Lol, Russia helped him get the presidency and thanks him for Syria. And Trump using foreign aid to get another country to investigate his biggest political rival wasn't invented. He did it. If I thought there was a chance you would be okay with a democrat trying to do that I would cut you some slack but I know you wouldn't. We impeached for a lot less. Trump will deserve this one.
1) Rep. Schiff was indifferent to Russia's invasion of Ukraine or providing for Ukraine's defense... until a Ukrainian immigrant begame a large campaign contributor, and then Schiff (in exchange for large donations) suddenly became a strong advocate of Ukranian military aid. Which, by the oddest coincidence, his campaign donor made a fortune providing.
That's in addition to:
2) the Russian radio-show hosts who pranked Schiff, pretending to be Russian agents who could give him compromising "naked Trump" photos of Trump. While Schiff led the charge alleging Trump's Russia collusion, Schiff was attempting with every fibre of his being to collude with these Russian guys.
For weeks after their prank phone call (that they played on-air) Schiff and his staff called them back over and over trying to get compromising info on Trump from who Schiff knew to be Russian nationals.
Lol, Russia helped him get the presidency and thanks him for Syria. And Trump using foreign aid to get another country to investigate his biggest political rival wasn't invented. He did it. If I thought there was a chance you would be okay with a democrat trying to do that I would cut you some slack but I know you wouldn't. We impeached for a lot less. Trump will deserve this one.
You're either brainwashed or lying. FOUR investigations (an FBI counter-intelligence investigation, a House investigation, a Senate investigation, and the Mueller special investigation) ALL proved that is a lie.
Again: There is FAR more proof of wrongdoing by the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, and FBI, DOJ, and other high officials like Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Ohr, Strzok and Page. And by Schiff himself, as I just detailed above. But apparently, crimes only warrant investigation and prosecution if they are alleged against Republicans. And in the case of Republicans, guilty until proven innocent.
Mueller's report said that there was absolutely no proof of "Russia collusion" by Trump, and only implied that there was possible obstruction of justice. But if there was no collusion, how could there be obstruction of something that the report proved never happened ? What you allege against Trump is a lie, a desperate attempt to keep the baseless conspiracy going. While you ignore jaw-droppingly obvious corruption and treason in your own party.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
You like Trump are pushing a false narrative of Mueller 's investigation WB. And Trump is at this very moment having his Justice Department investigate that investigation. This is the same JD that found nothing of value when the IG went to them with the whistleblower complaint and tried to keep it hidden.
1) Rep. Schiff was indifferent to Russia's invasion of Ukraine or providing for Ukraine's defense... until a Ukrainian immigrant begame a large campaign contributor, and then Schiff (in exchange for large donations) suddenly became a strong advocate of Ukranian military aid. Which, by the oddest coincidence, his campaign donor made a fortune providing.
That's in addition to:
2) the Russian radio-show hosts who pranked Schiff, pretending to be Russian agents who could give him compromising "naked Trump" photos of Trump. While Schiff led the charge alleging Trump's Russia collusion, Schiff was attempting with every fibre of his being to collude with these Russian guys.
For weeks after their prank phone call (that they played on-air) Schiff and his staff called them back over and over trying to get compromising info on Trump from who Schiff knew to be Russian nationals.
Schiff unlike team Trump contacted the FBI about the call. You understand that is an important detail to leave out?
“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
Our legal process either finds someone "guilty" or "not guilty". That is a verdict of insufficient evidence, and therefore "not guilty". You would like to twist the legal system and have Trump proven not innocent, and guilty until proven innocent.
Originally Posted By: M E M
“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
Again, that is a "not guilty" verdict.
Originally Posted By: M E M
You like Trump are pushing a false narrative of Mueller 's investigation WB. And Trump is at this very moment having his Justice Department investigate that investigation. This is the same JD that found nothing of value when the IG went to them with the whistleblower complaint and tried to keep it hidden.
No, I'm absolutely not pushing a false narrative. Theree previous federal investigations, and then a $30 million-dollar Mueller special investigation loaded with 17 partisan Democrats who hated Trump's guts and did everything they could to destroy him, ultimately came to the conclusion that Trump was not guilty.
Period. The end. Despite some weaselly language in the Mueller report that left the door open for House Democrats to open still more pointless investigations. But if it couldn't be found with the unlimited legal resources of a Mueller special investigation, there is no evidence to be found. This is all partisan Democrat theatre, to try and smear Trump in the court of public opinion, in the absence of real evidence.
Deception, slander, intimdation, threats and mob violence. The Democrat way. Whatever serves your Bolshevik revolution.
Schiff unlike team Trump contacted the FBI about the call. You understand that is an important detail to leave out?
Oh, you are such a liar!
* Schiff's staff met with the "whistleblower"/CIA mole, they helped the mole craft his whistleblower report for 18 days (they are supposed to be submitted within 5 days). * A whistleblower report is supposed to be shared with both Democrat and Republican members of the intelligence committee. It was instead conceived and crafted for maximum damage to Trump in secrecy, and not reviewed jointly with Republicans. The intel Republicans found out with the rest of America when it was leaked to the media, for maximum damage to Trump. * Adam Schiff stood at a podium, and alleged he had not spoken with or met with the "whistleblower" in advance of the report. In truth, his office SELECTED HIS LAWYER! And Schiff's office helped to draft the whistleblower report for 18 days, before releasing it! * Two staffers from Obama and then Trump's national security council (Abigail Grace, Sean Misco), Democrat deep state anti-Trump loyalists, left the White House NSC staff a few months ago, and then took positions with Adam Schiff's staff. Just in time to help craft this whistleblower report. Just by the wildest coincidence.
If Rep. Adam Schiff is supoenaed and forced to testify under oath about what he knew and when he knew it, it will be Schiff who will be facing federal charges for perjury, obstruction of justice, and malicious prosecution, among other charges, not Trump. By the day, the credibility of this "whistleblower" report and related Ukranian scandal are falling apart and helping Trump as the true facts reveal themselves.
