Wednesday’s lackluster public impeachment hearing, changing the focus of their impeachment narrative to “attempted” crimes after Republican lawmakers largely decimated their weak impeachment case.
Wednesday’s public impeachment hearing, which featured testimonies from acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor and senior State Department official George Kent, was deemed a bust by many, including Democrats.

“It was a total disaster for us,” one senior House Democrat aide told Breitbart News.

Breitbart TV



Play Video
CLICK TO PLAY

Charlie Kirk: Did You Notice No One Brought Up Mueller Report in Dem Debates?


“It’s hearsay,” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) said of Taylor’s testimony. “It’s really difficult dealing with this because it’s he said-she said.”

Neither of the bureaucrats who testified was able to outline a clear case of wrongdoing by the president, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) took the opportunity to mock House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) “star witness,” whose “clear understanding” came from layers of hearsay.

Jordan read an excerpt of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s addendum:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.

Taylor confirmed to Jordan that he did not listen to Trump’s phone call with President Zelensky, nor did he speak with Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney or ever meet Trump, for that matter.

“This is what I can’t believe. And you’re their star witness. You’re their first witness. You’re the guy – you’re the guy. Based on this, based on – I mean, I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this,” Jordan marveled.

Due to the Republicans’ strong counternarrative, Democrats and the establishment media are moving the goalposts, arguing instead that Trump is guilty of “attempted” bribery and extortion. It has been an emerging talking point in recent days – one which Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) alluded to during Wednesday’s hearing:

“So ambassadors, is attempted murder a crime?” he asked, repeating his question. “Is attempted murder a crime?”

“Attempted murder is a crime,” Taylor said.

“Is attempted robbery a crime?” he asked.

“Neither of us is a lawyer,” Taylor began before Castro interrupted.

“I think anyone in this room could answer that question,” he said.

“I’ll go out on a limb and say yes it is,” Taylor said.

“Is attempted extortion and bribery a crime?” Castro asked, trying to draw a parallel.

“I don’t know sir,” Taylor said.

.@joaquincastrotx is trying to get the witnesses to answer whether "attempted bribery" is a crime. (They don't know.) There WAS no attempted bribery, but regardless — the Constitution says that bribery itself, not the attempt, is impeachable. #ImpeachmentInquiry

— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) November 13, 2019

I can't wait for the class on attempted conspiracy! And attempted attempted murder!

If no crime was committed, it doesn't matter what stopped you.

"He was going to conspire to commit murder, but then his narcolepsy kicked in and he forgot." t.co/atov82FeRL

— Ann Coulter (@anncoulter) November 13, 2019

Democrats have been desperately angling to get the new narrative to stick. Castro even repeated his point following the hearing.

“Either he committed extortion and bribery of a foreign official, or he committed attempted extortion and bribery of a foreign official … and that’s still a crime,” Castro stated:


Based on the evidence that I've seen, the President did one of two things:

1) Either he committed extortion and bribery of a foreign official;

2) Or, he committed attempted extortion and bribery of a foreign official.

Either way, it's still a crime. @cnnsitroom pic.twitter.com/AA3DrBdxEY

— Joaquin Castro (@joaquincastrotx) November 14, 2019

While CNN’s Chris “Fredo” Cuomo admitted that Democrats are “wrong to use the word extortion,” he described Trump’s purported action as an “attempted bribe”

“The Democrats are wrong to use the word extortion. I don’t see a threat of force. This was an attempted bribe and not just cause it’s in the Constitution,” he stated Wednesday night.

Castro and Cuomo were not the only two touting the new “attempted” narrative.

The main takeaway from today's damning testimony is this: Trump clearly attempted to extort Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 elections. Learn more at t.co/wQHfGSXJbu pic.twitter.com/zLwsuJTl1Z

— MoveOn (@moveon) November 13, 2019

Just because Ukrainian military aid was released doesn't exonerate Trump. It took pressure from:
Congress
Trump advisers
Diplomats
Generals
The whistleblower
DOD lawyers
State Dept lawyers

Only after Trump was caught did he relent. Attempted extortion is still a crime. t.co/WLjIsRvALc

— Anthony Brown (@repanthonybrown) November 13, 2019

Once again for @repratcliffe: Zelensky was *this close* to going on CNN and making a statement about fabricated investigations when a whistleblower outed Trump's attempted extortion.

