Tag Archives: Impeachment

An Expert Opinion

Posted on by

Regardless of how you may feel about him, Newt Gingrich is a brilliant political mind. He posted an article at Fox News today about the move to impeach President Trump. I recommend that you follow the link to read the entire article, but I will try to highlight it here.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ tunnel-vision focus on impeaching President Trump puts all of us, as Americans, at risk.

This may sound extreme, but I lay it all out in this week’s episode of “Newt’s World.”

Since the day Trump was elected president, Democrats have been formulating and executing the plot we have been watching unfold. After Trump won a massive electoral majority, Democrats started digging.

They have been determined to find something – anything – they can use to attack him. The central focus of all of this is to describe and define Trump as a corrupt president so often that people begin to accept the narrative. It’s not only the elected Democrats. Much of the intelligence community has been equally determined to “uncover” something on President Trump from the beginning.

The article continues:

As this plot against Trump has continued, the American system has been bypassed, ignored, or misused to the point where it has been put it in jeopardy. Democrats, political operatives, American intelligence officials and the media have been forcing a manufactured narrative on the American people. Specifically, a group of these intelligence officials are breaking the law by leaking secrets to the media (whose members gladly overlook these crimes so long as it lets them accuse the president of something new).

We have seen this pattern with the so-called Trump Towers in Moscow scandal, the Robert Mueller investigation, and now the Pelosi-Adam Schiff impeachment effort.

Make no mistake: This is not politics as usual. It’s a concerted effort by one political party, the Washington bureaucracy, and the media to overrule the American people.

The continuing attack on President Trump is dangerous to our Republic. This is an attempt to overthrow the results of a legitimate election. If those responsible are not brought to justice, our government will constantly be in chaos because false charges can be filed against any elected official at any time in an effort to remove him from office.

How Much Privacy Is A President Entitled To?

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article today about the ongoing court battle regarding the Congressional subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn. Counsel McGahn was summoned by the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the time he worked for President Trump.

The article reports:

Whether or not he would appear was a bone of contention for a while until a federal judge issued a dramatic proclamation on Monday, stating that “Presidents are not kings” and ordering McGahn to appear.

Well, that lasted for all of three days. By Wednesday evening, that same judge had backed down, allowing a request from the Justice Department to delay the implementation of the ruling until the appeals process has played out. Of course, this doesn’t mean McGahn (and the President) are totally off the hook, but they’ve at least bought a bit of breathing room. (Daily Mail)

The article concludes:

That doesn’t mean that the final decision on McGahn won’t cast a long shadow, however. How this plays out will have consequences for the ongoing impeachment circus. At issue here is the question of whether or not aides to the President are shielded from revealing details of private conversations they’ve had with the boss or the counsel they offered. Also, whether or not that shielding lasts indefinitely even after they’ve left their positions with the White House.

That sort of privacy has long been assumed to be part of the President’s executive privilege. But does that extend to investigations of potential criminal conduct? That’s the question that will be answered when the dust settles on McGahn’s subpoena. If he’s ordered to show up and testify, that could open the gate for numerous other Trump aides to be called in to talk about all of the Ukraine events. And that’s likely not something President Trump will want to see after we’re in the thick of the final push to next year’s election.

I guess my question is whether or not the President has the same civil rights as ordinary citizens, If you are an ordinary citizen, your conversations with your lawyer are protected by law. We saw this Constitutional principle violated when Michael Cohen’s offices were raided. Now the question is whether or not we are going to continue to violate President Trump’s Constitutional rights. All of us need to remember–if the President does not have Constitutional rights, then none of us have Constitutional rights.

When You Forget To Dot All Of Your I’s And Cross All Of Your T’s

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about a letter sent from a group of Republican Congressmen to Adam Schiff. It seems that when the Democrats put together their rules for impeachment, they forgot to cross out a portion of those rules that they did not plan to include.

The article reports:

In his letter Rep. McCarthy cites House Rule XI, Cause 2(j)(1) The Minority Rule on calling witnesses. This rule allows the Minority to call any witnesses they want on at least one day of a congressional hearing, upon notifying the Committee chairman, which the Republicans did this morning.

…According to the rule Democrats must allow Republicans at least one day to call any witnesses they want for at least one day of testimony.

…Pelosi and her Lawfare crew of condescending coup criminals overlooked the rule and didn’t change or strike it when they changed the other House rules for impeachment!

This is the rule:

The Minority Witness Rule (Clause 2(j)(1) of Rule XI) – The Minority is entitled to one additional day of related hearings at which to call their own witnesses if a majority of the Minority Members make their demand before the committee�s hearing is gaveled closed.

Stay tuned.

Trying To Track All Of The Moving Parts

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the timelines involved in the respective strategies of the Democrats and Republicans in the impeachment saga. It is a very complex article, and I suggest that you follow the link above to read the entire article. However, I will try to list a few highlights here.

The article reports:

Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race. Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.