All Democrats have on their side is secret testimony, selective leaks, and other deceptions. Smoke and mirrors. When the true facts come out, it's game over for the Democrats.
I posted the 8-minure audio from Youtube several posts above. Did Adam Schiff sound skeptical or reluctant? No, he sounded eager. Also telling is that Schiff's office called back the pranksters for weeks, clearly thinking the "naked Trump photos" offer was real, and that they were dying to get their hands on it.
As opposed to Donald Trump Jr., who got a call crom Natalya Veselnitskaya offering Hillary Clinton e-mails, and agreed to a meeting at trump tower with her (while she met with Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS BEFORE AND AFTER the meeting, a clear set-up). Trump Jr. listened to her for less than 30 minutes and then ended the meeting WITHOUT completing the transaction or paking any further attempt to contact her. It was a baited trap, and Trump Jr. didn't bite. Nor did George Pappadapoulos. Nor did Michael Caputo. Nor did Roger Stone. Nor did Michael Flynn, but he was shaken down into taking a plea with a perjury trap anyway.
And all these men are being bankrupted and put through hell, just for supporting Donald Trump.
While meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and her campaign officials, DNC officials, all of whom dealt directly with the Russians and paid millions for information from Russian and Ukranian agents and officials, Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS, Jeannie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Comey, McCabe, strzok, Page, John Brennan, James Clapper and all the rest THESE conspirators no one on the Democrat side even wants to investigate.
It's so obvious, all this Ukraine stuff and whistleblower crap is just a smokescreen to draw public attention and credibility away from William Barr and John Durham's imminent reports. To suck the oxygen and media attention way from it, and possibly even to smear Barr and Durham. But the Democrat lies are falling apart, and Barr and Durham's reports are still coming. As is FBI inspector general Horowitz's report.
By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations October 30, 2019
For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower" who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway.
More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA.
But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.
RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate" -- as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.
And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher [Charlupa] attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst is so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.
“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.
Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.
Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and "biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from justified scrutiny of his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm," although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.
“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias."
A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.
Federal records show that Biden’s office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.
Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.
Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in 2015 and 2016, when [Biden] the vice president was President Obama's "point man" for Ukraine. A Yale graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been assigned to the NSC by Brennan.
He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC, eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.
“He was moved over to the front office” to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he “saw everything, read everything.”
The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign policies. “My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies.”
“So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the whistleblower,” the official said.
In May 2017, Ciaramella went “outside his chain of command,” according to a former NSC co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier.
Contents of the email appear to have ended up in the media, which reported Trump boasted to the Russian officials about firing Comey, whom he allegedly called “crazy, a real nut job.”
In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the “Putin fired Comey” narrative, according to the research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by RealClearInvestigations.
Ciaramella allegedly argued that “President Putin suggested that President Trump fire Comey,” the report said. “In the days after Comey’s firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to investigate ‘Russia collusion.’ “
In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Putin. Ciaramella’s email was cited in a footnote in his report, which mentions only Ciaramella’s name, the date and the recipients “Kelly et al.” Former colleagues said the main recipient was then-Homeland Security Director John Kelly.
Ciaramella left the Trump White House soon after Mueller was appointed. Attempts to reach Ciaramella were unsuccessful, although his father said in a phone interview from Hartford, where he is a bank executive, that he doubted his son was the whistleblower. “He didn’t have that kind of access to that kind of information,” Tony Ciaramella said. “He’s just a guy going to work every day.”
The whistleblower's lawyers did not answer emails and phone calls seeking comment. CIA spokesman Luis Rossello declined comment, saying, “Anything on the whistleblower, we are referring to ODNI.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
In his complaint, the whistleblower charged that the president used “the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” Specifically, he cited a controversial July 25 phone call from the White House residence in which Trump asked Ukraine’s new president to help investigate the origins of the Russia “collusion” investigation the Obama administration initiated against his campaign, citing reports that “a lot of it started with Ukraine," where the former pro-Hillary Clinton regime in Kiev worked with Obama diplomats and Chalupa to try to “sabotage” Trump’s run for president.
Later in the conversation, Trump also requested information about [Joseph Biden] and his son [Hunter Biden], since “Biden went around bragging that he” had fired the chief Ukrainian prosecutor at the time a Ukrainian oligarch, who gave Biden’s son a lucrative seat on the board of his energy conglomerate [Burisma], was under investigation for corruption.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff argued the whistleblower's complaint, though admittedly based on second-hand information, amounts to an impeachable offense, and they subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry that has largely been conducted in secret.
The whistleblower filed his “urgent” report against Trump with the intelligence community inspector general on Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.
Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff’s Democratic staff for “guidance." At first, the California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet with the whistleblower early on.
Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC — both whom were also Obama holdovers -- to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.
During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.
Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.
“Their reaction tells you something,” said one official familiar with the inquiry.
For example, sources said Ciaramella’s name was invoked by GOP committee members during the closed-door testimony of former NSC official Fiona Hill on Oct. 14. Ciaramella worked with Hill, another Obama holdover, in the West Wing.
During Tuesday’s deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats shut down a line of inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing the identity of the whistleblower. Republicans wanted to know with whom Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns regarding Trump’s call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the questions, which reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans.
Determined to keep the whistleblower's identity secret, Schiff recently announced it may not be necessary for him to testify even in closed session. Republicans argue that by hiding his identity, the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, asserted the American people have the right to know the person who is trying to bring down the president for whom 63 million voted.
“It’s tough to determine someone’s credibility if you can’t put them under oath and ask them questions,” he said.
Added Jordan: “The people want to know. I want to get to the truth."
In an open House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) seemingly out of left field asked a witness about “Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National Security Council,” in what the Washington press corps took as a bid to out the whistleblower. [Rep. Gohmert] later told a Dallas radio station he knew the whistleblower’s name. “A lot of us in Washington know who it is,” Gohmert said, adding he’s a “very staunch Democrat” who was “supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption."
