James Comey

[soonernvolved]

Rep. Lesko responded: This is over the top. And Chris Wallace a few Sundays ago he said something too and I put out a tweet and said, “He’s biased. This guy is biased.” I don’t know what’s going on with him but he’s definitely biased. It’s going to reach a point when the grassroots Republicans that are Trump supporters in my district are going to call FOX and ask them what’s up with this guy?

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/11/15/jesse-watters-marie-yovanovitch-benghazi/



Fox News host Jesse Watters put the firing of former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in stark perspective on Friday night’s edition of Fox News’ “The Five” when he brought up Obama’s firing of all Bush-appointed ambassadors, and one Obama-era ambassador who never came home.

Yovanovitch’s Friday testimony garnered sympathy from many, including Fox News anchor Chris Wallace and “The Five” co-host Juan Williams, who related on the show that the Obama appointee felt like “she had been smeared.”


But Watters wasn’t buying it.

“Oh, poor baby,” said the Fox News host. “When Obama got into office he fired all the ambassadors and replaced them at will. He can do whatever he wants. All presidents can.”

“Under Obama, ambassadors were coming back in body bags,” said Watters, referring to Christopher Stevens, the former U.S. ambassador to Libya who was killed by Islamic extremists in 2012. “Now, everyone’s upset because one got fired? So what? People get fired all the time. It doesn’t make a difference.” (RELATED: WaPo Columnist: GOP Senators Want A ‘Lengthy’ Trial, Think Impeachment Will ‘Energize’ Base Like Kavanaugh Hearings In 2018)

Watters then went on a roll, comparing Democrats’ accusations against President Donald Trump with actions by Democrats.


Witness tampering? Really? Schiff colluded with the whistleblower. That’s witness tampering. Bribing? How about when Obama sends pallets of cash to Iran? That’s more of a bribe than this. Freezing aid for a blink of an eye? That’s a bribe? Tweeting is not an impeachable offence. That’s witness tampering? Trump says let’s go to court, and then they want to get him for obstruction. They’re criminalizing everything.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/11/15/yovanovitch-admits-burisma-probe-was-open-when-biden-pressured-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor/

Yovanovitch Admits Burisma Probe Was Open when Biden Pressured Ukraine to Fire Prosecutor

Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, one of the star witnesses of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, on Friday undercut the defense Joe Biden and his allies have been making about the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor.
Yovanovitch, a self-described anti-corruption expert who most recently served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine between 2016-2019, told the House Intelligence Committee there was an open probe into Burisma Holdings when Joe Biden demanded the firing.



Burisma, which is Ukraine’s only private oil conglomerate and until recently counted Hunter Biden among its board of directors, is central to the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Democrats have argued Trump’s suggestion that the Ukrainian government investigate the company and its ties to the younger Biden amount to an impeachable offense.


During Friday’s hearing, Yovanovitch was questioned about the allegations of public corruption that have dogged Burisma and its leadership since the early-2010s. In particular, she was asked about the status of a corruption probe Ukraine had into Burisma when Joe Biden pushed for the ouster of Viktor Shokin, the country’s prosecutor general, in 2016.

“It wasn’t an active case, but it also was not fully closed,” the former ambassador testified, before elaborating that at the time the Ukrainian government was opting to keep a “hook” into Burisma and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky.

Yovanovitch’s admission that Shokin was looking for a “hook” with which to prosecute Burisma and Zlocvesky undermines a central argument Joe Biden has made to defend his conduct. Since the story became central to the impeachment inquiry, the former vice president and his allies have tried to argue that Shokin’s investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time of his firing and therefore his ouster actually improved the chances that the company would face stricter scrutiny.

Former Obama administration speechwriter Jon Favreu tweeted on the first day impeachment inquiry:

The argument has taken on more importance as revelations continue to mount about potential conflicts of interest between Joe Biden’s political influence and his youngest son Hunter’s wheeling and dealing overseas.

Specifically father and son have struggled to explain the timing of Hunter Biden’s ascension to Burisma’s board of directors. The younger Biden secured the appointment in 2014 around the same time his father was appointed to oversee Obama administration policy in Ukraine.



As Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News, detailed in his book Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Hunter Biden secured the position, which paid as much as $83,000 per month, despite having no background in energy or Ukraine.

Adding to concerns is the fact that at the time Hunter Biden joined Burisma, the company was seen as actively courting Western leaders to prevent further scrutiny of its business practices. The same month Hunter Biden was tapped for the group’s board, the government of Great Britain froze accounts belonging to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky under suspicion of money laundering. Not only had Zlochevsky had his assets frozen in Great Britain, but the former Ukrainian minister of natural resources was also facing suspicions of public corruption at home. Zlochevsky would later be charged with corruption for using his ministerial office to approve oil and gas licenses to companies under his control.

A Ukrainian official with strong ties to Zlochevsky admitted in October the only reason that Hunter Biden secured the appointment was to “protect” the company from foreign scrutiny. The claim has credence given that at the time Joe Biden, as the sitting vice president, was tasked with leading the Obama administration’s policy towards Ukraine in response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea.

It is in the context of Burisma and Zlochevsky’s legal troubles that Joe Biden’s political influence has raised the most red flags. The former vice president has particularly drawn questions over his conduct in demanding the firing of Shokin, who was leading the probe into Burisma.



Joe Biden, who has publicly bragged about the firing, reportedly threatened to withhold more than one billion dollars in U.S. aid if the Ukrainian government did not remove Shokin. He has claimed the demand came from then-President Barack Obama, who had allegedly lost faith in the prosecutor’s ability to tackle corruption.

Unofficially, though, it was known that Shokin was investigating both Burisma and Zlochevsky for public corruption. It is uncertain if the probe extended to Hunter Biden, although Shokin has recently admitted that prior to his ouster he was warned to back off the matter. Regardless of what occurred, Shokin’s successor, who is now himself being investigated for public corruption, dropped the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky in 2017.

