James Comey

[redstripe]

Dems: Well here is the something for the something.

Will be interesting to hear how they spin this. Hopefully the put Schiff in charge of the PR on this one

[soonernvolved]

2:44 P.M. —

Swalwell: “Did the president ever say to you, ‘stop talking to Rudy’?”

Sondland: “No.”

Swalwell: “Did he ever say, ‘don’t any longer talk to Rudy’?”

Sondland: “No.”

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/20/democrat-jackie-speier-proves-no-law-protects-whistleblower-identity/

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) accidentally proved Wednesday that there is no law protecting a whistleblower’s identity — undermining the argument that House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has used to block any testimony of, or questions about, the whistleblower who triggered the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

Speier read aloud from a Washington Post article published earlier in the day that fact-checked Schiff’s claim that the whistleblower — whom Democrats previously wanted to testify — has a “statutory right” to anonymity.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/schiffs-claim-that-whistleblower-has-statutory-right-anonymity/

She read the following into the record (emphasis added):

Federal law expressly restricts the inspector general’s office from disclosing whistleblowers’ identities. It says that “the Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken.”

That appears to be the lone statutory restriction on disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, applicable only to the inspector general’s office. We found no court rulings on whether whistleblowers have a right to anonymity under the ICWPA or related statutes. Vladeck said it is nonetheless a best practice to avoid disclosure of the Ukraine whistleblower’s identity, “given the concerns about retaliation.” McCullough said, “We’ve stepped into bizarro-land when senior policymakers are trying to yank a CIA employee into the public spotlight in retaliation for making a whistleblowing complaint, especially when there are credible threats to that employee’s personal safety.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/11/20/dna-test-confirms-hunter-biden-father-arkansas-baby-court-docs/

established Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden’s youngest son, as the father of a baby born out of wedlock in Arkansas, according to a motion filed in the state by the child’s mother’s legal counsel.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported on Wednesday:

DNA testing has established, “with scientific certainty,” that Hunter Biden is the father of an Arkansas baby, according to a motion filed Wednesday in Independence County on behalf of the child’s mother, Lunden Alexis Roberts.

Biden, son of former vice president Joe Biden, “is not expected to challenge the results of the DNA test or the testing process,” the filing states.

www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/nov/20/dna-test-shows-hunter-biden-father-arkansas-womans/
…

Hunter Biden, who initially denied having sexual relations with Roberts, eventually agreed to take a DNA test, according to documents filed by Roberts’ attorney, Clint Lancaster.

In an October interview with Hunter Biden in October, ABC News’s Amy Robach did not ask the former vice president’s son about allegations that he fathered a child outside of marriage.

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/11/20/fbi-interview-whistleblower/

FBI reached out last month to the CIA analyst who filed a whistleblower complaint against President Trump, according to reports.

Yahoo! News reports that an FBI agent from the Washington, D.C., field office contacted the whistleblower’s lawyers, seeking an interview.

An interview has not been scheduled, and it is unclear whether the whistleblower will agree to a meeting, according to Yahoo! (RELATED: Read The Whistleblower Complaint)

CNN also reported that the FBI reached out to the whistleblower, who filed a complaint against Trump on Aug. 12 that raised concerns about a July 25 phone call that Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The whistleblower was not on the call, but relayed concerns from White House officials who were.

House Democrats and the whistleblower’s lawyers have tried to limit speculation about the identity of the whistleblower.

[soonernvolved]

So, more second hand, etc information:

[kcrufnek]

Is there anyone out there telling the truth? I've never seen so much bullshit used as headlines and breaking news.

And what has happened to the Drudge Report? Did he sell it? That front page is embarrassing. Andrew would be having another heart attack.

[soonernvolved]

Nov 21, 2019 2:24:28 GMT -6 kcrufnek said:

Is there anyone out there telling the truth? I've never seen so much bullshit used as headlines and breaking news.

And what has happened to the Drudge Report? Did he sell it? That front page is embarrassing. Andrew would be having another heart attack.

Their trying to sell a dying narrative,(kind of why the media have been tongue lashing the American citizens because they are tuning out this bs). As for Drudge, I have no idea what happened, but he went from Trump supporter to vehemently anti Trump quick.