The Washington Post ran a news story over the weekend critical of Republicans for allegedly trying to “unmask” the whistleblower, for attempting to do the job journalists would normally do. Last week, the paper ran an op-ed by the whistleblower’s attorneys claiming he was no longer relevant to the inquiry and beseeching the public to let their client slip back into obscurity.
For its part, the New York Times ran a story last month reporting details about the whistleblower’s background, but stopped short of fully identifying him, suggesting it didn’t know his politics or even his name. “Little else is known about him,” the paper claimed.
On Thursday, Democrats plan a House vote on new impeachment-inquiry rules that would give Republicans for the first time the ability to call their own witnesses. Only, their requests must first be approved by the Democrats. So there is a good chance the whistleblower, perhaps the most important witness of all, will remain protected from critical examination.
There's way too much information and revealed political ties to shorten this article.
Everything I bolded points more to an infiltrator, a double-agent, a saboteur, a rat, and not at all to what could be described as a "whistleblower".
This Ciaramella guy is tied to every branch of intelligence that tried to destroy Trump in 2016, every FBI and intelligence branch that framed Trump for the Russia/Ukraine accusations and the Meuller special investigation, every dirty tie to Biden and the Ukranian/Soros corruption, and all the CIA/White House NSC council infiltration that was used to compose the deceitful "whistleblower report". Composed in Adam Schiff's office, no less!
It's absolutely absurd that someone with that much bias can smear the president with an altered whistleblower set of rules (that no one can say who or when the "whistleblower report" form was recently altered to allow fourth-hand accusations, and used to attack a president when it was only ever previously used inter-departmentally within federal intelligence agencies, never intended to strike at the Executive branch, let alone the President), and yet the accused President Trump, and House Republicans and the American people ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO KNOW HIS NAME!
This is a coup by deep state Washington elites, pure and simple. No one but a partisan Democrat could not see the incredible legal manipulations, the FBI/DOJ/CIA deep state fingerprints all over it. All the same players in all three Trump scandals, plus the same players who threw the case against Hillary.
If this plot succeeds, we're well on our way to becoming Venezuela, Cuba, or the Soviet Union. A Bolshevik revolution, on full display.
Schiff unlike team Trump contacted the FBI about the call. You understand that is an important detail to leave out?
Oh, you are such a liar!
* Schiff's staff met with the "whistleblower"/CIA mole, they helped the mole craft his whistleblower report for 18 days (they are supposed to be submitted within 5 days). * A whistleblower report is supposed to be shared with both Democrat and Republican members of the intelligence committee. It was instead conceived and crafted for maximum damage to Trump in secrecy, and not reviewed jointly with Republicans. The intel Republicans found out with the rest of America when it was leaked to the media, for maximum damage to Trump. * Adam Schiff stood at a podium, and alleged he had not spoken with or met with the "whistleblower" in advance of the report. In truth, his office SELECTED HIS LAWYER! And Schiff's office helped to draft the whistleblower report for 18 days, before releasing it! * Two staffers from Obama and then Trump's national security council (Abigail Grace, Sean Misco), Democrat deep state anti-Trump loyalists, left the White House NSC staff a few months ago, and then took positions with Adam Schiff's staff. Just in time to help craft this whistleblower report. Just by the wildest coincidence.
If Rep. Adam Schiff is supoenaed and forced to testify under oath about what he knew and when he knew it, it will be Schiff who will be facing federal charges for perjury, obstruction of justice, and malicious prosecution, among other charges, not Trump. By the day, the credibility of this "whistleblower" report and related Ukranian scandal are falling apart and helping Trump as the true facts reveal themselves.
All Democrats have on their side is secret testimony, selective leaks, and other deceptions. Smoke and mirrors. When the true facts come out, it's game over for the Democrats.
No I'm not the liar here.... "Obviously we would welcome the chance to get copies of those recordings," Schiff tells them. "So we will try to work with the FBI to try to figure out how we can take copies of those... I'll be in touch with the FBI about this, and we'll make arrangements with your staff. I think it would be best to provide these materials to both our committee and the FBI. We'll make arrangements between my staff and yours on how to facilitate that."
Schiff even during the call is talking about contacting theFBI. And really given that you are fine with Trump's corrupt use of his office by withholding foreign aid to get another country to investigate his biggest political rival you shouldn't have a problem even if Schiff hadn't notified the FBI.
“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
Our legal process either finds someone "guilty" or "not guilty". That is a verdict of insufficient evidence, and therefore "not guilty". You would like to twist the legal system and have Trump proven not innocent, and guilty until proven innocent.
Originally Posted By: M E M
“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
Again, that is a "not guilty" verdict.
Originally Posted By: M E M
You like Trump are pushing a false narrative of Mueller 's investigation WB. And Trump is at this very moment having his Justice Department investigate that investigation. This is the same JD that found nothing of value when the IG went to them with the whistleblower complaint and tried to keep it hidden.
No, I'm absolutely not pushing a false narrative. Theree previous federal investigations, and then a $30 million-dollar Mueller special investigation loaded with 17 partisan Democrats who hated Trump's guts and did everything they could to destroy him, ultimately came to the conclusion that Trump was not guilty.
Period. The end. Despite some weaselly language in the Mueller report that left the door open for House Democrats to open still more pointless investigations. But if it couldn't be found with the unlimited legal resources of a Mueller special investigation, there is no evidence to be found. This is all partisan Democrat theatre, to try and smear Trump in the court of public opinion, in the absence of real evidence.
Deception, slander, intimdation, threats and mob violence. The Democrat way. Whatever serves your Bolshevik revolution.
Yeah you're just doubling down on your false narrative here. Mueller quite clearly said they didn't consider collusion so it's just not true to say the report cleared him of that. And Mueller was very clear that Trump could be inficted after he leaves office. Weasel words=whatever doesn't suit your false narrative.
Mueller quite clearly said they didn't consider collusion so it's just not true to say the report cleared him of that. And Mueller was very clear that Trump could be inficted after he leaves office. Weasel words=whatever doesn't suit your false narrative.
No. Only on Planet CNN/MSNBC/MediaMatters is that narrative not laughably off the mark.