On Friday, Yovanovitch admitted during her testimony that convoluted history and the conflicts of interest between the former vice president and his youngest son were topics of concern for Obama administration officials during her confirmation as ambassador to Ukraine in 2016.

[redrex]

This investigation will go no where-----I hear they are going to find someone to say a teenage Trump was seen on the grassy knoll in 1963

[kcrufnek]

Nov 16, 2019 9:59:03 GMT -6 redrex said:

This investigation will go no where-----I hear they are going to find someone to say a teenage Trump was seen on the grassy knoll in 1963

Next to Ted Cruz's dad?

[kcrufnek]

Levin seems to be the only one pointing out that when bribery was included by the framers it was for another entity bribing our officials and influencing them. It has nothing to do supposedly not giving someone something something in return for an action. Yet the left and the media can't say the word bribery enough.

[kcrufnek]

Nov 16, 2019 3:43:17 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/11/15/yovanovitch-admits-burisma-probe-was-open-when-biden-pressured-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor/

Yovanovitch Admits Burisma Probe Was Open when Biden Pressured Ukraine to Fire Prosecutor

Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, one of the star witnesses of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, on Friday undercut the defense Joe Biden and his allies have been making about the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor.
Yovanovitch, a self-described anti-corruption expert who most recently served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine between 2016-2019, told the House Intelligence Committee there was an open probe into Burisma Holdings when Joe Biden demanded the firing.



Burisma, which is Ukraine’s only private oil conglomerate and until recently counted Hunter Biden among its board of directors, is central to the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Democrats have argued Trump’s suggestion that the Ukrainian government investigate the company and its ties to the younger Biden amount to an impeachable offense.


During Friday’s hearing, Yovanovitch was questioned about the allegations of public corruption that have dogged Burisma and its leadership since the early-2010s. In particular, she was asked about the status of a corruption probe Ukraine had into Burisma when Joe Biden pushed for the ouster of Viktor Shokin, the country’s prosecutor general, in 2016.

“It wasn’t an active case, but it also was not fully closed,” the former ambassador testified, before elaborating that at the time the Ukrainian government was opting to keep a “hook” into Burisma and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky.

Yovanovitch’s admission that Shokin was looking for a “hook” with which to prosecute Burisma and Zlocvesky undermines a central argument Joe Biden has made to defend his conduct. Since the story became central to the impeachment inquiry, the former vice president and his allies have tried to argue that Shokin’s investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time of his firing and therefore his ouster actually improved the chances that the company would face stricter scrutiny.

Former Obama administration speechwriter Jon Favreu tweeted on the first day impeachment inquiry:

The argument has taken on more importance as revelations continue to mount about potential conflicts of interest between Joe Biden’s political influence and his youngest son Hunter’s wheeling and dealing overseas.

Specifically father and son have struggled to explain the timing of Hunter Biden’s ascension to Burisma’s board of directors. The younger Biden secured the appointment in 2014 around the same time his father was appointed to oversee Obama administration policy in Ukraine.



As Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News, detailed in his book Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Hunter Biden secured the position, which paid as much as $83,000 per month, despite having no background in energy or Ukraine.

Adding to concerns is the fact that at the time Hunter Biden joined Burisma, the company was seen as actively courting Western leaders to prevent further scrutiny of its business practices. The same month Hunter Biden was tapped for the group’s board, the government of Great Britain froze accounts belonging to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky under suspicion of money laundering. Not only had Zlochevsky had his assets frozen in Great Britain, but the former Ukrainian minister of natural resources was also facing suspicions of public corruption at home. Zlochevsky would later be charged with corruption for using his ministerial office to approve oil and gas licenses to companies under his control.

A Ukrainian official with strong ties to Zlochevsky admitted in October the only reason that Hunter Biden secured the appointment was to “protect” the company from foreign scrutiny. The claim has credence given that at the time Joe Biden, as the sitting vice president, was tasked with leading the Obama administration’s policy towards Ukraine in response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea.

It is in the context of Burisma and Zlochevsky’s legal troubles that Joe Biden’s political influence has raised the most red flags. The former vice president has particularly drawn questions over his conduct in demanding the firing of Shokin, who was leading the probe into Burisma.



Joe Biden, who has publicly bragged about the firing, reportedly threatened to withhold more than one billion dollars in U.S. aid if the Ukrainian government did not remove Shokin. He has claimed the demand came from then-President Barack Obama, who had allegedly lost faith in the prosecutor’s ability to tackle corruption.

Unofficially, though, it was known that Shokin was investigating both Burisma and Zlochevsky for public corruption. It is uncertain if the probe extended to Hunter Biden, although Shokin has recently admitted that prior to his ouster he was warned to back off the matter. Regardless of what occurred, Shokin’s successor, who is now himself being investigated for public corruption, dropped the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky in 2017.

On Friday, Yovanovitch admitted during her testimony that convoluted history and the conflicts of interest between the former vice president and his youngest son were topics of concern for Obama administration officials during her confirmation as ambassador to Ukraine in 2016.

Because what is needed is another Hollywood meathead out ther being 100% incorrect.

[atl1979]

Nov 16, 2019 9:59:03 GMT -6 redrex said:

This investigation will go no where-----I hear they are going to find someone to say a teenage Trump was seen on the grassy knoll in 1963

No, I think it is going to come out that Trump was having an affair with President Zelinsky's wife (Monica Zelinsky).

[soonernvolved]

The NSC Senior Director for European Affairs testified before the Schiff secret star chamber in October. The transcript of his testimony was released this weekend.

Morrison’s testimony COMPLETELY DESTROYED the Democrat’s latest attempt to remove President Trump from office. Worse yet, Morrison’s testimony OBLITERATES Adam Schiff’s chief witness, and reported second whistleblower, Lt. Col. Vindman who is unreliable and reports to Morrison.