'Nothing happened' because a brave patriot exposed the plot. #ImpeachmentHearings

— JackiSchechner (@jackischechner) November 13, 2019

President Trump abused his power and endangered our national security when he attempted to pressure Ukraine into interfering in our upcoming elections.

It's time for the American people to hear the full extent of the President's crimes. #DefendOurDemocracy t.co/nHcxRyEOJJ

— Raul M. Grijalva (@repraulgrijalva) November 13, 2019

good grief, people pretending attempted extortion and bribery = "foreign policy" t.co/Z0N8a6QpQ0

— Eric Boehlert (@ericboehlert) November 14, 2019

It is confirmed. The current occupant of the White House attempted bribery. t.co/vIXECHKPqn

— Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) November 13, 2019

Patriot Bill Taylor’s testimony gave me patriotic goosebumps. Let’s call Trump’s attempted dirty deal with Ukraine what it is, #ArmsForPoliticalDirt t.co/kfWG1NI2Ax

— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) November 14, 2019

Btw #Trump, yesterday was DEVASTATING for you. The following are not valid defenses:

*didn’t know it was a crime
*too stupid to commit the crime
*the crime was only “attempted”
*there are no first-hand witnesses (especially when YOU bar them all from testifying)#Impeachment

— Andy Ostroy (@andyostroy) November 14, 2019

I'll repeat this until I'm numb: Trump attempted to withhold Congressionally approved aid to an ally to force them to declare an investigation into debunked conspiracy theories about a potential opponent in the 2020 election. That's 100% impeachable.

— GLOCKNER (@andyglockner) November 13, 2019

The only other R arg, that aid ultimately was released, v weak:
1) It's not a defense to bank robbery to say "I didn't get to carry it out b/c the cops stopped me." Attempted crimes are crimes. Trump tried to do this secretly, he just got busted
2) Timeline blows it apart…1/2

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) November 13, 2019

The tactic is similar to the massive narrative pivot Democrats embraced after the Mueller report failed to deliver. After it was revealed that the report found no such evidence of collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia – a narrative Democrats were banking on for impeachment – they switched to obstruction and followed with “attempted” obstruction, even though former Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not arrive to a conclusion. Attorney General William Barr ultimately cleared the president, stating that there was not enough evidence to substantiate a criminal obstruction of justice charge.

As for the “attempted bribery and extortion” narrative, another wrench has been thrown into the Democrats’ argument, as Breitbart News reported:

Ukrainian foreign minister Vadym Prystaiko said Thursday that U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland had ‘never’ linked U.S. aid to Ukrainian investigations of the 2016 elections or the Biden’s role in stopping a probe of Burisma.

The second round of public impeachment hearings will take place on Friday and feature former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

[soonernvolved]

It's bad when the liberal Washington Post even says your lying out your rear end:

thehill.com/homenews/media/464374-washington-post-fact-checker-gives-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-whistleblower

Washington Post fact-checker gives Schiff four Pinocchios for whistleblower remark

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column on Friday gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) four Pinocchios for claiming last month that his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower" who raised concerns about President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.

The New York Times first reported on Wednesday that the whistleblower had consulted with Schiff's committee before filing the complaint.


Schiff said in a Sept. 17 interview with the Daily Beast's Sam Stein on MSNBC that "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower."

“Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the whistleblower?” Stein, an MSNBC contributor, asked on "Morning Joe."

“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to," Schiff responded. "But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.”

The Post said Schiff's response was "flat-out false."

"Schiff on 'Morning Joe' clearly made a statement that was false," the fact-checker said. "He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the [inspector general's] office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication."

"The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity," the fact-checker added. "Schiff earns Four Pinocchios."

The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with four being reserved for what the column considers the most egregious statements.

A House Intelligence Committee spokesperson told the Post that Schiff's answer to Stein "should have been more carefully phrased."

“Regarding Chairman Schiff’s comments on ‘Morning Joe,’ in the context, he intended to answer the question of whether the Committee had heard testimony from the whistleblower, which they had not,” the spokesperson said. “As he said in his answer, the whistleblower was then awaiting instructions from the Acting [Director of National Intelligence] as to how the whistleblower could contact the Committee. Nonetheless he acknowledges that his statement should have been more carefully phrased to make that distinction clear.”

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Friendly reminder about Schiff's star witness for Friday:

[soonernvolved]

Rudy Giuliani, one of President Trump’s personal attorneys, is under federal investigation for possible campaign finance violations and failing to register as a foreign agent (FARA) as part of the ongoing investigation, according to Bloomberg.