Here on planet Earth, There were FOUR federal investigations that were ended due to insufficient evidence. (i.e., NOT GUILTY).
The remaining ambiguity was thrown in to damage Trump by the 17 partisan DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN DONORS on the Mueller team. To give Nadler, Schiff, and Maxine Waters the slightest rationalization to form more purely political investigations, despite no evidence to support further investigation of Trump.
At this point, it's all about Dems manufacturing the slightest appearance of wrongdoing, to smear Trump and shave a few percentage points off his popularity before Nov 2020.
hmmnn, your planet just has the faithful Trump supporters. The people testifying are not manufactured, you just don't like what they are saying under oath. (something Trump people are refusing to do)
I can see why Trump likes his show. Apparently in Hilton's world there isn't testimony from several others that backs up the whistleblower. And while there are Dems that wanted to impeach right away that is hardly true that all of them were. And no issues with a republicans that are doing everything they can to try to derail the inquiry. Rules and subpoena's are apparently only for to observe and obey. Hilton gives everything a pass by republicans here. I won't bother watching him again. I don't have time for talking heads from either side putting out sermon style propaganda that paints an entire side as evil. Enjoy your false narratives if you want. In the real world public hearings start soon and Lindsey Graham won't read the transcripts.
The testimony released over the last few days damages the Democrat case for impeachment.
It reveals that testimony of Bill Taylor (the current U.S. ambassador to Ukraine), where he was previously fronted to have testified that Trump definitely had a quid pro quo in his phone conversation with Ukraine president Zelenskyy (thanks to Democrats leaking a few sentences out of several hours of tesimony, the only portion that propagandized the quid pro quo myth!), is not credible testimony after all.
That ambassador Taylor's testimony, when released in its full context, reveals Taylor's statement to be hearsay speculation, just Bill Taylor's opinion, not based on any fact. So as opinion, not fact, as Gregg Jarret said last night on Fox, it is a factless opinion that any judge in a trial would tell the jury to disregard. But of course, the Democrats treat it as gospel. Just because it fits their lying narrative.
A review of the actual facts:
1) The released transcript of the Trump/Zelenskyy July 25th phone call makes clear there was no intimidation or coercion by Trump on Zelenskyy.
2) Multiple televised public media interviews of Zelenskyy since then prove there was no intimidation or coecion (or quid pro quo) by Trump.
3) Statements by all witnesses make clear that while $400 million in military aid to Ukraine was temporarily delayed, that withholding of aid was not used to pressure or intimidate the Ukranians, only to verify it was not being used for corrupt purposes (and Ukraine has been notoriously corrupt for decades). Not quid pro quo, because the Ukranians were completely unaware that the aid was delayed and witheld. For it to be a threat or intimidation or trading favors, Ukraine would have had to be aware the funds were even witheld.
4) Most infuriating of all, while Democrats strain to make a false case against Trump, they ignore far more blatant intimidation by:
(A) Joseph Biden, where he openly boasted in front of cameras that he threatened the previous Ukranian president that they would not get over $1 billion in U.S. aid unless the Ukraine president fired the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden/Burisma. And multiple other Ukraine officials confirm that the prosecutor was fired, and precisely because of Joseph Biden's threat.
(B) A threatening letter from Senators Leahy, Durbin and Menendez to the Ukranian government in 2016, again threatening the Ukranians that if they didn't provide the Senators with information that compromised Trump (and the 2016 election) that they would likewise use their power to hurt the Ukranian government.
(C) The Ukranian part in the 2016 DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign/ Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele/"Russia Dossier", again where the Democrats are blatantly guilty of employing and buying information directly from Russian and Ukranian (and British, and Australian, and Italian/Maltan) foreign agents.
So... once again, what Democrats falsely accuse Trump of doing, is exactly what Democrats are blatantly guilty of themselves. Which Democrats of course, in the case of their own guilt, don't want investigated.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Steve Bannon gives an insightful overview of the impeachment process, the deceitful tactics Pelosi and Schiff have used, and the fact that Democrats are hell-bent and committed in advance to impeachment, no matter what the evidence. The most indelible phrase Bannon used to describe the Democrats: "They've burned the boats, they're advancing inland, there's no turning back."
And his description of how Matt Gaetz broke the Democrat unfair process of abusing secret hearings and leaking very select portions from the SCIF room for a month, as the reason Democrat impeachment was polling so high, because Democrats abused the process for a month, before Gaetz and other Republicans broke the one-sided assault. Thanks to Gaetz, that twisting of the truth is over, and the polls are already starting to turn in Trump's favor.
And that Pelosi and Schiff are planning a show trial that will completely stall any legislation through November and December, depriving Trump of another legislative victory. But I can easily see that blowing up in the Dems' faces, if the impeachment process drags into Jan-Feb-March 2020, and into the primaries and Super Tuesday. That will suck even more oxygen from an already lackluster Democrat field. Hilarious that Bannon cited that none of the Democrat frontrunners want to even mention impeachment, because they know it's a vote-killer for any of them.
House Democrats are using every deception they can manufacture, and every time, they delude themselves it is giving them traction, before they realize they've shot themselves in the foot one more time:
* The initially hyped damning Bill Taylor testimony, exposed now as just insignifican nonfactual hearsay opinion.
* The whistleblower who, far from neutral, is an Obama administration favored boy, a vocal partisan connected with a clear partisan zeal to Joe Biden, Susan Rice, James Brennan, and an unholy host of Trump haters.
* The so-called whistleblower/leaker/rat Eric Ciaramella's lawyer Mark Zaid, another rabid Democrat partisan with heavy ties to Brennan's CIA, whose Twitter posts openly boast about "#rebellion, #impeachment", and in Jan 2017: "the coup has started"
* CNN fantasizes about impeaching both Trump and Pence (based on nothing in Pence's case, almost nothing in Trump's) so they can crown a "President Pelosi". Never mind that if Pence were to be impeached or resign, Trump would appoint another Republican. Whistleblower-lawyer Mark Zaid also Twitter-posted "#CNN" who he saw as an ally in selling the Democrat/Deep State/CIA coup to the public, so there's that on full display, CNN's willing glee to sell it.