Here are the key points to Tim Morrison’s testimony.

republicans-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tim_morrison_key_points.pdf

1. Mr. Morrison did not believe anything improper occurred on the July 25 call. (p. 60)

2. Mr. Morrison testified that the memorandum of conversation (a phrase used to describe the call transcript) of the July 25 call was complete and accurate. (p. 60)

3. Mr. Morrison, who listened to the July 25 call, testified that he was not concerned about the substance of what was discussed on the call – only that the transcript might leak. (p. 46-47)

4. Mr. Morrison was told by National Security Council lawyer John Eisenberg that the July 25 call record mistakenly ended up on the highly classified system, debunking the Democrats’ allegations of an attempted “cover up.”

5. Mr. Morrison repeatedly testified that he purposefully kept Lt. Col. Vindman out of the loop on this matter because he had concerns about Vindman’s judgment, which were also raised to him by Fiona Hill and others.

6. Mr. Morrison testified that, as the final clearing authority for any edits made to the 7/25 call package, he accepted all of Lt. Col. Vindman’s proposed edits. (p. 61-62)

7. Mr. Morrison testified that he does not believe Burisma came up on the call or that anyone suggested edits to the mem-con to include the word Burisma. (p. 64)

8. Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman relayed two concerns to him about the July 25 call: that the call did not get into the subject matter they had hoped, and the fidelity of the translation. (p. 72-73)

9. Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman never reported to Morrison any of the “light queries” that he received from Ukrainian officials in August regarding the hold on aid. (p. 93)

10. Mr. Morrison confirmed that President Trump generally does not like foreign aid generally, and specifically held concerns that corruption in Ukraine may cause U.S. aid to be “misused.”

[soonernvolved]

Far left NeverTrumper writes oped urging Pelosi to stop the impeachment sham.
Even Democrats see it’s a mess and a loser.
FOX News far left contributor Cathy Areu wrote a brutally honest piece this weekend directed at the unhinged Democrat Speaker of the House:

Speaker Pelosi, from one Democrat to another, please jump off the impeachment bandwagon

Areu wrote:

www.foxnews.com/opinion/pelosi-democrat-impeachment-cathy-areu

I am not sure if you remember me, or our conversations, but they were great. And we can catch up later.

Right now it’s very important for me to beg for you to sway your fellow Democrats and jump off the “Let’s Impeach President Trump” bandwagon.

It’s just not in the best interest of the Democratic Party or our entire country, actually.

There was a Monmouth poll that came out last week that found that “while there is growing public support for an inquiry, the public is not very confident with the process to date. Just 24% say they have a lot of trust in how the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted so far, 29% have a little trust, and 44% have no trust at all.” That’s very concerning.

In this letter to a friend, if I may call you that, I don’t want to just quote Monmouth polls, however because polls can sometimes be inaccurate. But this one doesn’t appear that way. That’s because another poll, just this year, found that trust in the United States government is an all-time low. Pew found that “only 17% of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (3%) or “most of the time” (14%).”

I trust you, and so many other public servants, because I’ve met you, one on one. I have felt your passion. Your dedication to doing the right thing. And I know you love our country and want to make our future better for everyone. But Madam Speaker, numbers and so many people protesting on the streets, don’t lie.

So, given all of these mixed emotions and anger toward the government, my sources, who have served in the last three administrations and other government positions believe that the Democrats are taking a really big gamble here with this impeachment process.

Areu closed her oped with this:

And, at the end of these impeachment inquiry hearings, you know the real questions that are going to remain. They boil down to these two: One: is the president guilty of what he is being charged of? Two, is this matter serious enough to remove a sitting president?

If the answer to either of those questions is “no,” then the Democrats gambled big, overreached bigger, and may lose it all in 2020.

As a moderate Democrat, this all worries me. It keeps me up at night. Like it did just last night.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

On Sunday John Solomon threatened lawsuits against the liberal media smear merchants.

John Solomon: Listen, every fact in every column I wrote on The Hill was vetted by The Hill, by their lawyers and to this day every fact that remains in public confirmed. Adam Schiff’s three witnesses confirm all of the narratives in my columns. Yes, the State Department embassy in Kiev was pressuring Ukrainian authorities to drop certain cases. Yes, there was concerns about Hunter Biden and his conflicts of interest at Burisma. And, yes there was some evidence that Ukrainian officials were trying to stick their fingers in our 2016 election… I’m in consultation with some lawyers right now about bringing some targeted legal action, not because I want to make any money but because I want to correct the public record for the American people.

Solomon then mentioned the real architects of the Spygate scandal.

John Solomon: Most counter intelligence investigations are always briefed to the president. I would like to see DBDs (daily debriefs) of President Obama actually going back to the summer of 2015… It’s impossible that John McCain did not know about all of the key activities. And it is obvious that the Attorney General would have to know working with the FBI.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ukraine-whistleblower-still-attending-white-house-meetings

The whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump’s communications with Ukraine launched House impeachment proceedings was still attending White House meetings recently and may have spoken to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman prior to filing the complaint, according to the Washington Post.

On Saturday, the outlet published details about the steps a CIA analyst took to blow the whistle after the president urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July 25 phone call to start an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, who is also leading the pack of 2020 Democrats. Notably, the Post was clear that the whistleblower is male.

“The analyst had served on the National Security Council during the Trump administration and had been in the presence of the president. After returning to the CIA, his job required him to continue to participate in National Security Council meetings,” the publication reported, indicating that the whistleblower was still attending meetings at the White House recently.

The Post claimed the whistleblower never told any of his White House contacts about his plans to file a complaint, which he worked on “after hours” in his cubicle at the CIA headquarters for two weeks before submitting it on Aug. 12.

Before filing the complaint, the anonymous person spoke with a White House official who also expressed concern over Trump’s conversation with Zelensky. The “shaken” official said the call was “frightening,” “crazy,” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.”