Effective at the end of business today the House is now in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The article explains the calendar:

On December 9th the IG report on FISA abuse and DOJ/FBI corruption will be released. On December 11th Michael Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So there are two races.

♦ One race within the Trump impeachment is for the narrative: Trump Impeachment -vs- DOJ/FISA corruption against Trump. This is the race everyone is discussing.

♦ The second race within the Trump impeachment is legal: Pelosi, Schiff and ultimately Nadler -vs- the Judicial branch. This is the race few are watching, but actually could be far more consequential because it could invalidate the entire HPSCI process.

The aforementioned mid-December House Impeachment Vote is not a vote to impeach President Trump. It is a vote at the end of their “inquiry”; and a vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin their “official” impeachment hearings.

The mid-December vote will be to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin the “official” impeachment hearings. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff need this vote fast; they need this vote before they lose any court case that could make the “impeachment inquiry” invalid.

Additionally, Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need this full House authorization vote to gain the authority to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the “official” impeachment investigation. And they are hoping that any loss in the three pending cases will not undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s an issue.

That’s why Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler need to get that mid-December House vote before they lose any SCOTUS ruling. There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

Please follow the link to the article for the details on the three court cases. December is going to be a very interesting month. I suspect that the Democrats are hoping that people will be too busy with Christmas things to be paying attention. Meanwhile, we may actually get to the bottom of the Russian hoax.

 

Priorities, People

Posted on by

Breitbart posted an article today about the passing of the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said during a press conference Thursday that she remains skeptical about the House passing the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement this year, as Congress’s lower chamber continues to focus on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Speaker Pelosi cast doubt during the presser that Congress has enough time to pass the USMCA in 2019.

“I’m not even sure if we came to an agreement today that it would be enough time to finish [this year], but just depends on how much agreement we come to,” Pelosi said.

Last week, she said that a deal on USMCA was “imminent.”

“I’m eager to get this done,” the California Democrat said.

The USMCA’s delayed passage through the House arises as Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) have launched an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

Speaker Pelosi and House Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) will meet with U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer to discuss the Democrats’ remaining concerns surrounding the USMCA.

The article notes:

Pelosi’s comments follow the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus’s call for the speaker to hold a “timely vote” on the USMCA. The caucus represents 48 House Republicans and Democrats.

I am one of many people who believe that this delay is political–the trade agreement is a good thing for American workers, and Democrats are reluctant to give President Trump any sort of victory. It is a shame that the Democrats have chosen to put politics over the welfare of American workers.

 

Another Lie Exposed

Posted on by

One of the recent rafts the media is clinging to in the impeachment circus is the idea that the transcript was doctored or incomplete. Well, that raft got blown out of the water yesterday. For those who have tuned out the hearings because they are extremely boring, The Federalist posted an article yesterday noting an interesting fact that was revealed in yesterday’s testimony.

The article reports:

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, both Jennifer Williams, an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman stated that the transcript of the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zolodymyr Zelensky was substantively accurate.

In direct response to a question as to whether the transcript was complete and accurate, neither suggested that it was not, except for minor details they found in their notes of the call.

This testimony blows up a month-long lie pushed by Democrats and their media allies that the transcript was partial, or redacted, suggesting that the White House was potentially hiding important details. For weeks the baseless claim that the transcript was so doctored that we don’t really know what happened on the call has been floated all over mainstream media coverage.

The article concludes:

Will CNN anchors stop referring to the “partial transcript” now that two of the Democrats’ star witnesses, who were on the actual call, have stated that the transcript is accurate? Don’t count on it. Will the news media apologize for or even acknowledge that they have been pushing this nonsense for over a month? Even in the unlikely case that they have the honor to do so, as the old saw goes, a lie can make it halfway around the world while the truth is getting its shoes on.

Tuesday’s confirmation that the transcript of the July 25 phone call was substantively accurate takes away a major talking point for those seeking the impeachment of President Trump. The whole reason this duplicitous talking point existed was that the president’s critics found the call wasn’t as damning as they hoped it would be. Perfect or not, nothing impeachable occurred on the call, so it was necessary to pretend that maybe we were missing some key information.

That is over now. The transcript is the transcript, the call is the call. Yet another ace in this crumbling house of impeachment cards has tumbled to the floor. And Democrats and media know it.

What we need now is a “Perry Mason moment” when the accusers realize they have no case, the charges are dismissed, and everyone goes home and stops wasting taxpayer money. Unfortunately that is highly unlikely.

Stop The World, I Want To Get Off

Posted on by

Have you ever been on a roller coaster and as it climbs to the top for its descent, you wonder if this is really where you want to be. I suspect that is how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is feeling right now.

Yesterday The New York Sun posted an editorial about a recent remark by Speaker Pelosi.

The editorial notes:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion that President Trump emulate President Nixon and resign is, in our opinion, a shocking démarche unworthy of her office. And a glimpse into the predicament of the Democrats, who, though they began beating the drums for impeachment more than three years ago, still don’t seem to know what charges to lay against the president.

