James Comey

[soonernvolved]

Which led to this:

Senate Democrats panicked after Lindsey Graham began the process for a Senate impeachment trial and requested full transcripts of three phone calls between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham on Thursday sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanding the transcripts and Senate Democrats are now screeching for Pompeo to recuse himself from Trump-Ukraine matters.

The Democrats want an impeachment trial in the Senate, they’re going to get what they deserve.

“The only legitimate option is for you to recuse and to delegate the Department’s response to the Trump-Ukraine scandal to a senior career Department official,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats demanded of Pompeo.

In other words, the Senate Dems are panicking and want a Deep State bureaucrat to take over in order to protect the Biden crime family.

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/impeachment-theatre-offers-americans-glimpse-unseen-unelected-who-actually-rule-over-us

American voters have been introduced to the idea that the elected President of the United States can be accused of "undermining" foreign policy determined by the permanent bureaucracy, which spends billions of our tax dollars but is not even slightly interested in our input.

We've been told top bureaucrats who supposedly serve at the pleasure of the president are actually entitled to their jobs and firing them is a crime, with the president presumed guilty unless he can prove he had an acceptable reason for terminating or reassigning them.




We've learned that Made Men of the bureaucratic empire and its political wing, the Democrat Party, cannot be investigated for corruption unless the most exquisite preliminary rituals are followed and the investigators can demonstrate the absolute purity of their intentions.

Outside of Impeachment Theater, we've been told it's heroic for the bureaucracy to organize "resistance" against the elected president and congressional representatives, if the Washington empire disapproves of the voters' choices.

We've discovered obscure lower-court judges can hijack entire segments of national policy on a whim. Some of these imperial proclamations have been expressly premised on the notion that American citizens have less to say about their own government than foreign nationals do.

We've learned a president the imperial bureaucracy likes can issue executive orders that cannot be reversed by presidents it disapproves of. The people are belatedly informed that some matters are settled forever on the "one man, one vote, one time" principle. The essence of self-government, the true right that matters above all others, is the right to say "no."

We've learned over the past three years that the American people no longer have that right in most cases, but their nominal employees in the federal government do. If the imperial bureaucracy makes a demand of you, good luck with trying to work up a "resistance" movement. Good luck getting any favorable attention from the media that has fused with that bureaucracy and enjoys a revolving door of employment with it. But if you, the Little People, cast votes the imperial bureaucracy doesn't like... well, watch out. They'll fight you every step of the way and spend untold millions of YOUR dollars against you. Then they'll get in front of cameras and expect you to applaud them as heroes. It was always a swindle to convince the American people that democracy serves as a failsafe check against authoritarian power.

We were fooled into thinking our government could never become dictatorial, no matter how much power it claims, because we can always vote the bums out. Guess what, kids? As we've seen since 2017, most of the power and money is controlled by people you never get to vote against. You learn that the people you don't vote for are very capable of defending their privileges against the people who DO. And you learn that far more issues than you ever suspected are considered "settled."

[soonernvolved]

THE PRESIDENT: They wrote up the phony, fake dossier. Hillary Clinton paid for it, and the Democrats. A lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine. They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? That’s what I asked actually in my phone call, if you know, I asked it very point-blank because we’re looking for corruption.

Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? You look at my call, I said, you know, corruption. Also, by the way, going back to that, why isn’t Germany putting up money? Why isn’t France putting up money, all of the European nations? Why aren’t they putting up? You have the European Union. How come it’s always the United States that puts up money? The suckers. Why is it always the United States?
..............................................................

THE PRESIDENT: I watched Joe Biden with the prosecutor — who a lot of people said was a great prosecutor — and they took him off. And he was prosecuting that company. And the kid, who never made 10¢ in his life and all of a sudden is making millions of dollars —

DOOCY: Hunter Biden.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, you tell me. This is a guy who got thrown out of the Navy dishonorably, gets thrown out of the Navy and made no money — went through, made no money. All of a sudden, his father becomes VP and he’s making millions and millions of dollars. But there’s another reason that is maybe to me the most important. Why isn’t Germany, France, the European Union…? Why aren’t all those countries in Europe, why aren’t they paying? Why is it always the United States the sucker? I got elected on that.
...............................................

THE PRESIDENT: Rudy is a great crimefighter. Rudy is the best mayor in the history of New York City. Rudy Giuliani is a very legendary figure in our country. Rudy Giuliani was one of the great crimefighters of all time. He’s also a friend of mine. He’s a great person. He’s like an iconic figure in this country for two reasons. He was the greatest mayor in the history of New York, and he was the greatest crimefighter probably in the last 50 years. When you’re dealing with a corrupt country, with Rudy Giuliani, he’s got credentials because of his reputation. When Rudy Giuliani goes there and you hear it’s a corrupt country, it means a lot.
..............................................

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/11/22/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-russia/

The former FBI lawyer who is reportedly under investigation for altering documents in the Russia probe took part in a 2017 interview with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, and also wrote anti-Trump text messages that were revealed in a Justice Department report released last year.

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered an email that was included in an FBI application to renew a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Carter Page, according to The New York Times.


Investigators working in the Justice Department’s office of the inspector general (OIG) discovered the email as part of an investigation into whether the FBI abused the FISA process.

A report of the investigation is set to be released Dec. 9.

People briefed on the report said it will fault the FBI for carelessness and unprofessionalism in how investigators conducted the investigation, according to The NYT. But it will stop short of accusing FBI leaders of acting out of anti-Trump bias. The report will also say that the FBI met the low legal threshold to obtain FISA warrants against Page. (RELATED: Anti-Trump FBI Lawyer Who Sent ‘Resistance’ Text Message Interviewed George Papadopoulos)

But the allegations against Clinesmith are unlikely to alleviate Republican concerns of anti-Trump bias during the investigation.

www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/russia-investigation-inspector-general-report.html



Carter Page, former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, speaks to the media after testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on November 2, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Clinesmith added material to the bottom of an email from an official at another government agency that was included in a FISA renewal application, according to The NYT. Clinesmith included the email in an affidavit that was presented to another FBI official to sign as part of the process to submit the renewal application.

CNN reported Thursday night that an unidentified FBI official was under investigation in the matter. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, referred the lawyer, since identified as Clinesmith, to federal prosecutors as part of a criminal investigation.