[soonernvolved]

So, it’s normal then:

On Wednesday Rep. Ratcliffe pressed Schiff witness Under Secretary Hale the many times aids was delayed this past year to questionable regimes.

As Rep. Ratcliffe revealed US aid was also delayed by the Trump administration to Pakistan, Honduras, Lebanon and other countries.

Yet, not a peep about those countries from Schiff, etc.

[soonernvolved]

And there's another connection to the alleged whistleblower:

www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cant-remember-alleged-whisteblower-eric-ciaramella-was-name-fiona-hill-could-not-recall

[i]When former National Security Council official Fiona Hill testifed before the House Intelligence Committee, she said that she could not remember the name of the Ukraine director when she joined the White House.

That person was Eric Ciaramella, the career CIA analyst who is alleged to be the Ukraine whistleblower.

Hill was White House NSC senior director for European and Russian affairs, a position Ciaramella held in an acting capacity while still Ukraine director, for a brief period immediately before she took the post.

Ciaramella, 33, is now a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the National Intelligence Council under President Trump’s director of national intelligence, the Washington Examiner previously reported.[/i]

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/11/21/gordon-sondlands-bombshell-impeachment-testimony-was-a-dud/

Gordon Sondland’s ‘Bombshell’ Impeachment Testimony Was A Dud
It was the testimony that was supposed to bring an end to the Trump administration as we knew it, but EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland came up short.
Tristan JusticeBy Tristan Justice
NOVEMBER 21, 2019
It was the testimony that was supposed to bring an end to the Trump administration as we knew it, finally completing Democrats’ three-year mission to undo the results of the 2016 presidential election.

Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified Wednesday that President Donald Trump criminally leveraged the power of the Oval Office to pressure a foreign entity to investigate political opponents at home by tying military aid and a White House meeting with the Ukrainian president to an investigation into the Biden family in a quid pro quo.


“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: was there a ‘quid pro quo’? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland declared in his opening statement, affirming the Democrats’ latest conspiracy theory seeking the removal of the president.

At first glance, it was a day of damning testimony for the president, and the media ran wild with headlines spelling out Armageddon for the Trump White House.

“Sondland Delivers for Democrats With Bombshell Testimony,” reads a headline in U.S. News and World Report. “Sondland’s bombshell testimony blows holes in Trump’s Ukraine defence,” reads another in The Guardian. “Sondland’s bombshell testimony leaves Trump’s Republican allies scrambling,” declares the Washington Post.

The “bombshell testimony” Sondland offered, however, failed to explode anything on the Trump administration. Sondland, who has already changed his testimony multiple times since sitting down behind closed doors for a private deposition, admitted to lawmakers Wednesday that his accusations of a clear quid pro quo were based entirely on assumptions about Trump and the president’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.


“Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct?” Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio asked.

“That’s correct,” Sondland said.

In fact, Sondland confirmed to the committee that Trump explicitly told Sondland that Trump did not want a quid pro quo on anything regarding Ukraine.

“I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo,” Sondland says Trump told Sondland.

Sondland admits Trump told him “I want no quid pro quo.” Also admits his opinion that there was quid pro quo is based on a “presumption” – and is directly contradicted by Volker and Morrison. Reasonable people having different conclusions isn’t compelling evidence to impeach. pic.twitter.com/aYaxH7O2xc

— John Ratcliffe (@repratcliffe) November 20, 2019


During his public testimony on Capitol Hill, Sondland also accused Vice President Mike Pence, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, without any hard evidence and relying on personal recollection, of being aware of the president and Giuliani’s alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine after Sondland raised his concerns over the apparent situation.

Pence, Perry, and Pompeo each denounced the claims as false, refuting Sondland’s testimony that meetings ever took place in which Sondland confronted the vice president and senior cabinet officials of a quid pro quo.

Sondland’s “bombshell” testimony, based on presumptions and new accusations without evidence, have been further contradicted by several prior witnesses who appeared before the committee. On Friday, former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, one of the Democrats’ star witnesses who testified last week, admitted that she had no information that Trump was involved in any criminal activity whatsoever.