Mrs. Pelosi hauled out Nixon in her interview on the Columbia Broadcasting System, where Margaret Brennan asked the speaker whether the President would get, “as he says,” to “confront his accuser.” The question was met with a slippery evasion that began with Mrs. Pelosi snapping, “What do you mean confront his accuser? Confront the whistleblower?”

“Presumably, that’s what he means,” Ms. Brennan said.

“Well,” Mrs. Pelosi huffed, “I will make sure he does not intimidate the whistleblower.”

Then again, too, Mr. Trump wasn’t asking to intimidate the whistleblower. He has been pointing out that he’s being brought up for impeachment on a complaint by a person he has been, in the resulting proceedings, unable to confront. That, it seems to the President and to millions of other Americans, ourselves included, to be crosswise with the spirit of the Rights Bill.

The editorial concludes:

In the case of President Trump, though, no committee of the House, let alone the House itself, has voted out a single charge. When Ms. Brennan asked the Speaker whether “bribery” would be one of the charges, Mrs. Pelosi retorted, “I have no idea.” Then she said: “Well, there’s not even a decision made to impeach the president. This is a finding of fact, unfolding of the truth. And then a decision will be made.”

So the Speaker of the House goes on national television to suggest that President Trump resign without disclosing whether the President is likely to be impeached or what the charges would be. It’s just Democratic Party demagoguery pure and simple, and soon people are going to start asking why Mrs. Pelosi is such an all-fired hurry to run the president out of office without a trial in the Senate at all.

Speaker Pelosi wants President Trump to resign so that she and her cohorts don’t have to prove that the President did anything wrong. This statement is totally inappropriate in a representative republic. It also goes totally against the rights guaranteed to American citizens in the Bill of Rights. This kind of political railroading by politicians in power is probably part of the reason the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution. After reading her comments, I truly believe that Speaker Pelosi is in the position of a person on a roller coaster climbing to the top and wondering if she has made the right decision. Like that person, she knows that it is too late to get off now!

Is Leaking A Problem?

Posted on by

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article yesterday about a very interesting television interview of Jim Jordan by Margaret Brennan.

The article reports:

Representative Jim Jordan appears on CBS Face The Nation to discuss the ongoing impeachment fiasco. Ms. Brennan struggles to define a new journalistic concept for “first-hand” information as she claims David Holmes, who claims to have overheard half of a phone conversation that two other people were having, is a “first-hand” witness.

Jordan points out that Ms. Brennan is quoting from a seal(ed) transcript given to her by Adam Schiff that has not been released.

Whoops!

The video and the transcript are posted in the article. You can follow the link above to see them both.

It’s also interesting to see exactly how the interview ended:

REP. JORDAN: Well, I don’t think that’s what took place here, because there was never an investigation undertaken. There was never an announcement from President Zelensky–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the request for one that was overheard and testified to.

REP. JORDAN: But it didn’t happen. There’s- there’s all kinds of talk about things, but they- it didn’t happen. And well, remember when this all broke? What the Democrats tell us?

MARGARET BRENNAN: And the attempt itself doesn’t bother you?

REP. JORDAN: What the Democrats tell us? There was a quid pro quo. The scary thing is the Democrats have been out to get this president. I was struck by listening to Speaker Pelosi’s comments, her answer to your second question. She used the word impostor. I’m talking about the president of the United States, who 63 million people voted for, who won an Electoral College–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

REP. JORDAN: –landslide. And yet these Democrats have been trying to get him- the start of this Congress, Congresswoman Tlaib said–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

REP. JORDAN: –she wants to impeach him before any evidence. Five members, think about this–

MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand.

REP. JORDAN: –five members of the Dem- of the Democrat- five Democrat members on the Intelligence Committee have voted to move forward with impeachment even before the whistleblower complaint was filed.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’ve got to go to a commercial break. Thank you very much, Congressman.

REP. JORDAN: Thank you

I suspect that Ms. Brennan was very glad to see that interview end. Life is hard when you have to deal with smart people who tend to be at least one step ahead of you.

Don’t Look For This Name On The Witness List

Posted on by

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko.

The article reports:

Badly undermining Democrats’ impeachment narrative, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told the press in Kiev on Thursday, “I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance.”

That is, between the investigations President Trump wanted into 1) Ukrainian interference in the 2016 campaign and 2) Joe and Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian firm Burisma, on the one hand, and US aid that Trump put on hold this summer, on the other.

He specified that he didn’t hear that message from Trump’s top envoy, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, who “did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the assistance and the investigations.”

In summary: “Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also made it plain he never felt undue pressure to investigate the Bidens. And he never did, yet the aid went through anyway.