Clinesmith resigned from the FBI two months ago following an interview with Horowitz’s team, The NYT reported. He was removed from the special counsel’s investigation in February 2018 after the OIG found text messages he wrote criticizing Trump.

An inspector general’s report released on June 14, 2018, found that an FBI lawyer identified as Clinesmith sent another FBI official a text message on Nov. 9, 2016 lamenting Trump’s election victory.


“I am so stressed about what I could have done differently,” Clinesmith wrote in the text.

Clinesmith also expressed concerns about Trump’s election win because of the lawyer’s role investigating the campaign.

“Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff,” wrote Clinesmith, who is referred to as “FBI Attorney 2” in the June 2018 report.

In a Nov. 22, 2016 text message discussion about Trump, Clinesmith wrote: “Viva le Resistance!”

A spokesman for the special counsel’s team downplayed Clinesmith’s role on the investigation when contacted last year by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The spokesman described Clinessmith as having an administrative role.

But the OIG report released last year described Clinesmith as the “primary FBI attorney” on the Trump-Russia investigation in early 2017.

George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign aide, told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Clinesmith was part of the FBI team that interviewed him on Feb. 16, 2017.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/11/22/joe-biden-lindsey-graham-will-regret-investigating-me-his-whole-life/

Former Vice President Joe Biden threatened Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for launching an investigation into his activities with Ukraine while in the Obama White House, stating the Republican will “regret” the move his “whole life.”

On Thursday, Graham sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting documents to aid in determining whether Biden pushed for the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin to squash a sweeping probe into Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy giant where his son, Hunter Biden, served as a board member. The younger Biden was compensated generously, making up to $83,000 a month for several years while on the Burisma’s board.

“Lindsey is about to go down in a way that I think he’s going to regret his whole life,” Biden told CNN host Don Lemon in a Friday interview in South Carolina. “I say Lindsey, I just — I’m just embarrassed by what you’re doing, for you. I mean, my Lord.”

“They have him under their thumb right now. They know he knows that if he comes out against Trump, he’s got a real tough road for reelection, number one,” the former vice president continued about the South Carolina senator.

Biden then said he is “angered” by the probe because of his long friendship with Graham dating back to their time together in the Senate and suggested President Trump may have pressured him to launch the probe.

“He knows me; he knows my son; he knows there’s nothing to this,” he vented. “Trump is now essentially holding power over him that even the Ukrainians wouldn’t yield to. The Ukrainians would not yield to, quote, ‘investigate Biden’ — there’s nothing to investigate about Biden or his son.”

The senator requested all documents and communications related to Joe Biden’s phone calls with Poroshenko on Feb. 11, 18 and 19, and March 22, 2016, citing media reports that they discussed previous demands to dismiss Shokin for alleged corruption before he was removed from office on March 29, 2016.

Graham also requested documents and communications between Joe Biden and his office and Poroshenko and his office between Feb. 2, 2016, when Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky’s home was raided and Shokin’s dismissal.

Graham is also seeking all documents and communications related to a meeting between Devon Archer, a business partner of Hunter Biden, and then-Secretary of State John Kerry on March 2, 2016.

Graham’s request comes after two weeks of public testimony on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, which centers around a “whistleblower” complaint that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in an attempt to pressure newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Bidens.

[soonernvolved]

President Donald Trump joined FOX and Friends this morning by phone for a nearly hour-long interview.


During his conversation Trump discussed the upcoming Inspector General report that will be released in December.

During their discussion President Trump touched on “nutjob” Adam Schiff, incompetent Pelosi and the insane impeachment show trials they held in the US House for the past two weeks over nothing.


Read more
President Trump warned Democrats that HE WANTS A SENATE TRIAL if they decide to impeach him over their nonsense. A Senate trial WILL DESTROY DEMOCRATS and ought to scare the hell out of them.

President Trump also warned Democrats about the upcoming FISA report showing Democrat Party spying on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

President Trump: What you’re going to see, I predict, will be perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country, political scandal. Political scanda, but that’s the biggest… I think you’re going to see things that are going to be incredible if it’s done right. And I purposely stay out until Bill Barr to handle everything. I wouldn’t have to. I could get very much involved. But I purposely don’t.

President Trump also told the FOX morning crew that the Durham investigation will implicate former President Barack Obama.

Tyler O’Neil at PJ Media reported:

pjmedia.com/trending/trump-historic-durham-investigation-will-implicate-obama-in-spygate/

Now, what you’re going to see, I predict, will be perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country, political scandal,” Trump said. “You have a FISA report coming out which the word is, it’s historic, that is what the word is. That’s what I hear. And if it’s historic, you will see something. And then perhaps even more importantly you have Durham coming out shortly thereafter. He is the U.S. Attorney and he is already announced it’s criminal.”…

…Steve Doocy asked the president if spygate “could actually go up into the West Wing of the Obama administration.”

Trump said it traces back to “the highest levels of government. They were spying on my campaign. That is my opinion.”

“How high did it go, Mr. President? How high did it go?” Doocy pressed.

“I think personally, I think it goes all the way,” Trump responded.

“I hate to say it. I think it’s a disgrace. They thought I was going to win and they said, ‘How can we stop him?’ They wrote up the phony, fake dossier, the disgusting fake dossier, and they tried to have it put out prior to the election just to show you how incompetent they were,” he said. “They spent millions and millions of dollars, Hillary Clinton paid for it, and the Democrats.”

[kcrufnek]

Nov 22, 2019 12:56:59 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

Fiona Hill compared President Trump’s victory to the Communist takeover of Russia.
That’s just crazy and incredibly stupid.

Democrats didn’t send their best to the show trials… Or maybe they did?

warroom.org/2019/11/20/fiona-hill-in-2016-trump-victory-is-american-bolshevik-revolution/

I believe she went to Harvard. What did you expect?

[kcrufnek]

Nov 22, 2019 17:04:37 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/11/22/joe-biden-lindsey-graham-will-regret-investigating-me-his-whole-life/

Former Vice President Joe Biden threatened Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for launching an investigation into his activities with Ukraine while in the Obama White House, stating the Republican will “regret” the move his “whole life.”

On Thursday, Graham sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting documents to aid in determining whether Biden pushed for the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin to squash a sweeping probe into Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy giant where his son, Hunter Biden, served as a board member. The younger Biden was compensated generously, making up to $83,000 a month for several years while on the Burisma’s board.