While unconfirmed, it is possible that the official was Vindman, who still works with the whistleblower on U.S.-Ukraine policy.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/pelosi-scraps-presumption-of-innocence-trump-needs-to-prove-he-is-innocent

House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) suggested to CBS News’ Margaret Brennan on Sunday that President Donald Trump needs to prove that he is innocent in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. This is contradictory to the U.S. criminal justice system, which is based on the presumption of innocence.


Pelosi, who made the remarks on CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” made similar remarks last week while responding to a reporter’s question about the public believing that Democrats are “dead set” on impeaching Trump without looking at all the facts.




TOP ARTICLES
1/6
READ MORE
Trump-Backed Candidate Narrowly Loses Louisiana Governor’s Race

“It’s called an inquiry,” Pelosi said on Thursday. “And if the president has something that is exculpatory, Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence, then he should make that known and that’s part of the inquiry. And so far, we haven’t seen that, but we welcome it. And that’s what an inquiry’s about.”

Pelosi then repeated that sentiment on Sunday in response to Brennan asking her, “Do you think you’ll go through all of this and not vote to impeach the President?”


“That remains – the facts, if the President has information that demonstrates his innocence in all of this, which we haven’t seen,” Pelosi responded. “His transcript of a phone call is tucked away in a highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence server so we can’t see that. If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpa, blame, then we look forward to seeing it.”

WATCH:

Partial transcript from Pelosi’s interview on CBS News’ “Face The Nation”:

www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-of-face-the-nation-on-november-17-2019/

MARGARET BRENNAN: When you tweeted today, you said Ambassador Yovanovitch was viciously smeared by Trump allies, removed from her post and then threatened by the President. What part of that amounts to an impeachable offense or a crime?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, there are many things that the President does that are completely out of the question that are not impeachable. And they’re about the election. But when it comes to violating the Constitution of the United States, as he undermines our national security, jeopardizes the integrity of our elections, dishonors his own oath of office, that’s about impeachment.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the Constitution defines an impeachable offense as treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you think applies to this case?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: We are unfolding the facts. That’s what an inquiry is about.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You use the term bribery.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Yeah, I was translating from the Latin. That – that was in the context of E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. And so I said from many, one. Quid pro quo, bribery. Now that’s what that is. Mm-Hm.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, but do you expect that to be one of the articles –

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: I have no idea. Well, there is not even a decision made to impeach the President.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-Hm.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: This is a finding of fact, unfolding of the truth, and then a decision will be made, and that is a decision that goes beyond me.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you point out factually, right, that vote has not taken place to proceed necessarily with impeachment. But do you think you’ll go through all of this and not vote to impeach the President?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: That remains – the facts, if the President has information that demonstrates his innocence in all of this, which we haven’t seen. His transcript of a phone call is tucked away in a highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence server so we can’t see that. If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpa, blame, then we look forward to seeing it.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/17/emails-open-society-kept-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-updated-on-george-soross-personal-ukraine-activities/

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, received emails about Ukraine policy from a top director at George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
The emails informed Ciaramella and a handful of other Obama administration foreign policy officials about Soros’s whereabouts, the contents of Soros’s private meetings about Ukraine and a future meeting the billionaire activist was holding with the prime minister of Ukraine.



A primary recipient of the Open Society emails along with Ciaramella was then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who played a central role in the anti-Trump dossier affair. Nuland, with whom Ciaramella worked closely, received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to her direct role in facilitating the dossier within the Obama administration.


The emails spotlight Soros’s access to national security officials under the Obama administration on the matter of Ukraine.

In one instance, Jeff Goldstein, senior policy analyst for Eurasia at the Open Society Foundations, sent a June 9, 2016 email to Nuland and Ciaramella, who were the missive’s primary recipients.

CC’d were three other State Department officials involved in European affairs, including Alexander Kasanof who worked at the U.S. embassy in Kiev.

The message read:

I wanted to let you know that Mr. Soros met with Johannes Hahn in Brussels earlier today. One of the issues he raised was concern over the decision to delay the visa liberalization for Georgia and the implications for Ukraine.

The email revealed that “GS” – meaning Soros – “is also meeting [Georgian] President [Giorgi] Margvelashvili today and speaking with PM Groyman,” referring to Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

The email stated that Soros told Hahn “that Ukrainian civil society is concerned that without reciprocity from the EU for steps Ukraine has taken to put in place sensitive anti-corruption and anti-discrimination legislation and institutions it will not be possible to continue to use the leverage of EU instruments and policies to maintain pressure for reforms in the future.”



Soros also “urged Hahn to advocate with member states to move ahead with visa liberalization for Ukraine,” the email related.

“I’m sure you’ve been working this issue hard; if you have any thoughts on how this is likely to play out or where particular problems lie I’d appreciate if you could let us know,” the email concluded.

Goldstein’s email text sent to Nuland and Ciaramella was not addressed to any one individual.

Nuland replied that she would be happy to discuss the issues by phone. Goldstein set up a phone call and wrote that Soros specifically asked that an employee from the billionaire’s “personal office” join the call with Nuland.


The email was released last August as part of a separate Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Citizens United. The FOIA request was unrelated to Ciaramella.

Johannes Hahn, referenced in the emails as meeting with Soros about Ukraine, is the European Commissioner for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.

In 2015, Hahn participated with Nuland in the YES Summit, which bills itself as “the leading public diplomacy platform in Eastern Europe.”

Another summit participant was Vadym Pozharskyi, a board advisor to Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company at the center of the impeachment trial and the allegations related to Hunter and Joe Biden.



On scores of occasions, Hahn was a featured speaker at roundtables and other events produced by the Atlantic Council think tank, which is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma.

The Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations and has been in the news for ties to various actors associated with the impeachment issue.

In one of several instances, Breitbart News reported, itinerary for a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Atlantic Council reveals that a staffer on Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a meeting during the trip with Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, now a key witness for Democrats pursuing impeachment. The Schiff staffer is also an Atlantic Council fellow, while Taylor has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council.

Breitbart News previously reported on other emails that show Ciaramella worked closely with Nuland.