On Tuesday, Sondland’s charges of a quid pro quo were flatly disputed by former State Department Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and former National Security Council Staffer Tim Morrison, both of whom resigned their government posts before sitting for their private depositions in the committee.

Volker and Morrison were each asked point-blank whether there was any bribery or extortion, i.e., quid pro quo, pushed by the White House on Ukraine.

“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?” asked ranking Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California to each witness.

“No,” they each said, without hesitation.

"Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?"

MORRISON: No
VOLKER: No

The Democrats' new poll-tested narrative continues to sink. Americans aren't buying their partisan impeachment of @realdonaldtrump. pic.twitter.com/Wk2KqulXrG

— Rep Andy Biggs (@repandybiggsaz) November 19, 2019

Sondland’s appearance on Capitol Hill also gave credence to a potential congressional investigation of the Biden family’s shade business dealings with Ukraine.

Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company known to be highly corrupt, making $50,000 a month while his father, Joe Biden, served as vice president at the time and controlled U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

When pressed on whether the situation appeared to be a conflict of interest by Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, Sondland agreed.

“Clearly it’s an appearance of a conflict of interest,” Sondland told the committee.

WATCH: Ambassador Sondland admits Hunter Biden serving on the board of Burisma had the appearance of a conflict of interest. Yet Adam Schiff refuses to allow this Committee to call Biden as a witness. pic.twitter.com/6OSIpYWoPo

— Rep. Elise Stefanik (@repstefanik) November 20, 2019

Certainly, testimony from a witness who has already changed his story multiple times and offered claims based only on personal recollection of events contradicted by other witnesses made for quite an explosive day for the Trump White House in the Democratic impeachment saga.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

10:08 A.M. — Holmes: “Ukrainians want to hear a clear and unambiguous reaffirmation that our long-standing, bipartisan policy of strong support for Ukraine remains unchanged and that we fully back it at the highest levels.”

10:01 A.M. — Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) rips Holmes’s testimony, says he sounds like a “discontented deep-state bureaucrat.”

10:00 A.M. — Holmes: “Between meetings on August 27th, I heard Ambassador Bolton express to Ambassador Taylor and National Security Council Senior Director Tim Morrison his frustration about Mr. Giuliani’s influence with the President, making clear there was nothing he could do about it.”

9:58 A.M. — Holmes: “Ambassador Sondland told the President he should let A$AP Rocky get sentenced, then play the ‘race card’ and give him a ticker-tape parade when he gets home, you can tell the Kardashians you tried.”



9:56 A.M. — Holmes continues on Sondland’s call with President Trump: “[He] went on to state that President Zelenskyy ‘loves your ass.’ I then heard President Trump ask, ‘So, he’s gonna do the investigation?’ Ambassador Sondland replied that ‘he’s gonna do it,’ adding that President Zelenskyy will do ‘anything you ask him to.'”

9:54 A.M. — Holmes says of President Trump’s call with Sondland: “The President’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.”

9:52 A.M. — Holmes: “I was deeply disappointed to see that the President raised none of what I understood to be our inter-agency agreed-upon foreign policy priorities in Ukraine and instead raised the Biden/Burisma investigation and referred to the theory about Crowdstrike.”

9:49 A.M. — Holmes: “On June 28, while President Trump was still not moving forward on a meeting with President Zelenskiy, he met with Russian President Putin at the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, sending a further signal of lack of support for Ukraine.” Strange framing from Holmes considering President Trump approved the sale of 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers to Ukraine in March 2018 — something the Obama administration resisted.


9:48 A.M. — Holmes’s use of the term “Three Amigos” — a reference to Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and former Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker — is not going unnoticed:

9:37 A.M. — Holmes: “Mr. Lutsenko made a series of unsupported allegations against Ambassador Yovanovitch, mostly suggesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch improperly used the Embassy to advance the political interests of the Democratic Party.”

9:36 A.M. — Holmes: “As the impeachment inquiry has progressed, I have followed press reports and reviewed the statements of Ambassador Taylor and Ambassador Yovanovitch. Based on my experience in Ukraine, my recollection is generally consistent with their testimony.”



9:35 A.M. — Holmes: “I am an apolitical foreign policy professional, and my job is to focus on the politics of the country in which I serve so that we can better understand the local landscape and better advance U.S. national interests there.”