“Lindsey is about to go down in a way that I think he’s going to regret his whole life,” Biden told CNN host Don Lemon in a Friday interview in South Carolina. “I say Lindsey, I just — I’m just embarrassed by what you’re doing, for you. I mean, my Lord.”

“They have him under their thumb right now. They know he knows that if he comes out against Trump, he’s got a real tough road for reelection, number one,” the former vice president continued about the South Carolina senator.

Biden then said he is “angered” by the probe because of his long friendship with Graham dating back to their time together in the Senate and suggested President Trump may have pressured him to launch the probe.

“He knows me; he knows my son; he knows there’s nothing to this,” he vented. “Trump is now essentially holding power over him that even the Ukrainians wouldn’t yield to. The Ukrainians would not yield to, quote, ‘investigate Biden’ — there’s nothing to investigate about Biden or his son.”

The senator requested all documents and communications related to Joe Biden’s phone calls with Poroshenko on Feb. 11, 18 and 19, and March 22, 2016, citing media reports that they discussed previous demands to dismiss Shokin for alleged corruption before he was removed from office on March 29, 2016.

Graham also requested documents and communications between Joe Biden and his office and Poroshenko and his office between Feb. 2, 2016, when Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky’s home was raided and Shokin’s dismissal.

Graham is also seeking all documents and communications related to a meeting between Devon Archer, a business partner of Hunter Biden, and then-Secretary of State John Kerry on March 2, 2016.

Graham’s request comes after two weeks of public testimony on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, which centers around a “whistleblower” complaint that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in an attempt to pressure newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Bidens.

Nothing but a tongue bath. 

[kcrufnek]

F Lee on a roll here. Pretty good stuff.

news.docsplace.org/mark-levin-with-hannity-schiff-impeachment-hysteria-112119_48fd04f18.html

[soonernvolved]

www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-strzok-page-emails-showing-fbis-special-accommodation-of-clinton-email-witnesses/

Two March 2016 emails show then-FBI General Counsel James Baker and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had discussed meeting with attorney Beth Wilkinson, who was representing Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines. The FBI officials discussed holding “discreet” meetings with Wilkinson in secure locations that were set up to avoid any “stakeouts” by the press. (In a separate Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said that he was “dumbfounded” that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview.

In an email exchange with Deputy Assistant Director in the Counterintelligence Division Jonathan Moffa, Strzok discusses Clinton aides’ laptops, and that Wilkinson said that the laptops in the FBI’s possession did not contain Clinton’s 60,000 emails. She also said that the two laptops that had them are the personal laptops of Mills and Samuelson that were still in use at that time.

On March 1, 2016 an unidentified official from the FBI Office of General Counsel asks Baker if he’d had a chance to speak with Wilkinson, noting “CES [Counterespionage Section] wants to reach out to discuss scheduling additional interviews but wanted some feedback from you first.” Baker replies, “Just did… She appreciated the heads up about the pending press articles. She wants to meet with the DD [Deputy Director] but can only meet on the weekends right now. I will check his availability tomorrow.”

In a follow-up email sent only to Strzok, Baker writes, “She understands that it needs to be in a SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility]. She seems more comfortable with NYFO [New York Field Office], but I think would be open to WFO [Washington Field Office] if she can get in and out in a discreet manner (i.e., no chance of a press stakeout or too many people in the office seeing them and having awareness of what is going on). Is there an offsite somewhere in the DC area that might be better? If so, don’t tell me where it is.”

[soonernvolved]

Rep. Devin Nunes intends to file lawsuits against CNN and The Daily Beast over junk reports that he flew to Vienna to meet with secret Ukrainians including fired prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

Breitbart.com reported:


www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/22/exclusive-devin-nunes-to-sue-cnn-daily-beast-over-fake-news-attacks/

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) intends to file lawsuits against both CNN and the Daily Beast over fake hit pieces the outlets have published about him in recent days, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.

Two pieces recently published in both outlets–one from Daily Beast earlier this week, and one from CNN published late Friday–alleged that the Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who is now indicted on unrelated charges, helped Nunes with a variety of matters when digging into Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on behalf of Democrats.

The Daily Beast story, from Betsy Swan (formerly Woodruff), alleges that Parnas helped Nunes set up a variety of meetings on Ukraine matters. The CNN story, from Vicky Ward, goes even further, alleging that Nunes arranged a secret trip to Vienna and met there with Victor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor that former Vice President Joe Biden pushed to have fired when Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, the natural gas company paying Biden’s son Hunter Biden $83,000 per month. It is unclear at this time how much of these reports are blatantly false, but most of each of them appear to be inaccurate, according to sources familiar with the matter.

[soonernvolved]

Jonathan Turley is a highly regarded law professor at George Washington University. Turley is a liberal but he is fair and he is also a realist. He appeared on CBS News this week and explained to the seemingly disappointed hosts why impeachment is probably going nowhere.

www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2019/11/22/turley-tells-disappointed-cbs-hosts-impeachment-designed-fail

Turley Tells Disappointed CBS Hosts: Impeachment ‘Designed to Fail’

Appearing on Friday’s CBS This Morning, legal analyst and constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley completely shattered the hopes of Democrats and the liberal media that President Trump would be successfully impeached and removed from office.

He trashed the proceedings for presenting “the thinnest evidentiary record” and declared the effort was “designed to fail.”

After fellow CBS News legal analyst and anti-Trump Bulwark writer Kim Wehle assured the morning show anchors that Democrats “absolutely” made the case for impeachment, co-host Gayle King turned to Turley and wondered: “Jonathan, do you feel the same?” Turley threw a wet blanket on the discussion: “I’m afraid I don’t.”

This is the key part of Turley’s comments:

Whether this is intentional or not, it seems designed to fail in the Senate. I don’t think you could prove a removable offense of a president on this record even if the Democrats were in control. This thing is too narrow, it is – it doesn’t have a broad foundation, and it’s an undeveloped record.

There are a lot of core witnesses that were not called. And the question is why? They said, “We want a vote by December. We want to vote before Santa.” Why? Why – why would you – why would you be pushing this instead of calling these critical witnesses?

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/john-solomon-drops-28-uncomfortable-facts-crushing-debunked-conspiracy-theory-narrative

Authored by John Solomon via John Solomon Reports (emphasis ours)

I honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s service to his country. He’s a hero. I also respect his decision to testify at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.

But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate in America, one that can’t be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.