* Former acting CIA director John McLaughlin at a recorded meeting on C-SPAN saying "Thank God for the Deep State!" Oh, gee, up till now you guys have been saying the Deep State is just a conspiracy theory. Thank you Mr. McLaughlin, for not only admitting there's a Deep State, but admitting you and your CIA/FBI/DOJ/State Dept intelligence field are all eager participants in it, that crazy thing that doesn't exist.
* General McRaven also saying: "The sooner Trump is removed the better." So we all know now which team he's playing for.
A retired Army officer who worked with Democrat “star witness” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims Vindman “really talked up” President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in front of Russian military officers.
In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman said that he “verbally reprimanded” Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for himself. “Do not let the uniform fool you,” Hickman wrote. “He is a political activist in uniform.”
Hickman’s former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has since gone on the record to corroborate his story.
Hickman, 52, says he’s a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.
The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers “uncomfortable.” For example, Hickman told American Greatness, that he heard Vindman call Americans “rednecks”—a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a big laugh at America’s expense.
Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the House Intelligence Committee and testified that he’d had “concerns” about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman’s testimony rested on his negative opinions of the call, rather than any new facts about the call.
Vindman’s former boss, NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison, threw cold water on Vindman’s claims in his own testimony later in the week, saying he didn’t have concerns that “anything illegal was discussed” in the phone call. Morrison also testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call.
“COMPLETELY BEYOND REPROACH”
Hickman said he decided to come forward because Vindman “disobeyed a direct order from the commander-in-chief, his boss,” made his testimony “about his foreign policy opinions versus facts,” and “wore his Army service uniform to make a political statement” against the president.
“Then right on cue, the mainstream media began calling him a war hero with a purple heart, and completely beyond reproach,” Hickman wrote in a statement to American Greatness and another journalist. “Knowing his political bias, backed by his somewhat radical left-leaning ideology, it was my obligation, indeed my duty, to come forward with this information. I couldn’t go to the same mainstream media to put it out, nor could I go to the Army, as they’re backing Vindman, so I took to Twitter, a source for getting the truth out,” he added.
According to Hickman, Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013. He told American Greatness that he also met Vindman’s twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman while he was stationed in Germany.
“I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in Grafenwoher,” Hickman wrote on Twitter. “He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (US Army Europe). He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.”
Hickman provided American Greatness with a picture of himself and his wife while he was on vacation in Venice during that time period.
He noted that he and Vindman had “interacted on several different occasions throughout the planning cycle, but it was during the actual execution of the exercise that we had an issue relevant to his recent testimony.”
LAUGHING AT AMERICANS' EXPENSE
Hickman said he had pretty much forgotten about Vindman until recently.
“When I saw him, and understood what he was trying to accomplish, I knew immediately he was involved in this mess as a partisan Democrat,” Hickman said in his statement.
He explained on Twitter that Vindman, who was a Major in 2013, sat in on the US-Russian exercises that were conducted in “Virtual Battle Simulations 2 (VBS2) classrooms simulation.”
According to Hickman, Vindman spoke with “U.S. and Russian Soldiers, as well as the young officers and GS employees about America, Russia, and Obama.”
Hickman’s Oct. 31 tweets continue below in paragraph form for easier reading:
"He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of (sic) uncomfortable.
He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS [civil service]employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed.
One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American’s falsely thinking they’re exceptional, when he said, “He [Obama] is working on that now.” And he said it w/a snide ‘I know a secret’ look on his face. I honestly don’t know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say.
Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama’s plan, etc., I’d had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside. At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I’ll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself.
The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as [2013]. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you… he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!"
Thomas Lasch, Hickman’s boss at the time, corroborated his story on Twitter.
“Jim, I remember exercise ATLAS VISION and this incident. I was your Boss at the time and was satisfied when you told me that you ‘took care of it’ (meaning then MAJ Vindman’s disparaging comments about the U.S. to the Russians ) and I just put things together this past week,” Lasch tweeted.
Lasch is a highly respected simulation strategist at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr, Germany where he is responsible for the “Live Virtual Constructive and Gaming simulation program for all U.S. Forces in Europe.”
Lasch vouched for Hickman in a second tweet: “Everyone on this thread should know that Jim Hickman’s patriotism and honesty is unparalleled. He is one of my personal heroes.” He added: “This is not about Trump! This is about an officer [LTC Vindman] that is disloyal to the United States of America.”
American Greatness was able to reach Lasch through his LinkedIn account. He verified that the recently established Twitter account in his name vouching for Hickman was indeed his.
“Yes this is my LinkedIn account. It is really me. And the Twitter account is mine as well,” Lasch said.
In his statement, Hickman explained why Lasch remembered the incident with Vindman: “I did question his patriotism to our nation, and the lack of respect given to Americans in general. I was indeed furious and that’s most likely why my boss Tom Lasch remembers it so clearly.”
“I corrected him solely as a superior officer witnessing a junior officer doing something wrong,” Hickman explained. “We as officers are not supposed to talk about our political leanings, especially in front of subordinates, and never are we to talk down about Americans and our culture.”
Hickman further explained to American Greatness that Vindman spoke favorably of the United Nations, and appeared contemptuous of Americans who didn’t appreciate the U.N. Vindman, Hickman said, believed that “the U.N. should have broader powers” and “talked about how the American people weren’t worldly.”
He noted that Vindman actually used the word “globalism” during the conversation and “talked about American culture versus European culture,” unfavorably, essentially suggesting that “the U.S. has no culture.”
Hickman also told American Greatness that Vindman talked about “Obama changing America” and that it reminded him of Obama’s infamous “Fundamentally transforming America” speech of October 2008.
The former officer stressed that he was not seeking recognition or praise but instead, “to just get the facts and truth out that are relevant to the current situation.”
Hickman said in his statement that he began his Army career in military intelligence and was commissioned in 1996 as a field artillery officer.