9:34 A.M. — Holmes begins his opening statement: “Beginning in March 2019, our support for Ukrainian democratic resistance to Russian aggression … became overshadowed by a political agenda being promoted by [Rudy Giuliani] and a cadre of officials operating with a direct channel to the White House.”

[soonernvolved]

10:13 A.M. — Hill begins her opening statement, says: “I have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction, except toward the truth.”

10:09 A.M. — Holmes ends his opening statement by lecturing the Trump administration over its policy toward Ukraine, stating the country deserves better. Reminder: President Trump approved the sale of 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers to Ukraine in March 2018 — something the Obama administration did not do.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/11/21/sean-davis-anti-trump-impeachment-theater-is-watergate-cosplay-for-democrats/

Sean Davis: Anti-Trump Impeachment Theater Is ‘Watergate Cosplay’ For Democrats
NOVEMBER 21, 2019 By The Federalist Staff
Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, joined “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Wednesday to recap another day of House Democrats playacting at their partisan, anti-Trump impeachment hearings.

“I think we learned that the Democrats are quite convinced they need to keep going with this Watergate cosplay in Washington,” Davis said. “We learned no new facts. We heard the same stuff we’ve heard over and over again. We saw the same playacting.”


Davis said the only thing he has learned from the House Intelligence Committee’s theater is how committed Democrats are to the farce of impeachment they have been pursuing for three years.

“That’s the central crime of Donald Trump’s presidency, is he had the audacity to beat Hillary Clinton when she was supposed to be ordained and coronated,” he said. “They said they were going to impeach him on day one. The day he was inaugurated they said, ‘Now impeachment begins.’”

Video Player

00:00
02:48


Both Democrats and our complicit news media have made it difficult for Americans to take this latest round of impeachment threats seriously after tearing the country apart over a fake Russia collusion narrative for two years.

“They tried it with the Russia collusion hoax. They tried it with the 25th amendment nonsense, and that failed, so now we’re in the third version of their impeachment passion play that we’re all being forced and held hostage to watch,” Davis said.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/11/21/gordon-sondlands-testimony-changed-nothing-about-adam-schiffs-grift/

Gordon Sondland’s Testimony Changed Nothing About Adam Schiff’s Grift
NOVEMBER 21, 2019 By David Marcus
Early on in David Mamet’s movie “House of Games” there is a scene where a group of con artists are trying to scam 6,000 dollars from a mark. A handgun is placed on a table to emphasize to the mark the gravity of the situation. But just as she is about to write a check, she notices something, water is dripping from the gun. Just like that the scam is exposed. Two of the con men lament their failure.

Vegas Man: I told you a squirtgun wouldn’t work.


Mike: A squirt gun would have worked. You didn’t have to fill it.

Vegas Man: What, am I going to threaten someone with an empty gun…?

Mike: No, George, your right, of course.

Upon careful examination, Amb. Gordon Sondland’s supposedly damning testimony before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday looks a lot more like a dripping gun than a smoking one. What made his appearance before the committee seem so important is that he was the first and only witness so far to change their story from their original secret testimony to go from no quid pro quo to yes, quid pro quo.

Except, there are two problems with this alleged bombshell. One, the supposed quid pro quo had nothing to do with congressionally approved foreign aid, but rather a White House meeting with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, and the president can obviously invite or not invite anyone he pleases to the White House for any reason. Two, the statement of intent to conduct investigations from Zelensky never happened.

When it came to the military aid, Sondland testified that he “presumed” the less than two month delay was a result of Zelensky refusing to announce investigations against Burisma, the Ukrainian energy concern that was paying then Vice President Joe Biden’s son a fortune for apparently nothing, and into alleged interference in the 2016 election. He was told this by no one, certainly not the president, who flat out told him he wanted nothing from Zelensky, he just kind of figured it.

The next shiny paint job that got the left in a tizzy of Trump loathing was Sondland saying that the president didn’t even want the investigations, just the announcement. Some seized on this as evidence that Trump’s sole intention was to smear the Biden’s not to fight corruption, but Sondland himself put the lie to this theory. He explained that Ukraine has a history of failing to live up to promises made in private, so the president wanted a public announcement to ensure the investigations would in fact happen.