So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress, he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
Here are his exact words:
“I think all the key elements were false,” Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. “Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?”

All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false... Were there more items in there, frankly, congressman? I don’t recall. I haven’t looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right.”
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.

And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.

Fact 1: Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy. Here is the announcement. Hunter Biden’s hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister here. Hunter Biden’s firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments here.

Fact 2: Burisma was under investigation by British authorities for corruption and soon came under investigation by Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Fact 3: Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden’s role at the company was undercutting his father’s anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.

Fact 4: The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials. I especially refer you to State official George Kent’s testimony here. He testified he viewed Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the vice president’s office and to block a project that State’s USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read her testimony here.

Fact 5: The Obama White House invited Shokin’s prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that here. Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in Ukraine and English. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.

Fact 6: The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden’s employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin’s office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property. Here is the announcement of that court-approved raid.

Fact 7: Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court here and his interview with ABC News here.

Fact 8: Burisma’s American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden’s name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials’ account of that effort here

Fact 9: Joe Biden boasted in a 2018 videotape that he forced Ukraine’s president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his videotape here.

Fact 10: Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn’t shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here.

Fact 11: The day Shokin’s firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma’s legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here.

Fact 12: Burisma’s legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that “false information” had been spread to justify Shokin’s firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian prosecutors’ summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers’ invite to Washington here.

Fact 13: Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer’s February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here.

Fact 14: In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence of money laundering. You can read NABU’s February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case here, the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors here and a May 2019 interview here with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian state funds.

Fact 15: The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump’s election chances. You can read the embassy’s statement here and here. Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying “Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning.” You can read her testimony here.

Fact 16: Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You can read the email here.

Fact 17: Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly’s OpEd here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats here. And your colleagues Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill testifying this week that Chaly’s OpEd was “probably not the most advisable thing to do.”

Fact 18: A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine’s government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here. Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.

Fact 19: George Soros’ Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo here.

Fact 20: The State Department and Soros’ foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about that funding here from the Centre’s own funding records and George Kent’s testimony about it here.

Fact 21: In April 2016, US embassy charge d’affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here. Kent testified he signed the letter here.

Fact 22: Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here.

Fact 23: Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko’s claim, calling it a “fabrication.” I reported their reaction here.

Fact 24: Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko’s office on several occasions not to “prosecute, investigate or harass” certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official’s comments here. In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition here.

Fact 25: In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter, which you can read here.

Fact 26: In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016 election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account here. You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing the Ukrainian prosecutors’ interests.

Fact 27: In May 2016, one of George Soros’ top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here.

Fact 28: In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here.

Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make it publicly available. Your testimony did not.

If you don’t have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.

[soonernvolved]

Talk about backfiring. Adam Schiff and his unhinged colleagues called in several executive branch bureaucrats to testify against President Trump in their made-up bribery case.

The entire Schiff-Show ended up being a huge flop.

** Support for impeachment fell with independents, swing and suburban voters.
** President Trump’s approval rating went up.
** And now ONE-THIRD of DEMOCRATS think Joe Biden should be investigated on his pay-for-play schemes with his son Hunter.

It was a COMPLETE DISASTER!

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/11/22/adam-schiff-trump-impeachment-bill-clinton/

While Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff today is the face of Democrats’ impeachment push, the 10-term congressman first won his seat by staking out a hard line against the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

Schiff defeated former Republican California Rep. James Rogan in 2000 by hammering Rogan’s role in the Clinton impeachment.


“Impeachment as a political issue has all but disappeared from America’s political radar in this election, with even Al Gore refusing to make the partisan death match of 1998 and 1999 a campaign issue in the year 2000. But here, in California’s 27th District, Rogan’s battle with Democratic state Sen. Adam Schiff seems the last bloody battle of the impeachment war,” Anthony York recounted in an October 2000 Salon article.

Schiff “used impeachment as a fundraising tool,” York noted in the article, which the Daily Caller News Foundation reviewed using research service LexisNexis. (RELATED: Impeachment Witness Debunks Daily Mail Headline About His Own Testimony)

“Schiff’s campaign literature hammers away on Rogan’s role in the impeachment proceedings,” The Washington Post noted in a May 2000 article. Schiff argued in one fundraising missive that “in the partisan impeachment hearings that polarized our nation for so long, the right-wing Rogan stood out,” The San Diego Tribune reported that same month in an article reviewed by the DCNF using Lexis.

“The district simply has not been a priority for him. He has been more engaged in national partisan ideological crusades than in issues important to the district,” Schiff told the Los Angeles Times in January 2000, apparently referring to impeachment.

“I think voters want to get away from the strong partisanship we’ve seen in Congress and elect someone with a good record of working in a bipartisan way to find solutions,” he added.

The Trump impeachment inquiry headed by Schiff received zero support from Republicans, while two Democrats voted against the inquiry.

Schiff’s office did not return the DCNF’s request for comment for this article.

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/nyt-names-fbi-resistance-lawyer-under-criminal-investigation-fabricating-fisa-docs

The New York Times has revealed that the "low-level lawyer" under criminal investigation for allegedly doctoring materials used to obtain renewals of the Carter Page surveillance warrant is Kevin Clinesmith - who worked on both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia probe, was part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, and interviewed Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos.



Clinesmith, a 37-year-old graduate of Georgetown Law, "took an email from an official at another federal agency that contained several factual assertions, then added material to the bottom that looked like another assertion from the email’s author, when it was instead his own understanding," according to the report.

Mr. Clinesmith included this altered email in a package that he compiled for another F.B.I. official to read in preparation for signing an affidavit that would be submitted to the court attesting to the facts and analysis in the wiretap application.

The details of the email are apparently classified and may not be made public even when the report is unveiled. -New York Times


In other words, we won't get to see whatever the FBI used to trick the FISA court into granting Page's renewals.

Clinesmith, a former attorney with the FBI's National Security and Cyber Law Branch while working under FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, resigned two months ago after he was interviewed by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horrowitz's office. Horrowitz in turn sent a criminal referral to US Attorney John Durham, who was tasked with investigating the Obama DOJ's conduct surrounding the 2016 US election.

The referral appears to at least be part of the reason that Durham's inquiry was elevated from an administrative review to a criminal investigation, according to the report. The findings are set to be revealed on December 9, when Horowitz will release his long-awaited report, which Trump's allies believe will reveal an effort to undermine his 2016 campaign.