If you were paying close attention to the circus in Washington, you probably noticed that the charges against President Trump have suddenly changed from quid pro quo to bribery. That is the result of focus groups engaged by the Democrats that showed that the concept of bribery carried more impact that the idea of quid pro quo. When bribery doesn’t resonate the way they want it to, they will move on to something else. Meanwhile we have trade deals that need to be approved and infrastructure that is crumbling. Hopefully, the voters will replace the ‘resistance’ leaders in the House of Representatives in the next election.

How Rude!

Posted on by

Liberals are always complaining about the lack of civility in politics (as they attack Trump supporters and call for the intimidation of Trump supporters), but they claim to support civility. There was a certain lack of civility on display yesterday in the way Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi treated veteran journalist James Rosen of Sinclair.

Yesterday BizPacReview posted the story.

The article reports:

Take Your Highness Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House. She’s used to being celebrated as a “badass” by CNN, a network whose own analysts recently fantasized about the president’s impeachment leading to her being installed as America’s next president.

And so when veteran journalist James Rosen of Sinclair chose on Wednesday to treat Pelosi exactly how the mainstream media treat the president, she cried foul.

“We hear it said routinely — and of course it’s true — that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. And yet as we can all observe, many of the accoutrements surrounding the legal process are inherent in this political process: We have counsels, depositions, subpoenas, threats of perjury, so forth,” he said.

“This was made starkly clear yesterday by Chairman Schiff, who, it seemed to me, when he reminded the minority that he would do everything necessary to ensure the legal rights of the whistleblower to preserve anonymity in this political setting.”

“And so I wonder,” Rosen continued, “if you could explain to the American people why the legal rights of the whistleblower should prevail in this political setting over those of President Trump, who should ordinarily enjoy a right to confront his accuser.”

Despite this being a valid point that’s also been broached by legal experts, Your Highness immediately snapped.

“I will say this to you, Mr. Republican Talking Points, when you talk about the whistleblower, we’re coming into my wheelhouse,” she angrily declared.

“I have more experience in intelligence than anybody in Congress, than anybody who has ever served, 25 years on the committee as top Democrat. I was there when we wrote the whistleblower laws. The whistleblower is there to speak truth to power and have protection for doing that. Any retribution or harm coming to a whistleblower undermines our ability to hear truth about power.”

What an arrogant response to a valid question.

This Is What Desperation Looks Like

Posted on by

Mediaite posted an article this morning about the ongoing impeachment hearings. Before I continue, I need to share the following from a website called Media Bias/Fact Check:

True to form, this is the Mediaite headline, “Fox’s Bret Baier: Trump Gave Schiff a New ‘Article of Impeachment in Real Time’ With Twitter Attack on Yovanovitch.” I guess Harry Truman would not be able to be President in today’s politically correct world.

The article reports:

The dramatic moment during Friday’s House Impeachment hearing in which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) read out President Donald Trump’s tweet blasting former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in real time — with Yovanovitch saying she finds the tweet “very intimidating” — may have amounted to an on-the-spot article of impeachment, according to one Fox News anchor.

Weighing in immediately after the hearing went to recess, Fox anchor Bret Baier said that the president gave Schiff ammunition in real time on Friday morning with the attack.

“That enabled Schiff to then characterize that tweet as intimidating the witness, or tampering with the witness, which is a crime, adding essentially an article of impeachment in real-time as this hearing is going on,” Baier said.

If a tweet is grounds for impeachment, no elected official who disagrees with the ‘powers that be’ is safe. This is scary.

These are the tweets:

Draw your own opinion.

This Might Be A Problem For The Democrats

Posted on by

CNS News is reporting today on a national voter survey, conducted November 12-13.

The article reports:

…53% of all voters said most reporters are trying to help impeach Trump:

“When they write or talk about the impeachment effort, are most reporters trying to help impeach President Trump or block his impeachment? Or are most reporters simply interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner?”:

    • “Help impeach President Trump”: 53%
    • “Block his impeachment”: 8%
    • Report “news in an unbiased an unbiased manner”: 32%

But, 53% of black voters and 60% of other minorities, compared to 51% of whites, said reporters are trying to get Trump rather than report the news fairly.

What’s more, 58% of voters who say they are watching impeachment news “very closely” believe that most journalists are trying to help impeach the president, while only 34% say they’re just trying to report unbiased news.

The survey of 1,000 likely voters has a margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The mainstream media is digging its own grave. It is driving concerned citizens to alternative news sources that are seen as more objective or sources that at least state that they hold a certain point of view. As this happens, there will be stronger moves to censor the internet. We are all responsible for finding reliable news sources in order to be informed voters. Right now the mainstream media is making being an informed voter very difficult.

Sometimes The Spin Is Just Laughable

Posted on by

Yesterday Newsbusters posted an article about a recent statement by Chuck Todd.

The article reports:

When Todd asked Himes (Representative Jim Himes) about the Republicans, he helpfully suggested the Republicans might be “sabotaging the process” by having a different narrative that makes the process “hard to follow for the public.” Todd isn’t about to make anything difficult for the Democrats.