Nuland has come under repeated fire for her various roles in the anti-Trump dossier controversy.

In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

FBI notes cite career Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as saying that Nuland was in touch with Fusion GPS co-founder and dossier producer Glenn Simpson.

Sen. John McCain, who infamously delivered the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly first dispatched an aide, David J. Kramer, to inquire with Nuland about the dossier claims.

Meanwhile, looped into some other email chains with Ciaramella was then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer.

An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry.

Finer reportedly received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with Nuland.

After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.



Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

In testimony last year, Nuland made statements about a meeting at the State Department in October 2016 between State officials and Steele, but said that she didn’t participate.

At a June 2018 hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) revealed contents of the State Department’s visitor logs while he was grilling Nuland.

At the hearing, Burr asked: “I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?”

“I did not,” Nuland replied. “I actively chose not to be part of that briefing.”

“But were you aware of that briefing?” Burr asked.

“I was not aware of it until afterwards,” Nuland retorted.

Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele’s briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Likely ‘whistleblower’

A RealClearInvestigations report by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry named Ciaramella as best fitting the description of the so-called whistleblower.

Officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings say Ciaramella’s name has been raised in private in impeachment depositions and during at least one House open hearing that was not part of the formal impeachment proceedings.



Federal documents show Ciaramella also worked closely with Joe Biden and worked under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked with former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump advocate who has faced controversy for his role in fueling the questionable Russia collusion investigation. Rice participated in Russia collusion probe meetings and reportedly unmasked senior members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Sperry cites former White House officials saying Ciaramella worked for Biden on Ukrainian policy issues in 2015 and 2016, encompassing the time period for which Biden has been facing possible conflict questions for leading Ukraine policy in light of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma.

Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, the activist attorneys representing the so-called whistleblower, refused to confirm on deny that their secretive client is indeed Ciaramella.

“We neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower,” the lawyers told the Washington Examiner in response to an inquiry about Ciaramella.

Zaid and Bakaj added, “Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”

Soros funding and ‘whistleblower’ complaint

Besides Burisma funding, the Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations, Google, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., and the U.S. State Department.

Google, Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund, and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint alleging Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 presidential race.

The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the so-called whistleblower’s document and released by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower’s own claims, as Breitbart News documented.

One key section of the so-called whistleblower’s document claims that “multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov.”

This was allegedly to follow up on Trump’s call with Zelensky in order to discuss the “cases” mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower’s narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.

Even though the statement was written in first person – “multiple U.S. officials told me” – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

That footnote reads:

In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.

The so-called whistleblower’s account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does so to:

Write that Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko “also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters.”
Document that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani “had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani.”
Bolster the charge that, “I also learned from a U.S. official that ‘associates’ of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.” The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, “I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.”
The OCCRP report repeatedly referenced is actually a “joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine.”

BuzzFeed infamously also first published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.

The OCCRP and BuzzFeed “joint investigation” resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals.

The so-called whistleblower’s document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/17/pelosi-i-find-it-a-waste-of-my-time-to-respond-to-republicans-i-wont-dignify-their-misrepresentations/



On Sunday’s broadcast of CBS’s “Face The Nation,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said it was a “waste of time” to respond to Republican remarks on impeachment.

Pelosi said, “I really have a real discomfort level of responding to what Republicans say because they are in denial about what has happened in the country. So if you want to ask me about where we’re going on this, I’m happy to respond to that. But I find it a waste of my time and yours to just be talking about what Republicans say.”




She continued, “Let their arguments stand because there’s so much quicksand that I don’t even want to have it given any more visibility by my dignifying any of their misrepresentations of what they say.”

She added, “I say to everybody else, I’m not here to talk about what they say because they’re not facing the reality of what is happening to our country. And this is about our democracy that is at risk with this president in the White House.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/16/adam-schiff-calls-trump-charlatan-vows-to-send-him-back-to-the-golden-throne-he-came-from/

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Saturday attacked President Donald Trump as a “charlatan” and vowed to send him back to the “golden throne he came from” in a speech at the California Democratic Party State Convention in Long Beach.
“Two years ago I stood before you and I urged you to resist and you did, but we are more than a resistance now. We are a majority!” Schiff told attendees.



“We are a majority in one House, and we will become a majority in the other, and we will send that charlatan [President Trump] in the White House back to the golden throne he came from,” the California Democrat continued. He went on:


The most grave threat to the life and health of our democracy comes from within — from a president without ethical compass, without understanding of or devotion to our Constitution. There is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes that he is above the law.

Earlier Saturday, President Trump lampooned the House intel panel chair, misspelling his name as “Schitt” in a tweet highlighting the Dow Jones Industrial Average surpassing 28,000 for the first time ever. The president tweeted:

Dow hits 28,000 – FIRST TIME EVER, HIGHEST EVER! Gee, Pelosi & Schitt have a good idea, “lets Impeach the President.” If something like that ever happened, it would lead to the biggest FALL in Market History. It’s called a Depression, not a Recession! So much for 401-K’s & Jobs!

Dow hits 28,000 – FIRST TIME EVER, HIGHEST EVER! Gee, Pelosi & Schitt have a good idea, “lets Impeach the President.” If something like that ever happened, it would lead to the biggest FALL in Market History. It’s called a Depression, not a Recession! So much for 401-K’s & Jobs!

— Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) November 16, 2019

Schiff’s comments came after the lawmaker lead this week’s inaugural public impeachment inquiry hearings, featuring top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine William Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent, and fired U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

On Friday, Schiff was met with harsh criticisms from Republicans and media figures for accusing President Trump of “witness intimidation” in response to the president’s tweet about Yovanovitch as she testified before impeachment investigators.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted of Schiff’s claim:

This may be the single most ridiculous claim of the Dem show trial. No, the President’s tweeting is not “witness intimidation.” You may not like the tone of some or even many of his tweets, but it’s absurd to suggest that tweeting is an impeachable “high Crime [or] Misdemeanor.”