In addition to Clinesmith's fabricated FISA evidence, the FBI used an unverified dossier from former British spy Christopher Steele, paid for in part by the Clinton campaign via law firm Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS, in their pursuit of Carter Page. The agency has claimed in court filings that the Steele Dossier was not used in warrant appplications, affidavits or courtroom evidene - but was used in "criminal proceedings."

The Conservative Treehouse notes of Clinesmith:

(1) While Clinesmith, as a normal function of his FBI job, did not report to Peter Strzok, when the teams were assembled for MYE, Crossfire Hurricane, and Robert Mueller investigation, Clinesmith DID work directly for Peter Strzok. When the teams were selected, Kevin Clinesmith reported to Peter Strzok. Therefore when the inappropriate behavior was identified; and when the action of manipulating FISA evidence was done; Kevin Clinesmith was reporting directly to FBI supervisory agent Peter Strzok.

(2) Kevin Clinesmith remained in the FBI during the entirety of the Horowitz investigation. He was not released until the investigation was complete and the draft report was submitted. So the FBI knew they had a problem with Clinesmith back in February of 2018 and he was allowed to continue work until September of this year. It would seem obvious he was being monitored.

(3) Clinesmith’s status during the investigation aligns with another Main Justice employee also connected to the FISA process who was similarly in position throughout and also left in September 2019. That would be Tashina Guahar.

According to the Washington Post, however, Horowitz has concluded that the altered email "did not affect the overall validity of the surveillance application."

Mr. Trump’s allies have complained about how the Justice Department used information from the Steele dossier in the wiretap applications. Along with evidence from other sources, the filings cited some information from Mr. Steele’s dossier about meetings that Mr. Page was rumored to have had with Kremlin representatives during a trip to Russia that year.

...

Still, people familiar with questions asked by Mr. Horowitz’s investigators have suggested that he is likely to conclude that the filings exaggerated Mr. Steele’s track record in terms of the amount of value that the F.B.I. derived from information he supplied in previous investigations. The court filings in the Page wiretap application said his material was “used in criminal proceedings,” but it was never part of an affidavit, search warrant or courtroom evidence. -New York Times

The Times has suggested that Horowitz will criticize FBI officials involved in the investigations but will ultimately absolve them of wrongdoing.

What's more, the Times says that Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud - a self-professed member of the Clinton Foundation who fed Papadopoulos the rumor that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton, was "not an FBI informant."

The Times is using purposefully misleading language here, as Mifsud was never accused of being an FBI asset.

Gotta love the straw-manning here. The FBI claimed without evidence that Mifsud was a Russian asset. He’s actually a Western intel asset (not an FBI informant, which nobody credible has claimed). Halper was the corrupt FBI informant. t.co/xGEi0BLLv0

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 22, 2019
Viva la resistance

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Your email...
Clinesmith was identified by Horowitz as one of several FBI officials who harbored animus towards President Trump, after which he was kicked off the Mueller Russia investigation in February 2018. Two other FBI officials removed for similar reasons were Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, both of whom also worked on the Clinton and Trump investigations, and both of whom have similarly left the bureau.

On November 9, 2016 - the day after Trump won the election, Clinesmith texted another FBI employee "My god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff," adding "So, who knows if that breaks to him what he is going to do."

Then on November 22, 2016, he said "Hell no" when asked by another FBI attorney if he had changed his views on Trump.

"Viva la resistance," he added.



When asked to explain himself, Clinesmith told Horowitz: "It’s just the, the lines bled through here just in terms of, of my personal, political view in terms of, of what particular preference I have," adding "But, but that doesn’t have any, any leaning on the way that I, I maintain myself as a professional in the FBI."

A professional document fabricator. We're sure he'll be a GoFundMe millionaire by tomorrow.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/11/22/peggy-noonan-trumps-defenders-have-no-defense/

Pulitzer Prize-winning Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan declared Friday in her weekly column that “Trump’s Defenders Have No Defense.”
The column, which will appear in Saturday’s print edition, argues: “Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain.”

She continues:

www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-defenders-have-no-defense-11574382421

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

…

As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?

Noonan does not discuss the actual evidence presented, or the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment, but dwells on her impressions of the character of the witnesses — all of whom were selected or approved by Democrats.

When she won the Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for her columns about the 2016 election, the Journal reported:

www.wsj.com/articles/peggy-noonan-wins-2017-pulitzer-prize-for-commentary-1491860551

Ahead of most others, she foresaw Trump’s rise and his appeal to Americans who were frustrated by the leaders of both major political parties. Ms. Noonan didn’t shrink from addressing Trump’s many flaws as a candidate, but she always showed great respect for the intelligence of voters and explained the currents of American life and politics that catapulted Trump to the White House.

Noonan concludes her column by predicting: “Republican senators will call to let the people decide. In a divided country this is the right call. But they should take seriously the idea of censuring him for abuse of power.”

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/11/22/grassley-johnson-demand-materials-from-fbi-on-ukrainian-dnc-contractor-in-2016/

Grassley, Johnson Demand Materials From FBI On Ukrainian DNC Contractor In 2016
NOVEMBER 22, 2019 By Tristan Justice
Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin are demanding information from the FBI related to former Democratic National Committee (DNC) contractor Alexandra Chalupa and her efforts to seek dirt on the Trump campaign from Ukraine.

Politico reported that in 2016, Chalupa met with an official from the Ukrainian embassy for information that could undermine the Trump campaign.


According to Yahoo News, Chalupa was also the target of a cyberattack during her time at the DNC, prompting FBI investigators to interview her and take digital forensic images of her laptop and smartphone.

“If this reporting is accurate, it appears that the DOJ and FBI have in their possession material relevant to our Committees’ ongoing investigation into collusive actions Chalupa and the DNC took to use foreign government sources to undermine the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” Grassley and Johnson wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The demands for the FBI’s relevant records on Chalupa come in the midst of a House impeachment inquiry centered on President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Democrats have alleged Trump conspired with his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate political opponents at home in exchange for military aid in an apparent quid pro quo.

A July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky kicked off the impeachment proceedings. An unredacted transcript of the phone call, which has now been declassified and released to the public, shows that the president in reality urged Zelensky to weed out corruption in his own country and investigate the origins of Ukraine’s involvement in peddling the Russia collusion hoax that did irreparable damage to the United States.