He retired from the service in 2017 and now resides near Tampa, Florida.
Another piece you'll never see in the liberal media, Michael Flynn's lawyer Sydney Powell (a prosecutor who also worked on the Whitewater investigation and the Enron and Arthur Anderson cases):
Detailing the shakedown techniques used aagainst Michael Flynn, to make him confess and receive a sentence for "process crimes" he wasn't guilty of. Even Peter Strzok, one of the two FBI agents who ambushed Flynn without an attorney (on Comey's orders) in order to manufacture a process crime, didn't think Flynn was deliberately misleading or omitting anything in his answers to the FBI.
But regardless, Flynn was bankrupted, had to sell his home to pay for his defense, and once bankrupted, was further threatened with prosecuting his son unless Flynn too the offered plea deal.
Sydney Powell is working to have that plea/conviction overturned. And rightly so.
Here's her previous appearance with Mark Levin, where she went into much more detail, one of Levin's best interviews:
Where she also goes into the long history of shakedown convictions by the tag-team of James Comey, Robert Mueller, and Andrew Weissmann, weaving through the Scooter Libby conviction, Enron, Arthur Anderson, and the same shakedown tactics used in the Trump investigation. Just ask George Pappadapoulos, Roger Stone, Carter Page, Sam Clovis, Michael Caputo, and Jerome Corsi, among others. Many of whom are still having their lives destroyed by FBI/DOJ.
Michael Caputo in particular is eloquent when interviewed, on both Fox and OANN. He details how despite being guilty of nothing, he has had to exhaust $200,000 on his legal defense, for charges of which he has never been officially indicted. And even worse, the FBI repeatedly interview all his friends, family, business associates and clients. And because of the intimidation factor, virtually all of his clients have stopped doing business with him, for fear that they too might be indicted if they remain close to him.
An infuriating abuse of power, and exerting of federal intimidation against political opponents.
the deceitfully titled "whistleblower" (Eric Ciaramella) -a clear Democrat partisan with clear favor in the highest level of the Obama administration, with close interaction with Vice President Joseph Biden, with Obama's national security advisor Susan Rice, who was an agent of Trump-hating then CIA director John Brennan. Who was a vocal critic even within the Trump White House of president Donald Trump. It's very obvious why Democrats don't want Ciaraamella to testify, he clearly is a rabid Democrat operative, with a partisan axe to grind. The moment he takes the stand, his credibility is gone, and his "whistleblower report" is instantly discredited. It already is, those who get their news from the liberal media, where these facts are selectively omitted, just don't know it yet. They naively believe his identity and his politics are still unknown. The conservative media is reporting it, the liberal media is protecting their lying narrative by not reporting the known facts.
Lt. Col. Alex Vindman: again a clear Democrat partisan, who as I cited above, wears his liberal Democrat politics on his sleeve, and can't restrain himself from disparaging Trump, Republicans, or the United States itself.
former fired U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Maria Yovanovich (May 2016-May 2019): Another fire-breathing liberal Democrat whose loyalty is to Obama and Hillary Clinton, and who can't restrain herself from making disparaging remarks to embassy staffers, and to diplomats in the Ukranian government. Her hostility toward the Trump administration was reported by all these people who overheard it, and she was replaced as ambassador for precisely this reason. Her testimony is again partisan and worthless.
Current U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor (May 2019-present) also testified to imply without evidence that Trump was engaging in quid pro quo, and then backpedalled from it in his later testimony revealed yesterday. Another Democrat loyalist, proven to know nothing incriminating about Trump, and his testimony discredited.
Likewise testimony of U.S. ambassador to the E. U. Gordon Sondland. Another partisan who might as well have been wearing a HILLARY 2016 campaign button when he testified.
Both Taylor and Sondland discredited by U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, and by the transcript of the phone call itself. And by multiple statements in press conferences of Ukranian president Zelenskyy himself.
Democrats have an increasingly difficult time making a case for impeachment, as the "facts" continue to fall out from under them, and are proven false.
The deceitfully labelled anonymous "whistleblower" who should be the first person deposed in House impeachment hearings today. But because his partisan connections and ideology are so obvious, Rep. Adam Schiff and the other House Democrats want to pretend he doesn't exist now. If he were to testify and expose how deceitful the whole Democrat case for impeachment is, this entire push for impeachment would be fully exposed and end within an hour.
Ciaramella was recruited into the CIA when communist former CIA director James Brennan first saw him as a leftist student protestor at Yale, protesting on behalf of a muslim professor. He quickly became a favored boy, both in the Brennan-led CIA, and then in the Obama administration, and was an Obama holdover in the Trump administration. Later elevated to CIA-mole/"whistleblower". So credible that he can't be made public, at which point the Democrat lying narrative would be destroyed.
It's like having Watergate hearings without John Dean.
Reading the transcripts it's pretty clear to me they don't need to put up the whistleblower. Other witnesses cover what he alleged in the report. And we have the rough transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky. It's damning and all republicans have is accusations and partisan game playing in an attempt to provide cover for his corruption. I look forward to voters weighing in '20
Reading the transcripts it's pretty clear to me they don't need to put up the whistleblower. Other witnesses cover what he alleged in the report. And we have the rough transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky. It's damning and all republicans have is accusations and partisan game playing in an attempt to provide cover for his corruption. I look forward to voters weighing in '20
Respectfully, that's wishful thinking on your part. NO ONE on the Democrat side can cite one crime Trump has committed, let alone evidence to support the allegation. As was cited by Rep. Jim Jordan and Elise Stefanik, the "whistleblower"/CIA rat was touted over and over by Rep. Adam Schiff and other Democrats a month ago as "vital" testimony, and he would "definitely" testify.
So what changed?