As Conservative radio host Mark Levin said:

I swear the media are not only vicious but they are nuts. But for the fact that Schiff read the president’s tweet to the witness during the course of the hearing, she would have not known about the tweet. How the hell is that witness tampering? Furthermore, it clearly hasn’t changed the fact that the witness is testifying willingly and sticking to her script.

Schiff also garnered blowback on Friday for interrupting Rep. Elaine Stefanik (R-NY) as she asked him whether he would continue to interrupt Republican lawmakers’ asking questions of witnesses, a fixture in previous, closed-door depositions.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/17/democrats-omit-tim-morrison/

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released the long-awaited transcript from senior National Security Council official Tim Morrison on Saturday, and immediately distorted it for the benefit of the anti-Trump media.
It was a typical example of how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and his staff have tried to skew the fact-finding process in an effort to inflate public support for impeachment, believing few will read the lengthy transcripts for themselves.



First, the committee withheld the transcript since October 31, only releasing it after the first public hearings began last week. Morrison’s testimony was rumored to be very good for President Donald Trump’s defense — Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) had described Democrats in the room during the closed-door hearing as “sucking lemons” — and Republicans would have made good use of it, had they had the transcript available. But it was not provided.


In the interim, Democrats had sole possession of the document. Schiff does not allow copies of the transcripts to be released to Republicans, either in paper or electronic form. If they want to read transcripts, they must do so one by one, in the presence of a Democrat committee staffer. Not only is that rule humiliating, but it also allows Democrats to control the flow of information and to prepare their public arguments with no fear of timely Republican rebuttal.

In the Morrison case, Democrats released “key excerpts” that highlighted the few facts in his testimony that, they believe, help push the case for impeachment. Chief among these is that Morrison confirmed that he heard U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland claim that he told a Ukrainian official, in a private “sidebar” meeting, that aid would be released if the Ukrainian prosecutor general would publicly announce an investigation into Burisma.

But that is just hearsay evidence, as is Morisson’s confirmation of Charge d’affairs William Taylor’s testimony (repeated in public last week) that Sondland, after speaking to President Trump, “there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must announce the opening of the investigations and he should want to do it.”

Sure enough, CNN and other networks highlighted these and other supposedly damaging sections of Morrison’s testimony.

These are the top news results on Google for the search “Tim Morrison,” as of Sunday morning, November 17:

CNN: “Ex-NSC official corroborates Sondland said he was directed by Trump on Ukraine“
NPR: “NSC Official Faults Sondland’s Role In ‘Shadow’ Ukraine Policy“
USA Today: “Morrison said he was ‘not comfortable’ with Ukraine President Zelensky being involved in US politics: the latest“
Daily Beast: “National Security Official Tim Morrison Feared Leaks of Trump’s Call to Ukraine President Would Be Damaging“
Politico: “Sondland said he was acting on Trump’s orders, aide told investigators“
But these reports downplay or omit the most important parts of Morrison’s testimony for Trump’s defense:

Morrison testified “I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” on the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to which he himself listened. That statement does not appear anywhere in the Democrats’ “key excerpts” document. He also testified that he “did not have a view” on whether President Trump’s comments to Zelensky on the phone call were “improper.”
Morrison testified that he was afraid that the conversation would leak — not because he thought the president had done anything wrong, as Democrats’ “key excerpts” document implies, but because he knew about what would happen, given “Washington’s polarized environment.” The Democrats’ summary of the document omits this telling exchange between Morrison and chairman Adam Schiff — no doubt, because it damages their case:
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I just wanted to follow up a bit on this.

One of the concerns, and there may be an overlap between the first two concerns you mentioned about the caII, and if the call became public. First, you said you wene concerned how it would play out in Washington’s polarized environment and, second, how a leak would affect bipartisan suppont for our Ukrainian partners.

Were those concerns nelated to the fact that the President asked his Ukrainian countenpant to look into on investigate the Bidens?

MR. MORRISON: No, not specifically.

THE CHAIRMAN: So you didn’t think that the President of the United States asking his counterpart to conduct an investigation into a potential opponent in the 2020 election might influence bipartisan support in Congress?

MR. MORRISON: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: And you weren’t concerned that the President bringing up one of his political opponents in the Presidential election and asking a favor with respect to the DNC server or 2016 theory, you weren’t concerned that those things would cause people to believe that the President was asking his counterpart to conduct an investigation that might influence his reelection campaign?

MR. MORRISON: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: That never occurred to you?

MR. MORRISON: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: Did you recognize during the — as you listened to the call that if Ukraine were to conduct these investigations, that it would inure to the President’s political interests?

MR. MORRISON: No.

Morrison contradicted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Democrats’ star witness in the closed-door hearings, who reported to Morrison directly. Morrison testified that while he admired his subordinate’s patriotism, he was irritated that Vindman failed to report concerns about the call directly to him. He said Vindman never raised concerns that something illegal had happened. He also said he accepted all of Vindman’s proposed edits to the call record, contrary to Vindman’s testimony. And while he did not think that Vindman was a leaker, he testified: “I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what.” He said that Vindman’s sloppy practices were partly the result of his own predecessor at the NSC, Dr. Fiona Hill — another one of the Democrats’ star witnesses, who, like Morrison, is due to testify publicly this week.
Morrison testified that other foreign aid being offered by the U.S. at the time was reportedly under review — not just to Ukraine. And he confirmed earlier testimony that the aid being held up did not include the essential Javelin anti-tank missiles, which were being delivered to Ukraine through a separate procurement process.
Morrison testified that he had no concerns that President Trump asked President Zelensky, during the July 25 phone call, to meet with his personal attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Morrison kept NSC lawyers informed about what was going on — not because he was concerned Trump had done anything wrong, but because he wanted “to protect the president” from whatever Sondland was doing.
All of these facts are missing in the Democrats’ “key excerpts.” The Democrats do acknowledge a few exculpatory moments, but downplay them.