As part of their latest efforts to undo the 2016 election through impeachment, Democrats have argued that Ukraine’s involvement in promoting the Russian collusion conspiracy theory are unfounded and are serving as a distraction to the president’s ulterior motives: leveraging the power of the Oval Office to dig up dirt on the Biden family.

Ukraine’s involvement in pushing the false Russian collusion narrative is well-documented, however, and Grassley and Johnson’s request for records is likely to shed further light on Ukraine’s election meddling.

The Republican senators have given the Justice Department a deadline of Dec. 9 to meet their demands.

[kcrufnek]

Nov 23, 2019 7:53:25 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/11/22/peggy-noonan-trumps-defenders-have-no-defense/

Pulitzer Prize-winning Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan declared Friday in her weekly column that “Trump’s Defenders Have No Defense.”
The column, which will appear in Saturday’s print edition, argues: “Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain.”

She continues:

www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-defenders-have-no-defense-11574382421

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

…

As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?

Noonan does not discuss the actual evidence presented, or the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment, but dwells on her impressions of the character of the witnesses — all of whom were selected or approved by Democrats.

When she won the Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for her columns about the 2016 election, the Journal reported:

www.wsj.com/articles/peggy-noonan-wins-2017-pulitzer-prize-for-commentary-1491860551

Ahead of most others, she foresaw Trump’s rise and his appeal to Americans who were frustrated by the leaders of both major political parties. Ms. Noonan didn’t shrink from addressing Trump’s many flaws as a candidate, but she always showed great respect for the intelligence of voters and explained the currents of American life and politics that catapulted Trump to the White House.

Noonan concludes her column by predicting: “Republican senators will call to let the people decide. In a divided country this is the right call. But they should take seriously the idea of censuring him for abuse of power.”

She is totally embarrassing herself.

[soonernvolved]

Nov 23, 2019 8:41:57 GMT -6 kcrufnek said:

Nov 23, 2019 7:53:25 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/11/22/peggy-noonan-trumps-defenders-have-no-defense/

Pulitzer Prize-winning Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan declared Friday in her weekly column that “Trump’s Defenders Have No Defense.”
The column, which will appear in Saturday’s print edition, argues: “Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain.”

She continues:

www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-defenders-have-no-defense-11574382421

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

…

As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?

Noonan does not discuss the actual evidence presented, or the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment, but dwells on her impressions of the character of the witnesses — all of whom were selected or approved by Democrats.

When she won the Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for her columns about the 2016 election, the Journal reported:

www.wsj.com/articles/peggy-noonan-wins-2017-pulitzer-prize-for-commentary-1491860551

Ahead of most others, she foresaw Trump’s rise and his appeal to Americans who were frustrated by the leaders of both major political parties. Ms. Noonan didn’t shrink from addressing Trump’s many flaws as a candidate, but she always showed great respect for the intelligence of voters and explained the currents of American life and politics that catapulted Trump to the White House.

Noonan concludes her column by predicting: “Republican senators will call to let the people decide. In a divided country this is the right call. But they should take seriously the idea of censuring him for abuse of power.”

She is totally embarrassing herself.

She was totally absent during the eight years of Obama also, but now it's different lol.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

On October 8th Ciaramella approached the intelligence community to correct his statement after news broke on October 2nd that he approached his close friends in Adam Schiff’s office before he turned their whistlblower report. Ciaramella lied about meeting with the Schiff team before he turned in his complaint.

On October 2nd news broke that Schiff and Ciarmella BOTH LIED about their communications before the complaint was filed.
So on October 8th Ciaramella contacted the ICIG to correct his lies on his complaint.

Catherine Herridge at CBS News reported:

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/anonymous-whistleblower-returned-to-intelligence-community-watchdog/ar-BBXcgmS

The whistleblower acknowledged reaching out to the committee, but claimed that nothing substantial was discussed and that the staff member directed them to go through official channels, according to the “Memorandum of Investigative Activity,” provided to House and Senate Intelligence Committee leadership by intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) Michael Atkinson. The form is dated October 18 and documents the October 8 outreach by the whistleblower.

Republicans have seized on the contact with Democratic committee staff to question the credibility of the whistleblower, while Democrats have downplayed the significance.

According to the document, the whistleblower reported to the ICIG investigator that the committee staffer advised: “‘Do it right, hire a lawyer, and contact the ICIG.’ So that is what the COMPLAINANT did. At the time, COMPLAINANT did not even know what the ICIG was.”

The whistleblower felt that “ased on getting guidance on a procedural question, and that no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed, COMPLAINANT did not feel, based on the way the form question was worded, that it was necessary to check that box.”

If Ciaramella’s name was Roger Stone he would be facing 50 years in prison for this lie.

[soonernvolved]

Hmmm, looks like Schumer just outed one of the "anonymous" whistleblowers:

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/22/biden-i-hope-senators-trying-trump-realize-theyll-go-down-in-history-as-to-whether-they-followed-rules/

During an interview broadcast on Friday’s “CNN Tonight,” 2020 Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden stated that he believes President Trump should be impeached and that he hopes the Senate remembers “this is a moment when their record is going to go down in history as to whether they played it by the rules.”

Biden said there is “no doubt” President Trump “has asked foreign countries to interfere in our electoral process,” and it’s “a violation of the Constitution to do that.”

He added, “I believe he should be impeached, and have the Senate try whether or not they are high crimes and misdemeanors that would cause him to be thrown out of office. That’s a decision for them to make. I hope they have the courage — I hope they remember, this is a moment when their record is going to go down in history as to whether they played it by the rules.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/22/booker-politics-be-damned-impeaching-trump-is-the-right-side-of-history/

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Live With Katy Tur,” 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said being for impeaching President Donald Trump is being on the “right side of history.”

When asked if a partisan impeachment vote would be good for the country, Booker said, “First of all, it’s good for history. People are going to look back and see how did we deal with a situation when a president who was violating their oath, compromise national security, and really undermining the values and virtues that we believe that office should uphold. So, to do nothing is unacceptable for me. Politics frankly be damned, I want to be on the right side of history and say this behavior for a United States President is not only unacceptable but qualifies for impeachment and removal from office.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/22/lieu-well-decide-on-impeachment-articles-in-december/

On Friday’s broadcast of CNN’s “OutFront,” Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) stated that a decision on whether to file articles of impeachment will be made in December.