The broad picture we got of Sondland was that of a wealthy guy, with a lot of ego, who loves colorful language and enjoys touting his power as an ambassador and who likes to brag about having the president’s ear. It was Sondland who told the Ukrainians that military aid was tied to investigations, but apparently under nobody’s authority. He had a hunch, and he thought that was good enough to go on.

Throughout this impeachment process, just like the Mueller probe into Russian collusion before it, a bunch of gotcha moments, made to look damning have turned out to be nothing more than the somewhat unconventional running of the White House and a campaign for it. For three years now the “walls have been closing in” on Trump, but like Zeno’s arrow, they never seem to actually touch him.

Nonetheless, the illusion that Sondland badly damaged Trump, along with all the talking heads on cable news aghast, and all the spicy memes on Twitter have probably given the Democrats in the House enough ammunition to vote for articles of impeachment.

What continues to be the norm in this, the public phase of impeachment effort 2.0 is that we already know all of the basic facts from the transcripts of secret testimony. Sondland changed that for a few minutes, that’s why it felt like a big deal. But not long into being cross-examined by the Republicans and their counsel, everything settled back down into the hum drum same old story that Trump was acting within his authority and did not expressly tell anyone that military aid would not be released unless investigations were announced.

Democrats will feel on firmer footing now, pinning their grave votes for impeachment which they promise they are very sad to have to cast on Gordon Sondland. But what seems equally certain is that Sondland’s testimony will not move the needle with the American public and will not have Republicans jumping ship to support ousting the sitting American president.

Rep. Adam Schiff’s grift is coming to an end soon, but he’s already blown the gaff. His mark, the American people are seeing through the con game. The president will not be removed from office, so how about we just have an election.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/11/21/fiona-hill-penned-washington-post-op-ed-against-giving-ukraine-weapons-in-2015/amp/

Dr. Fiona Hill told the impeachment inquiry Thursday that she was concerned that a hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security. But in a 2015 Washington Post op-ed, Hill argued against giving Ukraine any lethal weapons.

Hill was testifying in the seventh public hearing in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry. As she had in her closed-door deposition last month, Hill said she was concerned about Ukraine’s security and stability as it defended itself against Russia. In that context, she — and others — were worried about a hold on security.

But Hill also had to admit that she co-authored an op-ed in 2015, when she was working at the left-wing Brookings Institution think tank, in which she opposed sending weapons to help Ukraine.

In her article, titled “How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war,” Hill argued:

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/giving-weapons-to-ukraine-could-goad-putin-into-a-regional-war/2015/02/05/ec2e9680-abf5-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladi­mir Putin’s “calculus.” Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table.

We strongly disagree…

It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right.

Hill explained that once she entered the Trump administration in April 2017, she saw that there was a proper “plan” in place for military assistance. “[E]verybody changes their mind, you know, and kind of learns things. I, you know, was basically persuaded that, you know, this was actualty worth doing,” she told the committee in her deposition.

All of the witnesses have admitted that President Trump’s policy of sending weapons to Ukraine has worked and is more effective than President Barack Obama’s policy, which denied lethal defensive assistance to the Ukrainians.

[soonernvolved]

Really good question:

11:15 A.M. — President Trump’s re-election campaign sends out an email blast pushing back against Hill and Schiff’s dismissal of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election:
There’s a simple reason Adam Schiff wants to deny Ukraine interfered in U.S. politics: He was willing to collude with them. Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 election against Donald Trump was well documented in multiple mainstream news reports. No one denies Russia’s interference—in fact, Republicans authored a report on it.
Democrats must answer three key questions:

1. Separate from the fact that Russia was behind the hacking of the DNC, do you maintain that Ukraine did absolutely nothing to influence America’s 2016 election?
2. Do you believe U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation is legitimate? DOJ has said he is “exploring the extent to which” Ukraine played a role in the 2016 election.
3. Should Ukraine cooperate with the U.S. Department of Justice in its investigation?