For example, the “key excerpts” document includes Morrison’s testimony that the transcript of the July 25 call was placed on a more secure server by “mistake” — but focuses on the fact that it was not removed from the more secure server after that.



Morrison also confirmed that the Ukrainians did not know that the aid was being held up until a Politico article appeared on August 28, and he said that Sondland’s side conversation with a Ukrainian official in September was “the first time something like this [investigations] had been injected as a condition on the release of the assistance.” Democrats include that latter quote, but downplay it.

Similarly, Democrats distorted the testimony of Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, whose testimony was also released on Saturday. Democrats highlighted the fact that Williams testified that she was told by another aide that Trump told Pence to skip Zelensky’s inauguration in May — though she did not hear that first-hand.

They quote her as saying the July 25 call “for me shed some light on possible other motivations behind a secunity assistance hold.” But they leave out her saying she “didn’t have any firsthand knowledge as to the reasoning.”

Both Morrison and Williams are scheduled to testify in public hearings before the committee on Tuesday.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/16/senior-nsc-official-tim-morrison-believed-nothing-improper-occurred-during-trump-zelensky-call/

Tim Morrison, a senior National Security Council official, testified last month that he believed nothing improper occurred during President Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

During a recent closed-door deposition as part of the impeachment inquiry, Morrison was asked under oath, “In your view, there was nothing improper that occurred during the call?”


“Correct,” he answered.

Breitbart TV



Play Video
CLICK TO PLAY

Sen. Rick Scott Calls Out Dems on Migration: 'It Is Disgusting What People Are Doing'

Morrison, as the top U.S. official at the NSC on Russia and Europe, listened to the July 25 phone call that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry. He was promoted to the position after Fiona Hill resigned on July 19.

He said he does not believe the word “Burisma” came up on the call — contrary to what a more junior NSC official, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, testified. Vindman testified that Zelensky brought up the word “Burisma,” but when Vindman suggested that the word be added to the transcript, it was not accepted.



Morrison was asked, “You were on the call. Do you remember whether the name Burisma came up on the call?”

“No, I don’t believe it did,” he said.

Morrison also testified that he was the “final clearing authority” on the call transcript, and would have been the one to make any edits to the transcript. Vindman testified that he suggested the word “Burisma” be edited in, but Morrison said he recalls no such request.

“Do you remember whether anyone suggested edits adding the word Burisma to the [memorandum of conversation]?” Morrison was asked.

“I do not,” he responded.

Morrison said he would have agreed to the edit if someone who was on the call suggested it, and if he had also had it in his notes. “Had I recalled or had it in my notes that was mentioned, yes, I would have agreed to the edit,” he said.

Morrison testified that he actually accepted all of Vindman’s proposed edits. “I accepted all of them,” he said.


Vindman testified that after listening to the call, he was so concerned that he went with his twin brother — a lawyer at the NSC — to complain to the NSC counsel John Eisenberg.

Morrison testified that he purposely kept Vindman out of the loop because he had questions about his judgment, which were also raised by other officials:

I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman’s judgmen. Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex’s judgment.

When pressed further, Morrison said, “I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what.”

Morrison also testified that while he did not have concerns about Vindman leaking, others on the NSC did believe he had leaked information and that “multiple” NSC personnel told him they were concerned he had access to information he was not supposed to have.



“Did anyone ever bring concerns to you that they believed Colonel Vindman leaked something?” Morrison was asked.

“Yes,” he said. “It was brought to my attention that some had — some of my personnel had concerns that he did [have access to things he was not supposed to see].”

Morrison testified that those concerns were brought to him in person and by email.

Morrison also testified that Vindman had never expressed his concerns to him about the content of the July 25 call being improper or illegal, despite him going to Eisenberg afterwards.

“I have no recollection of him doing so,” Morrison said.

Morrison also testified that after the July 25 call, he went to NSC counsel John Eisenberg with concerns over the transcript being potentially leaked:

I was concerned about how the contents would be used in Washington’s political process. I was concerned about how it could be used. I didn’t necessarily fully understand how everybody could use it, but I was concerned about how it could be used.

I didn’t necessarily fully understand how everybody could use it, but I was concerned that it would wind up politicizing Ukraine. I was concerned that that would, in turn, cost bipartisan support. And I was concerned about how the Ukrainians would internalize that.

Asked why he was concerned about how Ukrainians would interpret it if they were on the phone call, Morrison said, “Well, there’s one thing for what they hear firsthand from the President; there’s another thing for how that then gets used in the political process.”

Asked why he was concerned about a leak, he said, “Because it’s been my experience in government there.”



Morrison said Eisenberg told him that the transcript was mistakenly put on a highly classified server.

Morrison also confirmed that Trump generally did not like foreign aid — which could explain why the White House ordered a pause on security assistance going to Ukraine.

He was asked about his comment to the top U.S. official in Ukraine, Amb. Bill Taylor, about the president not wanting to provide any assistance to Ukraine at all.

When asked to explain what he meant, Morrison reinforced the explanation the White House has given as to why the aid was paused:

“The President’s general antipathy to foreign aid, as well as his concerns that the Ukrainians are not paying their fair share, as well as his concerns when our aid would be misused, because of the view that Ukraine has a significant corruption problem,” he said.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/11/16/as-impeachment-fizzles-the-stock-market-soars/

As Impeachment Fizzles, The Stock Market Soars
NOVEMBER 16, 2019 By David Marcus
In New York City on Friday the Dow Jones Industrial Average soared to 28,004, a new record. In fact all major U.S. stock indexes hit new highs, and the SNP 500 hit its longest streak of weekly gains in two years. Put simply, it was a really good day for the economy.

Meanwhile in Washington, the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry slogged along, with Democrats all but conceding that even if they vote to impeach, the removal of the president by the Senate is all but certainly not going to happen.