What changed is he is a liberal partisan who crafted his lying "whistleblower" narrative for 3 weeks in the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, and neither Ciaramella or or Schiff's office were forthcoming about that deceit. He is COMPLETELY discredited as a witness, and that is EXACTLY why Democrats don't want him to testify now. Because he by testifying can only further destroy the Democrats' lying narrative. But Adam Schiff alleges now he doesn't know who the "whistleblower" is. Please. Ciaramella just camped out in Schiff's office for 18 days, while Schiff's staff helped him draft the "whistleblower" report. And Schiff's office hand selected Ciaramella's attorney for him. And Schiff hired two staffers from the White House's National Security Council, who probably also knew in advance and helped courdinate the leak, and are probably sources in his "whistleblower report". But Schiff has no idea who he is. Please.
"Other witnesses" like Marie Yovanovich, George Kent and Bill Taylor clearly have no firsthand knowledge, just 3rd and 4th hand rumors, and clearly don't know their own ass from a hole in the ground. Not to mention Schiff's one-sided committee rules that clearly try to hide the truth and silence any Republican pursuit of cross-examining the witnesses and unearthing the true facts. Schiff's treatment today of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and even of chairman Rep. Devin Nunes was just jaw dropping in Schiff's attempts to silence them and prevent disclosure of the true facts.
I'm starting to wonder if Democrat House members facing re-election in districts Trump won will even give Pelosi the votes to pass impeachment in the Democrat-controlled House, let alone to ever even make it to the Republican-majority Senate for an actual impeachment trial.
Holding foreign aid to try to get a country to help his campaign sounds like solid grounds to impeach. Pretty easy to see that he did that.
Your lie has previously been addressed.
No one in the Ukranian government was even aware the military aid had been delayed. Trump witheld it because Ukraine has for years been one of the three most corrupt governments on the planet, and was maaking sure the aid would not be used for corrupt purposes, and once satisfied Zelenskyy was not corrupt, the funds were released. For it to be quid pro quo or intimidation or coercion or blackmail of Ukraine, the Ukranian government would have to be aware there was a threat, but the Ukranians were completely unaware there was a delay in U.S. aid.
But your side is doing its damnedest to keep that lying narrative alive.
I wouldn't lie nor would I even need to. Testimony I think establishes that Ukraine was aware that aid was conditional on investing Biden. On a side note Zelensky was booked to appear on CNN to announce the investigation Trump was trying to get. He canceled when the aid was received. Btw very glad to see Roger Stone got what he deserved today.
I wouldn't lie nor would I even need to. Testimony I think establishes that Ukraine was aware that aid was conditional on investing Biden. On a side note Zelensky was booked to appear on CNN to announce the investigation Trump was trying to get. He canceled when the aid was received. Btw very glad to see Roger Stone got what he deserved today.
Roger Stone was really convicted of helping Donald Trump get elected. As were Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and others the deep state FBI/DOJ is still trying to shake down.
If there were actual justice and Democrats were held to the same standard, some others with far more evidence against them would be in jail now, for perjury, "gross negligence" with confidential/top secret information, falsifying evidence sumitted to FISA/federal judgesand other crimes:
Hillary Clinton Barack Obama James Comey Andrew McCabe Peter Strzok Lisa Page James Baker Bruce Ohr Nellie Ohr James Brennan James Clapper and many others.
I saw on OANN news today interviewing Rudy Giuliani that there are FIVE Ukranians who witnessed comments by ambassador Maria Jovanovich that she was using diplomatic influence to obstruct investigation of four different companies, one of them a Soros operation. He notified the FBI, and the FBI buried the evidence, to support the lying Democrat narrative that only "smears" exist against Yovanovich. They buried the evidence.
Giuliani also said that he heard about these things, and didn't just repeat them on someone else's sayso. He verified them through other sources, and then the FBI and DOJ buried the evidence he gave them. Because they're on Team Obama/Hillary.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Link to news that several people overheard Trump talking to Sondland about investigating Biden. That would not be second hand hearsay.
So they heard a few words on one side of a telephone conversation?
I loved how George Kent and Bill Taylor testified, and one of them admitted they not only weren't in on the Trump/Zelenskyy July 25th phone call, but they never even read the released transcript. Rep. Devin Nunes said it best to Yovanovich, when she made clear she knew nothing about what Trump is accused of: "Why are you even here?"
The volume on the Trump/Sondland call was so loud others could here what Trump was saying. Yovanovich's testimony adds to the picture of how Trump was using Guilliani and others to try to get Ukraine to investigate Biden. Trump can get rid of diplomats like her but it matters if it was done so to shake down another country for personal gain. That is corruption and an abuse of his office. From your vantage point who is actually seeking truth and who's trying to dodge it? Hint: the ones avoiding subpoena and talking under oath may be the actual corrupt ones.
The volume on the Trump/Sondland call was so loud others could here what Trump was saying. Yovanovich's testimony adds to the picture of how Trump was using Guilliani and others to try to get Ukraine to investigate Biden. Trump can get rid of diplomats like her but it matters if it was done so to shake down another country for personal gain. That is corruption and an abuse of his office. From your vantage point who is actually seeking truth and who's trying to dodge it? Hint: the ones avoiding subpoena and talking under oath may be the actual corrupt ones.
It's all wishful thinking on your part, that presents no new evidence of anything President Trump did wrong, and doesn't move public opinion a single millimeter toward impeachment. Quite the contrary, it has many Democrat House members questioning the wisdom of supporting impeachment.
There is no evidence. There are no actual criminal charges.
The Mueller report that was supposed to be the silver bullet to Trump's presidency, actually exonerates Trump. In the cases of both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, a move toward impeachment was supported by actual crimes they were both found guilty of. Quite the opposite, the Mueller independent counsel investigation (made up entirely of 17 Trump-hating Democrats, 11 of them large Democrat campaign donors, one of them immediately emplyed prior by the Clinto n Foundation, a fox appointed to guard the henhouse), even with its incredible bias found no sufficient evidence for pursuing criminal charges.