Lieu said, “[W]hat we know now, based on the facts, is that the president abused his power. He pressured Ukraine to launch two bogus investigations to interfere in our elections. Now, what members of Congress do with those facts, it’s going to be up to our conscience, the districts that we represent. And then we’re going to make a decision in December.”

[kcrufnek]

Nov 23, 2019 10:02:28 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/22/lieu-well-decide-on-impeachment-articles-in-december/

On Friday’s broadcast of CNN’s “OutFront,” Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) stated that a decision on whether to file articles of impeachment will be made in December.

Lieu said, “[W]hat we know now, based on the facts, is that the president abused his power. He pressured Ukraine to launch two bogus investigations to interfere in our elections. Now, what members of Congress do with those facts, it’s going to be up to our conscience, the districts that we represent. And then we’re going to make a decision in December.”

I guess I'm missing these "facts". But, if Ted says so.

Why do I have a feeling these were written before this all began?

[soonernvolved]

During the Democrat’s sham impeachment inquiry this week, Republican Congressman Deven Nunes brought up the name Alexandra Chalupa several times.

Alexandra “Ali” Chalupa is a Democratic National Committee operative linked to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and fake “whistleblower” / CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella.


Read more

Alexandra Chalupa and anti-Trump whistleblower Eric Ciaramella

However even the usually well-informed Rep. Nunes seems to have missed one of the biggest bombshells of the Democrat’s 2016 election interference that’s been hiding in plain sight: Chalupa’s admission she was involved in a plot to scan a number of state’s voting systems with Obama’s Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security in what Chalupa says is a a DC unit of the hackivist group “Anonymous.”

The Chalupa confession that the DOJ and DHS were hacking into state’s voting systems without the state’s permission is troubling enough, but the added detail about federal agencies working with an unknown independent hacking group raises serious national and cyber security issues.

Now add in that Ali Chalupa spent a dozen years as a DNC operative. Both her knowledge and public discussion of such an operation create a major scandal and legal problem for the DNC, top Obama administration officials, and Joe Biden.

This shocking Democratic election interference has received almost no media attention. It’s the sort of story the Democrats would love to be able to dismiss as conspirocy theory but they can’t.

That’s because the unauthorized intrusions into a number of state voting systems on Election Day was admitted to in a Facebook post by Alexandra Chalupa and then appears to be corroborated by reporting months later that shows that a number of states seem to have had their voting system scanned by computers at the Department of Homeland Security.

Almost all the reporting about DNC operative Chalupa has either revolved around her admitted collaboration with Ukrainian officials in Washington DC to “get dirt on Trump” and then campaign-chair Paul Manafort in early 2016, a story originally reported by Politico magazine in January, 2017.

Chalupa also grabbed a few headlines when it was revealed that she’d been invited to the White House by Eric Ciaramella, the CIA analyst who has been reported to be the “whistleblower” who helped engineer the Democrat’s sham impeachment inquiry.

Democrats must be very nervous right now hoping that nobody notices that Chalupa, who worked closely with former DNC chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, spilled the beans on a scandal that could be one that sees Obama administration officials locked up once and for all.

On the day after election, November 9th, 2016 Chalupa wrote a Facebook post that claims the vote was stolen by Trump and Russians. (Of course.)



In the midst of her wacky rant, Chalupa, who worked with the DNC for over a dozen years, makes the claim:

Homeland Security / DOJ teamed up with a group that is part of Anonymous based in Washington, DC called “The Protectors.“

Note: this post by Chalupa is still live as we go to press, but Congressional investigators, Attorney General Barr and concerned citizens may want to screencap or otherwise save Chalupa’s Facebook admission.

The next day, November 10th, 2016, Alexandra Chalupa’s Democratic activist sister Andrea Chalupa repeated the claim that that “hackers” were “protecting” voters from Russia, posting a tweet that said:

My sister led Trump/Russia research at DNC. US hackers protecting voting systems believe Russia hacked vote tallies.



These claims might seem far-fetched, but weeks after the Chalupa sisters said that there have been an operation on election day scanning states voters systems that they blamed on “Russians“ reports begin to service in the media saying that states voting systems had been hacked by Russia.

But were they?

For anyone who has been following the Trump/Russia hoax it will come as no surprise that a few weeks after that, it turned out that the accusations against Russia were false.

Instead, a number of states around the country begin reporting that they noticed that the scanning of their volume systems had not come from Russia but from IP addresses at computers at the department of homeland security…exactly the operation the Chalupa described on November 9th.

As the Daily Caller reported on February 21st, 2017 in articled titled EXCLUSIVE: Obama’s Feds Tried to Hack Indiana’s Election System While Pence Was Governor:

dailycaller.com/2017/02/21/exclusive-obamas-feds-tried-to-hack-indianas-election-system-while-pence-was-governor/

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials tried to hack Indiana’s state electoral system with at least 14,800 “scans” or hits between Nov. 1, 2016, to Dec. 16, 2016, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.

The attacks are the second confirmed IT scanning assault by DHS officials against states that resisted then-President Barack Obama’s attempt to increase federal involvement in state and local election systems by designating them as “critical infrastructure” for national security.

That story was followed on February 22nd, 2017 by an article in ComputerWorlsd titled Indiana joins Idaho in claiming DHS tried to hack their election systemsthat pointed out:

www.computerworld.com/article/3173032/indiana-joins-idaho-in-claiming-dhs-tried-to-hack-their-election-systems.html

Indiana isn’t alone with such recent DHS hacking claims as Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney said he believes DHS may have attempted to hack its state election website around Nov. 8. It wasn’t a Russian IP address mucking around in the state’s affairs, but an IP address belonging to DHS, he said.

When Idaho “looked at IP addresses that tried to get into our system,” it didn’t find “a single IP address from a foreign country,” but one from “our own Department of Homeland Security.”

That article also mentioned that the state of Georgia noticed DHS IP addresses breaching its computer systems as well.

Georgia also declined “help” from DHS regarding its election system. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp believes DHS may have been trying to intimidate him with the scans before he publicly opposed election systems being labeled as “critical infrastructure” by the Obama administration.

Then Georgia Secretary of State Brian was so concerned that he filed a formal complaint with the DHS. Kemp is now the Governor of Georgia.