Are these two major events on the Acela corridor related? It’s difficult to say, but some experts feared impeachment and removal could put a serious strain on the market. Asked last month by CNN if he believed impeachment could crash the market, former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said that it could, essentially arguing that markets don’t like that kind of political disruption.

So why hasn’t the impeachment inquiry spooked the market? Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the audit and tax firm RSM, said he does not believe impeachment has any material impact on the markets or economy.

“Given where the public is and the small probability of conviction in the Senate, there is at this time little risk to the outlook…If there should be a major shift in public opinion and the opinion of potential jurors in the U.S. Senate, that is where economists, financial professionals and market actors would first look for stress,” he said.

David Kotok, Chief Investment Office at investment advisory firm Cumberland, stressed a similar point, saying, “The markets see the impeachment process as a pure political ploy. So the metaphor is Clinton, not Nixon. Hence no market reaction to impeachment proceedings. So far, this is not a Nixon type story. If evidence surfaces to a smoking gun level like the Nixon 18 ½ minute gap in a tape, then things change.”

There are few things telling about this situation. First, it is yet another indicator that experts in myriad fields believe the Trump presidency will survive. Democrats, and progressives in the media are now claiming they always knew the Senate would never convict, but only a few weeks ago they were waxing poetic about how televised hearings would sway public opinion and pry loose enough GOP senators to sink Trump.

This is also an indicator that the Trump economy continues to chug along creating jobs and growth. The market’s sigh of relief and record highs as the fear of possible removal of Trump subsided show that investors are comfortable with Trump in the White House, and still feel rather bullish.

As hard as they tried, House Democrats were not able to pull off the potent impeachment effort that experts had feared would tank Wall Street. Instead, as their public hearings plod along the stock market is soaring and America is going about its business.

[soonernvolved]

Rep. Lee Zeldin: There was a lot of coverage obviously for the open hearing of Ambassador Yovanovitch on Friday. But once that was done even though we thought we were in this new open public part of this impeachment inquiry we went back into this SCIF in the basement of the United States capitol on two more depositions. On Friday it was David Holmes who was an assistant for Ambassador Taylor and then Saturday, yesterday, we were there for several hours for Mark Sandy, who was a dedicated career staffer at the Office of Management and Budget who came in to answer a question on why there was a hold on aid to Ukraine. His answer was one that I don’t believe there should be another open hearing until that transcript is released because it’s going to change some of the answers that was given by say Lt. Col. Vindman on Tuesday morning.

So, let’s release all of the remaining transcripts including Mark Sandy and David Holmes because Mark Sandy’s answer that he gave yesterday to that question made for a very bad day for those who are pushing for this impeachment charade.

[soonernvolved]

So, the Democrats new "star witness" admits he was drinking and didn't take notes about the call. Calling this kabuki theatre doesn't do it justice.

www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/11/18/democrats-new-star-witness-david-holmes-was-drinking-wine-didnt-take-notes/

David Holmes, the political officer at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine who has emerged as the Democrats’ new star witness in the “impeachment inquiry,” admitted he had been drinking wine at the time he claimed to overhear the president on the phone.

Holmes claimed to have overheard a conversation between U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland and President Donald Trump on a mobile phone on July 26, the day after Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Holmes told the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door hearing last Friday that Trump asked Sondland whether Zelensky would “do the investigation,” and Sondland said that Zelensky “loves your ass.”

The text of Holmes’s prepared remarks was leaked, and the media reported he had “first-hand” evidence that Trump cared about “investigations” — though that was already known after Trump released the transcript of the July 25 call.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/19/impeachment-inquiry-witness-aid-to-lebanon-withheld-at-same-time-same-way-as-ukraine/

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale testified to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this month that aid to Lebanon had been withheld at roughly the same time, and in the same way, as aid to Ukraine.

The transcript of Hale’s closed-door deposition was released Monday evening, on the eve of a slew of new hearings.

Hale, a career diplomat, testified that the suspension of aid to various countries was part of a context in which the Trump administration had “embarked on a foreign assistance review in which we are trying to reestablish the norms that guide the assistance that we provide overseas.” Hale called the review of U.S. foreign aid “long overdue.”

[soonernvolved]

The HR lady who kept leaker Vindman on was named by Stephanie Grisham and Jesse Watters at the 3:40 mark – Letitia Lewis – in the attached video.

[soonernvolved]

11:17 A.M. — Vindman seemingly mocks Giuliani: “I only know him as New York’s finest mayor.”

This seems rather important:

10:56 A.M. — Vindman says Hunter Biden did not appear qualified to serve on Burisma’s board of directors.

10:55 A.M. — Vindman acknowledges he’s aware of President Trump’s skepticism about foreign aid.

10:53 A.M. — Castor asks whether President Trump has concerns about corruption in Ukraine. Vindman replies he does not recall, but there are general concerns in the U.S.

10:52 A.M. —

10:50 A.M. — Williams on the Trump-Zelensky call: “I did not discuss the call with anyone inside or outside the White House.”

And another important fact:

[soonernvolved]

Hmmm, did he commit perjury?

However, Vindman testified behind closed doors recently that he has no idea who the whistleblower is.

“I want the committee to know I am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee’s attention. I do not know who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower,” Vindman previously said under oath. (screenshot of his testimony below)

[soonernvolved]

And he admitted under oath that he made up parts of President Trump's call summary:

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/19/alexander-vindman-admits-making-up-parts-of-trump-call-summary/

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Prior to the call, Vindman included a discussion about corruption in the talking points provided to the president but Trump did not use them in the call.

The summery Vindman wrote after the call read:

President Trump underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.

But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

When asked by the Democrat counsel about whether the summery he wrote was false, Vindman hesitated.

“That’s not entirely accurate, but I’m not sure I would describe it as false, it was consistent with U.S. policy,” Vindman said.

Vindman said he included the rhetoric about corruption as a “messaging platform” to describe U.S. policy toward Ukraine, even though it was not discussed on the call.

[soonernvolved]