And the architects of the Russia Hoax, and now the Ukraaine hoax, are blatant partisans with an axe that they vocally grind in the media every day, on DNCNN and MSDNC. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, and now anonymously from the sidelines, Eric Ciaraamella, and their multitude of like-minded partisan brethren in the FBI, DOJ and State Department. That campaign donation records show all donated well over 90% for Hillary Clinton. Who are secretly slow-walking and stonewalling any evidence that exonerates Trump. Which is why Giuliani was in Ukraine investigating on his own. Because the FBI and DOJ were burying evidence that exonerates the president, forcing Giulinai to pursue tha facts himself, without the obstruction of the FBI, DOJ and Dept of State.
Obviously somebody hearing Trump on a phone call talking to Sondland about investigating Biden is exactly new evidence. It's right there in front of your face WB. And where are the republicans who want the WH to hand over the documents and texts that in your mind should exonerate Trump?
Btw I hope Rudy gets what he deserves for his role in all this. I got a chuckle out of proven liar many times over Roger Stone getting his just desserts.
And why is globalist and a leaker, who habitually badmouths the military he serves in, allowed to continue serving in the National Security Council, or in the U.S. military period?
Obviously somebody hearing Trump on a phone call talking to Sondland about investigating Biden is exactly new evidence. It's right there in front of your face WB. And where are the republicans who want the WH to hand over the documents and texts that in your mind should exonerate Trump?
It's exactly hearsay. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said, at least 95% of these hearings would be thrown out as hearsay the moment it got out of Schiff's House committee, and into a Senate trial.
The hard evidence is the transcribed phone call. What we've seen in these hearings is second, third and fourth-hand opinion hearsay about that transcribed call.
Actually you would be calling it treason if a democrat did it. And I saw the transcript so don't bother trying to spin it. It's a fact Trump withheld the military aid also a fact that while doing so asked Ukrain to investigate somebody that polls show would beat him in '20.
You mean the same pollsters who said Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide in 2016, and that Trump couldn't overcome the electoral "blue wall"? It was only after the election that Democrat leadership and the Newspeak liberal media ever changed the subject from that electoral vote, and after relentlessly talked about the popular vote.
As I've said before, liberal pollsters rig the polls and stack the polls with a heavier sample of Democrat voters, to psychologically undermine Republicans and convince them of the inevitability of a Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, or Hillary Clinton victory. Dukakis was projected to win in 1988 by 17 points, how'd that election actually work out?
If the phone conversation said what you allege it does, piece-of-excrement Rep. Adam Schiff would have quoted it, not lyingly paraphrased, not "parodied". It doesn't say what you and the Bolsheviks in your party allege.
Zelensky has even said that Trump's battle against establishment corruption is what inspired him to run for president of Ukraine and pursue a similar battle against corruption. And AGAIN, Trump since his inauguration has been giving vast amounts of military aid to Ukraine that Obama never provided in the first 3 years of Russia's invasion. So spare me the posturing about Trump threatening or witholding aid. Democrats did nothing for Ukraine, for years. Likewise in Syria. Likewise Iran. Likewise North Korea.
Trump has been pushing back against aggression on all fronts. Democrats accuse Trump of weakness, to create a false narrative, and distract from the record of [Democrat weakness.
I thought I posted this before in this topic, but it was in the previous topic, before this one began.
Despite your wishful thinking, M E M, there is far less here than there was in the Mueller investigation and the 3 other federal investigations prior to that. This Ukraine hoax is so clearly a vicious contrivance, and traces right back to all the same hand-wringers at the CIA, FBI and DOJ that the Russia Hoax came from.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
And here is White House attorney Pat Cippelone's October 8th letter to Nancy Pelosi and the other House leaders, explaining why the Trump administration is not cooperating with the House investigation, because of the inherent unfairness of the rules Democrats have set up, that violate due process.
Comrade Commissar Adam Schiff has set up a partisan one-sided kangaroo court, that obviously has no interest in impartially finding the true facts, or giving Trump's lawyers equal access to subpoena witnesses, cross examine witnesses, or the ability to access or present exculpatory evidence to exonerate Trump.
And why is globalist and a leaker, who habitually badmouths the military he serves in, allowed to continue serving in the National Security Council, or in the U.S. military period?
This is what a smear looks like. He actually was wounded fighting for this country and is guilty of getting job offers? That type of attack says more about the attacker's character than anything else. Shame on you
Obviously somebody hearing Trump on a phone call talking to Sondland about investigating Biden is exactly new evidence. It's right there in front of your face WB. And where are the republicans who want the WH to hand over the documents and texts that in your mind should exonerate Trump?
It's exactly hearsay. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said, at least 95% of these hearings would be thrown out as hearsay the moment it got out of Schiff's House committee, and into a Senate trial.
The hard evidence is the transcribed phone call. What we've seen in these hearings is second, third and fourth-hand opinion hearsay about that transcribed call.
...
Lindsey sure turned into Trump's little bitch, lol. Outside of the republican cult hearsay doesn't mean anything you don't like though. In the real world somebody hearing Trump saying something is actually first account testimony. Lindsey has made it clear that he's going to put party over country when he declared he wouldn't read the transcripts of testimony that displeases his boss.
And why is globalist and a leaker, who habitually badmouths the military he serves in, allowed to continue serving in the National Security Council, or in the U.S. military period?
This is what a smear looks like. He actually was wounded fighting for this country and is guilty of getting job offers? That type of attack says more about the attacker's character than anything else. Shame on you
I cited links for everything I said. What you spin as a "smear" are cited facts as quoted from Lt. Col. Vindman's former commanding officer(source linked above). And his commanding officer said that he got multiple complaints about Vindman, went and listened in the room where Vindman was badmouthing the U.S. military and America itself to Russian officials.
In addition he is a Democrat zealot who is quite vocal about his anti-Trump and anti-Republican opinions. And obviously, is perfectly willing to participate in an internal FBI/CIA-led coup against the United States.
I challenge you to cite what I said that was a "smear", and wasn't supported by the known facts about Vindman.
Likewise Marie Yovanovich, who was reported for making similar partisan remarks, and along with Victoria Niuland, used U.S. diplomatic muscle to make the Ukranian goverment back off from investigating corrupt companies friendly to Democrat interests, including one belonging to George Soros.