None of these articles mention Alexandra Chalupa or give any indicaition that officials were aware that DNC operative Chalupa—who we now know is connected to the anti-Trump elements in the CIA—had bragged about the DHS and Loretta Lynch’s DOJ working with “hackers” to scan Republican state’s voting systems on Election Day.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/23/report-gop-senators-seek-treasury-suspicious-activity-reports-on-ukraine-and-hunter-biden/

Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the United States Treasury to inquire about “suspicious activity reports” related to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his employment with Ukrainian energy empire Burisma.

Reuters reported on the November 15 letter sent by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, to Ken Blanco, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network:

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-biden/u-s-republican-senators-ask-treasury-for-any-reports-on-hunter-biden-idUSKBN1XW254

The letter, seen by Reuters on Friday, seeks “suspicious activity reports,” or documents that financial institutions file with the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network when a case of money laundering or fraud is suspected.

It was unclear if any such reports exist regarding Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son. There letter gave no evidence that Hunter Biden engaged in suspicious activity that would have been covered by such reports.

The agency does not comment on the reports, a spokesman said. Fincen, as the network is known, collects more than 2 million such reports each year, and they are tipsheets that make no findings on whether illegal activity has occurred.

The letter is part of an effort in Congress to defend President Donald Trump for what Republicans say is a partisan effort by Democrats to make a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky where the Bidens’ Ukrainian dealings were discussed an impeachable offense.


The lawmakers set a Dec. 5 deadline for Treasury to respond to the request.



Reuters noted in its report that Hunter Biden served on the board of directors for Burisima, which has been investigated for corruption. The younger Biden served on the board while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States.

“In the letter, the senators said Burisma was paying Hunter Biden as much as $50,000 a month and their panels were investigating ‘potentially improper actions by the Obama administration with respect to Burisma Holdings and Ukraine,’” Reuters reported.

In the final paragraph of the Reuters report, another investigation is revealed: Grassley and Johnson have asked the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration for records of a 2016 White House meeting between Obama administration officials, representatives of the Ukrainian government, and officials from the Democratic National Committee.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/23/endless-pursuit-impeachment-spells-trouble-democrats/

The Democrats’ desperate pursuit of impeachment is driving key voters away – a sign of danger for Democrats going into 2020 – polling reveals.
Polls, in recent days, have indicated that the general public is growing weary of House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) endless pursuit of impeachment, with survey after survey showing opposition to impeachment growing and support falling. The results, however, are exacerbated when key voters, such as independents, are isolated.



A Siena College Research Institute poll released this week showed that independent voters in New York overwhelmingly oppose impeachment, 59 percent to 37 percent. Additionally, 51 percent of independents described the inquiry as a “partisan attack on President Trump,” while 43 percent said it is a “fair investigation.”


The results coincided with a National Emerson College poll and a Politico-Morning Consult poll, both of which showed an increase in independent voters’ opposition to impeachment.

The overwhelming data led to a Vanity Fair article titled “‘It Is Hard to Read This as Anything but a Warning’: New Polling Suggests Democrats’ Impeachment Push Could Alienate Key Voters.”

“Data exclusive to Vanity Fair shows impeachment could be a losing issue for Democrats hoping to recruit Independents in 2020. ‘Lots of people who don’t like Trump who are still prepared to vote for him,’ says one political science expert,” Vanity Fair reported.

“Independents are also one of the keys, if not the key, to the 2020 elections,” the article read, noting the shift in sentiments among those voters in recent weeks:

Alas, for the Democrats, the promising numbers of late October and early November rapidly dissipated, and polling numbers have reverted to a level more consistent with long-term opinions on President Trump. In the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll, released on November 19, Independents opposed impeachment and removal from office 46% to 39%, a number close to the rolling averages of the last few weeks. It is notable that the poll was fielded after the first public impeachment hearings. Even the compelling testimony of witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, failed to move the needle on public opinion. That doesn’t mean further hearings won’t energize greater opposition to Trump, but it’s a little hard to imagine more effective testimony than that offered by Yovanovitch and some of her Foreign Service colleagues.

To understand the relative lack of enthusiasm among Independents for impeachment, I took a close look at data from the most recent Politico/Morning Consult tracking poll, a poll in which the Hive had the opportunity to propose questions focused on Independents and their views. The data, along with supplementary interviews, illustrates an electorate that believes the impeachment inquiry is connected to the priorities of politicians and the media—not of ordinary voters—and an electorate confused and dispirited by the nonstop parade of Washington scandals.

Vanity Fair listed three factors that are key to understanding the thinking of independent voters, who will play a significant role in the 2020 election:

“The first is that, in their view, impeachment distracts from issues they care about.”
“The second factor is the view among Independents that impeachment reflects the agenda of the political establishment and the media.”
“Third, as other reporting has suggested, Independents suffer from scandal fatigue and overall confusion.”
Per Vanity Fair:

Independents see impeachment as a continuation of the partisan bickering and media excess that began even before his inauguration. By massive margins, Independents say that the impeachment issue is “more important to politicians than it is to me” (62% to 22%) and “more important to the media than it is to me” (61% to 23%). It is hard to read this as anything but a warning to the Democratic leadership and candidates: Stop talking about issues that matter to you, not to me. Impeachment proceedings are viewed as bread and circuses for the anti-Trump crowd in Washington and the media—or, as Stanford political science professor Morris Fiorina described it to me, “entertainment and confirmation.” That’s a dangerous perception as Democrats approach one of the most consequential and fraught elections of our times.

The article marvels over the fact that Trump appears to be going through the impeachment process “largely unscathed” but argues that it should not be attributed, necessarily, to independents and their trust of the president:

Most Independents believe, by 39% to 31%, that the president did what the whistle-blower and subsequent witnesses have said he did: withheld military aid to Ukraine until the Ukrainians agreed to announce investigations into his political rivals. And by similar margins, 40% to 35%, Independents believe Trump “abused his power” to affect the 2020 elections.”

The outlet added that it is “somewhat remarkable that so many people see an abuse of power, but seem unwilling to hold it against the president in any meaningful way.”

The GOP has overwhelmingly declared victory after the two weeks of public impeachment hearings, following the witnesses’ inability to clearly demonstrate an impeachable offense.

Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s admission – that Trump told him he wanted “nothing” and “no quid pro quo” – underscored the Democrats’ lack of a sound basis for the inquiry, Republicans contend.

Nonetheless, the public hearings did not bode well for the Democrats from a public opinion standpoint – a factor they must consider and hurdle they will have to overcome should House Democrats choose to impeach the president.