10:38 A.M. — Hill of the Trump-Zelensky call: “I found this particular call’s subject matter and the way that it was conducted, surprising.”
10:36 A.M. — Holmes says of the Trump-Sondland call: “I’ve never seen anything like this in my foreign service career.”


10:34 A.M. — Holmes says Sondland “sort of winced” when President Trump came on the phone and “held the phone away from his ear.”

“It was quite loud when the president came on, quite distinctive,” he adds.

10:29 A.M. — Holmes claims Ukrainians still feel under pressure from President Trump: “They’re being very careful.” Zelenksy has repeatedly said he felt no pressure to probe into allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, during the July 25th call with the president.
10:26 A.M. — Biggs fact-checks Hill on Russian meddling efforts:

[soonernvolved]

11:30 A.M. — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is pressed on the partisan nature of the impeachment inquiry, responds with the claim: “Republicans are in denial about the facts. if they don’t want to honor their oath of office, I don’t think we should be characterized as partisan.”

[soonernvolved]

Never Trumper Chris Wallace suggests Pelosi, etc should censure President Trump:

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/21/fiona-hill-worked-with-christopher-steele-author-of-russia-dossier/

Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council (NSC) official who is testifying in Thursday’s impeachment inquiry, admitted in her closed-door deposition to having worked with Russia “dossier” author Christopher Steele.

Steele, a former British spy, was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to find dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. The firm was paid by Trump’s political opponents, particularly the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. His “dossier” produced a slew of unsubstantiated, salacious accusations, some of them were proven false outright. But the FBI used it to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign associates.


Hill was asked directly about her work with Steele. She portrayed it as a product of circumstance, and said that she believed he was being fed misinformation by Russians, perhaps as payback for his past spying on them. (Some of the information also came from Ukraine, though Hill dismissed Ukrainian interference as a “fictional narrative.”)

“He was my counterpart when I was the director, the national intelligence officer,” she testified. She added: “So inevitably, when I had to do liaison meetings with the U.K., he was the person I had to meet with.” She said that she had worked with him from 2006 to 2009 — and added that he had reached out to her in 2016, during the election: “That was prior to the time that I had any knowledge about the dossier. He was constantly trying to drum up business, and he had contacted me because he wanted to see if I could give him a contact to some other individual, who actually I don’t even recall now, who he could approach about some business issues.”

[soonernvolved]

1:04 P.M. — The hearing has resumed. Nunes is asking Hill if she knows former DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, Justice Department Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr.

[soonernvolved]

1:14 P.M. — Hill says President Trump has the absolute right to remove an ambassador whenever he wants.

1:19 P.M. — Hill acknowledges she wasn’t initially in support of providing aid to Ukraine due to their military’s lack of experience with sophisticated weaponry. She co-wrote an opinion-editorial about why for the Washington Post in 2015.

[soonernvolved]

During questioning Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX), who also happens to be a former US Attorney, went after Schiff’s suspect prized witness.

Ratcliffe was able to get Holmes to admit that he could not remember any details on the phone call he could never forget.

Holmes testified that he overheard Donald Trump on his phone call with the Ukrainian ambassador the day after his July 25th call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

Holmes insisted what a memorable call it was, even though he WAS NOT on the call, and that President Trump was pleased that Ukrainian President Zelensky agreed to investigate Burisma and the 2016 election interference by Ukraine.

However, when questioned by Ratcliffe, Holmes could not answer why he only remembered scant details and how ambassador Sondland but COULD NOT ANSWER how or when Sondland received a response from Zelensky in the 24 hours prior to his call on July 26th with President Trump that he could only remember about 10 seconds of.

Mr. Holmes, a staunch liberal, has a lot explaining to do.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Take note of the man in the blue-striped tie behind Rep. Speier — he is Schiff’s top aid Sean Misko and CIA ‘whistleleaker’ Eric Ciaramella’s old NatSec crony.

[soonernvolved]

And now we know why Adam Schiff doesn't want Hunter Biden & Burisma to be brought up.

Here are US government documents that show Schiff’s links to and donations from BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments.




And here is a mention of BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments from reports on Wednesday.

en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831.html



Will Adam Schiff and Democrats call this $7+ billion corruption case a conspiracy too?
Someone needs to get Schiff on the record for his ties to these two companies.