Just for the record, Jim Himes is a liberal Democrat representing the Fourth District of Connecticut. I would not consider him an objective source on impeachment by any stretch of the imagination.

The article also notes:

Earlier, Todd grew visibly disturbed when Sen. Paul suggested the American people think it’s unfair to treat Trump pressuring Ukraine with one standard and Vice President Biden pressuring Ukraine by a different standard. That was a distraction! Sabotage! 

So let me get this straight. We have Vice President Biden in a video talking about withholding aid to Ukraine because they are investigating his son and we have no evidence that President Trump actually withheld aid, so we are investigating President Trump. Amazing.

The interview also includes the following statement:

HIMES: The other thing, of course, Joe Biden’s son is on that witness list. They’re gonna try to do exactly what you were pushing back on Senator Paul for doing. They would like to bring Joe Biden’s son in front of the American people to discuss his role on the board of Burisma and as you pointed out with Senator Paul, we can have a long conversation whether the sons and daughters of high-ranking officials should do that sort of thing. That has nothing to do — absolutely nothing to do — with the actions of the United States president in extorting Ukraine in a way that damage our national security. 

Wow. Just wow.

It Will Be Interesting To See If He Keeps His Word

Posted on by

Breitbart is reporting today that Senator Lindsey Graham made the following statement on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” Senator Graham stated, “It’s impossible to bring this case forward in my view fairly without us knowing who the whistleblower is and having a chance to cross-examine them about any advice they may have, if they don’t call the whistleblower in the House, this thing is dead on arrival on the Senate.”

Representative Adam Schiff, who has appointed himself to decide who the Republicans can have as witnesses in the impeachment hearings has already stated that he does not see the need for the whistleblower to testify.

The article at Breitbart continues quoting Lindsey Graham:

He continued, “Well, if the whistleblower comes from Brennan world would be stunning, I think if the whistleblower had connection to Democratic candidate, that would be stunning. The only way you can fairly deal with this issue for us to find out who the whistleblower. No American can be accused of a crime based on an anonymous allegation. The whistleblower is foundational to what they are doing to the House and the fact that they don’t want to call him tells you everything that you need to know how about valid the effort is to impeachment the president.”

He added, “What’s going to happen, When you find out who is the whistleblower is, I’m confident you are going to find out it’s somebody from the deep state. You are going to find out they had interactions with the Schiff, and this thing’s going to stink to high Heaven. The only reason we don’t know who the whistleblower is it hurts their cause, they are not trying to find the truth here.”

I am hoping this means that the Republicans are going to develop a backbone. I’m not entirely optimistic, but I am hoping.

Is Lying Under Oath A Problem?

Posted on by

A name that seems to be in the news a lot lately is Marie Yovanovitch, who was appointed to be the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine by former President Barack Obama. She was fired by President Trump. Just for the record, ambassadors serve at the discretion of the President and can be fired for any reason. Marie Yovanovitch, however, had a reputation for saying negative things about President Trump and not supporting his policies. That is why she was fired.

Marie Yovanovitch was called before Congress as a witness in the faux impeachment hearings. She testified on October 11 in a closed-door session.

The Daily Wire posted an article today citing some problems with her testimony.

The article reports information obtained by the Tucker Carlson show:

“This show has obtained exclusively an email for that Democratic staffer for the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent by private email to the former American ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,” Carlson continued. “Yovanovitch, you know, is a key player in the Democrats’ impeachment probe and was recalled from her post in Ukraine by President Trump in May 2019 following allegations of serious partisanship and political bias.”

This is the content of the email:

I’m writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat — in particular, I’m hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring. I’d appreciate the change to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and, thus, we want to make sure we get them right.

The article continues:

Carlson noted that Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) asked Marie Yovanovitch about the email during her testimony and she allegedly stated that she never responded to the email.

“In fact, it turns out that she did respond,” Carlson revealed. “She said she ‘looked forward to chatting with [the Democratic staffer].”

“As Congressmen Zeldin pointed out, the ambassador’s original answer, which was dishonest, was given under oath,” Carlson concluded.

Zeldin confirmed Carlson’s segment on Twitter, writing: “It appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her ‘impeachment inquiry’ deposition under oath.”

The article concludes:

“I would highly suspect that this Democratic staffer’s work was connected in some way to the whistleblower’s effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade,” Zeldin told Fox News on Thursday night. “We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff’s team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint even though Schiff had lied to the public originally claiming that there was no contact. Additionally, while the contents of the email from this staffer to Ambassador Yovanovitch clearly state what the conversation would be regarding, Yovanovitch, when I asked her specifically what the staffer was looking to speak about, did not provide these details.”

“I specifically asked her whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department,” Zeldin concluded. “It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn’t answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”

Those attempting this faux impeachment need to remember that there are electronic records everywhere and Youtube videos of previous statements. They are in danger of being hoisted on their own petard!