It is important to note that one of Mueller’s thugs, Brandon Van Grack, is currently in charge of the DOJ’s FARA unit used to spy on Republicans.

Meanwhile, the Bidens, Clintons and Podestas walk freely after a life of crime and corruption.

Only President Trump’s inner circle gets prosecuted for FARA violations — which has historically been rarely litigated.

Giuliani has been exposing the Biden crime family and all of their pay-to-play schemes in Ukraine, China and Romania so the Deep State is striking back.

news.yahoo.com/giuliani-faces-u-probe-campaign-000039292.html

The probe of Giuliani, which one official said could also include possible charges on violating laws against bribing foreign officials or conspiracy, presents a serious threat to Trump’s presidency from a man that former national security adviser John Bolton has called a “hand grenade.”

A second official said Giuliani’s activities raise counterintelligence concerns as well, although there probably wouldn’t be a criminal charge related to that. The officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, provided the first indication of the potential charges under investigation.

[soonernvolved]

Tucker Carlson reported Thursday on the establishment’s concern that Americans are not buying their latest garbage about President Trump

Tucker Carlson: According to a CNN report this afternoon, top Democrats secretly admit to one another that this isn’t working. They’re not going to get Trump through impeachment hearings. They’re not convincing voters the president should be removed a year before the election… In this case the establishment is doing less and less to conceal what they’re really up to.

[soonernvolved]

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton blasted the Justice Department on Thursday for their indecision on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Walton, a George W. Bush appointee said, “This is not a hard case. I was a good prosecutor for a long time. Deciding whether or not you’re going to charge someone with false statements or perjury is not that hard, factually or legally — maybe politically, but not factually or legally.”


The hearing Thursday stemmed from a FOIA lawsuit filed by far-left watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to obtain documents related to McCabe’s firing.

Recall, McCabe was fired in March of 2018 just hours before he was set to retire with full benefits and one month later, IG Horowitz released a scathing report on McCabe saying he ‘lacked candor’ (lied) several times, including under oath.

Thursday’s hearing centered on a curious reversal by the DOJ, who for one year maintained that most of the documents sought in the FOIA suit were off-limits because of an ongoing investigation and decision-making on potential charges against McCabe.

On Wednesday, DOJ prosecutors reversed course and announced they would no longer argue the documents requested in the FOIA suit in McCabe’s case be withheld because of a pending proceeding.

This reversal made the federal judge very angry and left people wondering if this means McCabe is off the hook.

www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/andrew-mccabe-prosecution-uncertainty-071028

Walton, a George W. Bush appointee overseeing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by a watchdog group to obtain records about McCabe’s firing, complained at a hearing Thursday afternoon that the Justice Department claims about an ongoing potential prosecution of McCabe may have been a “smoke screen” to persuade the judge to forestall the case demanding documents.

“Shouldn’t I know whether the wool was being pulled over my eyes?” Walton said. “I do have concerns about whether I was being manipulated into stopping this case from moving forward.”

“Your Honor, the wool was not being pulled over your eyes,” Justice Department attorney Justin Sandberg said. He insisted claims lawyers made in a secret court filing and closed-door audience with the judge in September were accurate.

When Walton pressed about what has changed since, Sandberg was exceedingly vague.

“Obviously, you know that time has passed. There’s various proceedings the government has to consider and various interests the government has to consider,” the Justice Department attorney said.

Walton said something must have precipitated the shift.

“I don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors as far as the … potential prosecution of Mr. McCabe is concerned. … Something must’ve happened,” the judge said.

[soonernvolved]

During her audition in the basement star chamber Yovanovitch accused FOX News personality Sean Hannity of playing a role in her firing.

It was a lie.

On Thursday night Sean Hannity warned Ambassador Yovanovitch that he will hire the “absolute best lawyers” in the country to sue her if she continues to slander him!

Sean Hannity: Now remember she’s the one who suggested that yours truly somehow played a role in her dismissal. I will remind her, THAT IS A LIE! And a complete fabrication. To be honest, until recently in that hearing when that happened, I don’t really know anything about this woman… That was a slanderous, libelous lie to say I was ever conducting a smear campaign against her… I’ll say it again. People better stop lying about me. Cuz I’m not gonna take it and I do promise you I will hire the absolute best lawyers in the country and I’ll spend the money whatever it takes.