This Is Frightening

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about attorney Mark Zaid, who represents the anti-Trump CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella (Ciaramella’s name was accidentally released by Adam Schiff last night, so his identity has been revealed).

The article notes:

“Coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers” Zaid tweeted on January 30, 2017, barely a week after Trump’s Inauguration Day.

The article includes screenshots of a number of Mark Zaid’s tweets:

A coup is treason. Treason is a crime. The road is going to get very bumpy in the next few weeks as the people involved in this attempted coup try to save themselves from the consequences of their actions. Remember, a Grand Jury has been convened and is investigating this. Indictments will be coming. I am totally impatient for this to be over so that President Trump can continue to undo the damage done to America by President Obama, but justice takes time, and the people involved in this are extremely powerful and well-connected. I believe justice will prevail, but I also believe it will take time.

Somehow The Mainstream Media Left This Out

Posted on by

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about some of the testimony being selectively released by the House Intelligence Committee.

The article includes two tweets by Representative Mark Meadows: Is America ready to impeach a President based on a presumption because the Democrats did not like the results of the 2016 election?

 

How One Diplomat Views Impeachment

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that included an excerpt from and interview with Jaroslav Bašta, former Czech Ambassador to Russia and then Ukraine, on the subject of the 2016 American Presidential election.

The article quotes the Ambassador:

That would mean, however, that the Democrats, with the help of Ukraine, had actually done something to blame him and Russia.
With the difference that they did something worse than what they blamed Trump. They knew very well how much lump of butter they had on their heads, and so they probably resisted a preventive counter-strike. And I also understand why they are so terribly nervous now that they have rushed to impeachment as another preventive counter-strike. The first thing was that even if Trump had done everything they blame him now – as I didn’t think he did – then Biden had done something much worse. Secondly, they are aware of the fact that if all these things were investigated in Ukraine and brought to justice, it would be devastating for them and all their icons. Following the judgments of the Ukrainian courts, a major investigation in the FBI, the CIA and the state apparatus would necessarily have to be launched.

And that triggered the impeachment?
In this context, it is quite interesting that the basic information about Trump’s conversation with Zelenský, which launched a campaign of democrats and then impeachment, was brought to the world by a CIA employee … pre-election political struggle overwhelmed by confidential talks of statesmen, which are conducted in a certain way, style and language precisely because they are confidential.

You spent many years in the diplomatic service. It seems to me that the very fact that information about the conversation of his top boss, the head of state with another president, is brought directly by a secret service employee, is not very common.
It’s a thing typical of dictatorships.

And what does it mean when it happens in a democratic country?
It may mean that there is a struggle inside these services. But in any case, this suggests, in my opinion, that some members of the secret services are engaged in a political struggle for the American Democrats and against their President.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It includes the complete interview with the Ambassador.

 

A Disturbing Comment

Posted on by

The Center for Security Policy posted an article today with the headline, “‘Thank God for the deep state’: Former CIA chief says anti-Trump forces ‘responding to a higher call.’”

Wow. The deep state believes that it is their job to overthrow a duly-elected President. What manner of pride and self-importance (and treason) is this?

The article reports:

Former CIA acting Director John McLaughlin expressed his gratitude for the “deep state” and their effort to get President Trump impeached.

McLaughlin, who was the acting director in 2004, embraced the idea of a “deep state” with the intent of ending the Trump presidency at an event on Wednesday hosted by the Hayden Center.

“There is something unique you have to agree that now the impeachment inquiry is underway, sparked by a complaint from someone within the intelligence community, it feeds the president’s concern, an often-used term about a ‘deep state’ being there to take him out,” Margaret Brennan, the moderator for the event hosted, asked McLaughlin.

“Thank God for the ‘deep state,’” he responded.

McLaughlin went on to praise the intelligence community whistleblower who came forward to file a complaint regarding Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which led to the impeachment proceedings that are currently going on in the House of Representatives.

“Everyone here has seen this progression of diplomats and intelligence officers and White House people trooping up to Capitol Hill right now and saying these are people who are doing their duty, who are responding to a higher call,” said McLaughlin. “With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that unleashed everything else.”

They are not responding to a higher call–they are undermining an elected President. They are not the Commander-in-Chief. They did not run for office and win an election. They are delusional to believe that they should have more power than the President just because he is upsetting their apple cart. In a world where we had an objective media and equal justice under the law, these people would be tried for treason.

What Is Going On Behind The Curtain

Posted on by

The circus in Washington just gets worse. Today the House of Representatives voted to conduct an investigation without allowing the defendant his constitutional rights. However, a closer look at what is going on provides some clues to a larger scheme.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article the provides some insight into what is actually happening.

The article reports:

The House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry resolution would officially authorize probes into U.S. President Donald Trump that are unrelated to the Ukraine-linked allegations that triggered the investigation to impeach him, including efforts to obtain the commander in chief’s tax returns.

Unveiled on Tuesday, the text of the resolution states that the measure orders “certain committees” to continue investigating whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump and “for other purposes,” without explaining what those purposes are.

In other words, the resolution, expected to be voted on this week, would authorize any ongoing Trump investigations under the sun. The measure is expansive, breathing new life into a wide range of non-Ukraine probes, including an ongoing investigation by the House Judiciary Committee into whether Trump paid money to silence sexual affairs accusations.

In other words, they are redoing the Mueller investigation with Adam Schiff in charge. As Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police, once said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” That is exactly opposite from the way the American justice system is supposed to work, but unfortunately the House of Representatives has decided to ignore the principles behind the American justice system.

I can easily predict what is going to happen. The Democrats are going to demand that President Trump release his tax returns for the past 10 years or so. The President is going to refuse. This will then go to court. It will be tied up in court until after the 2020 election. In the meantime, the Democrats will accuse the President of obstructing justice. How many of the tax returns have we seen of Congressmen who entered Congress with an average net worth and are now millionaires? The vote on impeachment is garbage, and those voting for the investigation need to be investigated.

The Charade Continues

Posted on by

Byron York posted an article at The Washington Examiner today titled, “The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act.” So what is he talking about? The bill before the House of Representatives today takes the impeachment inquiry out of the hands of the Judicial Committee (where it has traditionally been) and places it in the hands of the Intelligence Committee headed by Adam Schiff.

The article reports:

The resolution gives Rep. Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, far-reaching power over the Trump impeachment proceedings. Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains the ultimate authority, of course, but, like a chairman of the board choosing a chief executive officer, she has picked Schiff to run the show. And in the resolution, Democrats will give him near-total control.

The first thing the resolution will do is give the impeachment investigation to the Intelligence Committee. Until now, three committees — Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs — have been conducting impeachment interviews. Going forward, Oversight and Foreign Affairs will be out of the interview picture in favor of Intelligence.

Among other things, that would mean that some Republicans who have been persistent critics of the process but who have been allowed into depositions by virtue of their membership in other participating committees — two examples are Oversight Committee members Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows — will no longer be allowed in the interview room.

“It’s totally one-sided,” Meadows told me Wednesday evening. “They can continue to do secret depositions. They have noticed depositions for John Bolton and others next week in anticipation of a positive vote Thursday. All it does is limit the committees that will be involved in the depositions.”

Any Congressman who votes for this travesty needs to be voted out of office in 2020.

The article continues:

The resolution would also give Schiff the authority to call and conduct public hearings on impeachment. Schiff will control the witnesses. Although there has been some discussion about whether Republicans will have the right to call witnesses, the resolution only gives the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Community, Rep. Devin Nunes, the right to ask Schiff to call a witness.

“To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation,” the resolution says. “Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witnesses to the investigation.” Republicans will get nothing that Schiff does not approve.

“There’s no guarantee we can call any witnesses,” said Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup, a member of the Intelligence Committee, in an interview Wednesday.

“The rules the Democrats rammed through simply confirm the absolute control Schiff has been exercising this entire time,” Nunes said. “He shouldn’t be involved in impeachment at all since none of this has any intelligence component, but Pelosi obviously thinks Nadler is incompetent.”

This process totally ignores the rights of a defendant guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. It is really sad that the political hotheads in the Democrat party have brought us to this place.

So That’s What They Were Up To!

Posted on by

I wondered what was going on when I heard that Nancy Pelosi was going to take a vote in the House on impeachment. That doesn’t make sense–it forces Representatives in swing districts to go on the record on an issue their constituents do not support. It would also allow the President to call witnesses and to cross examine witnesses. Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article explaining what is going on. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article–it is complicated and includes a lot of lawyer concepts.

The article notes:

On Thursday of this week Speaker Pelosi is bringing to the floor a resolution to affirm her previous declaration of an “Official House Inquiry”.  Mrs. Pelosi is very purposefully and carefully telling reporters this is not a “House resolution on impeachment”. 

Speaker Pelosi is holding a vote, a resolution, to affirm her previous declaration of a House “inquiry”.  The resolution is currently being written by Lawfare. Pelosi is not delivering a House “Resolution on Impeachment” for a vote, because if she did hold a vote on an impeachment resolution, the minority and the Executive branch would gain rights therein.

This is a House vote to show support for Pelosi’s previous unilateral decree.   Right now the rules committee is adding language to the resolution that will provide additional one-sided support for a completely partisan process: “and for other purposes”.

Note in this video, Pelosi is careful to say “this is not an impeachment resolution”:

…It is not an “impeachment resolution”, it is a resolution to support the already existing “impeachment inquiry”. Pelosi and the Lawfare crew are playing games.

Additionally, notice that like Pelosi, Chairman Schiff is careful not to use the words “impeachment investigation”, but rather says “impeachment inquiry”.

This is the money quote:

The rules for an “impeachment investigation” would provide rights for the minority and also rights for the Executive branch.

So instead of having a House vote to authorize an impeachment investigation, with subsequent rights for the minority; they are having a House vote to affirm the “impeachment inquiry” with an entirely different set of House rules that do not include rights for the minority.

It’s all smoke and  mirrors, folks.

Something To Consider As The Process Continues

Posted on by

On Friday, The Daily Signal posted an article noting that even before Ukraine uproar, 10 of 13 Democrats on the intelligence panel backed Trump impeachment probe. We need to remind Americans that impeachment is not supposed to be a political vehicle to overturn an election you don’t like.

The article reports:

In July, Rep. Andre Carson, a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, voted for the then-most recent resolution calling for the ouster of President Donald Trump from office. 

“I think it represents a larger, more important conversation that we need to have about … what we’re willing to tolerate as a citizenry from our commander in chief,” Politico quoted the Indiana Democrat as saying, “What responsibility the commander in chief has to the electorate in terms of not fanning the flames of Islamophobia, xenophobia, and outright hatred.”

The intelligence committee has taken the lead role in the impeachment investigation of Trump, focused on Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the two leaders discussed former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and a Democratic computer server. 

But 10 of the 13 Democrats on the committee discussed an impeachment inquiry, actual impeachment, and the removal of, or resignation by, Trump well before news broke of the controversial phone call.

The article goes on to cite multiple examples of Democrats claiming that the Mueller Report was their cue to begin impeachment despite the fact that it showed no evidence of a crime. The statement that the Mueller did not exonerate the President is somewhat misleading–investigators are to look for evidence of lawbreaking and report on whether or not they found any. They do not find people innocent–they simply find evidence of guilt. The Mueller Report found no evidence of guilt.

Interesting Question

Posted on by

CNS News posted an article today that includes a very interesting question.

The article reports:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says his impeachment inquiry hearing is not classified, so why won’t he allow the media to see what’s going on in it, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) asked reporters after he attempted to enter Schiff’s secretive, closed-door proceeding on Wednesday.

Both they and members of Congress should be allowed into the hearing, Scalise told reporters:

“As soon as we went into the room, Adam Schiff hadn’t even started the hearing – which, by the way, Schiff pointed out himself was not a classified hearing.

“So, again, it begs the question: why aren’t members of Congress allowed to come into an unclassified hearing dealing with impeachment of the president?

“Why aren’t you, as the press, allowed to go into an unclassified hearing to find out what’s really going on?”

Representative Scalise stated:

“Every member of Congress should be allowed in that room. The press ought to be allowed in that room.

“And, when we got there – and we were there peacefully, we were there to hear what was going on – we actually wanted to hear the witness. And, instead, he left – he threatened us. Adam Schiff threatened us.

“We’re not going to bow down to his threats. We’re going to represent the voices of the millions of Americans that our districts represent. The vast majority of members of Congress, by the way, who are not allowed to be in that room, ought to be in.

“Everybody ought to be able to see what’s going on in this inquiry – including members of Congress and the press – so our constituents can see what’s going on.”

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Sunlight is exactly what the Democrats are avoiding.

I Did It–But You Can’t!

Posted on by

This is not news to anyone who has been paying attention in recent years, but the Democrats have a habit of criticizing Republicans for things that Democrats also do. The Jewish World Review posted an article today about the most recent example of that principle.

The article reports:

At least five House Democrats talked about a “lynching” or “lynch mob” as pertaining to Clinton, according to a Fix review.

…Then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., called the impeachment proceedings against Clinton a “partisan lynching” during an October 1998 appearance on CNN. On Tuesday, Biden called Trump’s tweet “abhorrent.”

“Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It’s despicable,” Biden tweeted.

On three occasions in 1998, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who now chairs the committee that would consider articles of impeachment against Trump, called the impeachment process against Clinton a “lynch mob.”

“We shouldn’t participate in a lynch mob against the president,” Nadler told Newsday on Sept. 13, 1998.

Five days later, Nadler said he saw “no evidence that the Republicans want to do anything other than organize a lynch mob,” according to the South China Morning Post.

And on Oct. 4, 1998, Nadler told the Associated Press that Republicans were “running a lynch mob” against Clinton.

Then-Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who served nearly 20 years in the House, slammed the impeachment proceedings against Clinton during an interview with the Baltimore Sun on Sept. 12, 1998.

“This feels today like we’re taking a step down the road to becoming a political lynch mob,” McDermott said at the time. “Find the rope, find the tree and ask a bunch of questions later.”

Criticism came fast from Democrats, President Donald Trump critics and some Republicans on Tuesday after Trump compared the impeachment inquiry into him to a “lynching.” But by the afternoon, Trump allies were pointing out that variations of that word had been invoked several times by House Democrats to describe the impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton in 1998.

I am posting this article to show how ridiculous the media (and the Democrat party) have become. It’s only a lynch mob when Republicans do something. When Democrats do something, it’s a necessary constitutional move. Yeah, right.