House Republicans Deliver List of Eight Witnesses Requested for Impeachment Inquiry….

Chairman Adam Schiff is leading the impeachment inquiry into President Trump and told republicans they had a deadline of yesterday for any requests for witnesses for the upcoming public hearings.

Schiff has stated he will arbitrarily approve or deny any request from the House republicans.

Today House republicans released a list of eight witnesses they want to see called to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry (full pdf below).  Included in the list is the anonymous CIA “whistleblower”, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa (DNC operative who met with Ukrainian officials in 2016), and Nellie Ohr who was doing the Fusion-GPS 2016 opposition research using Ukrainian contacts and sources.

 

The full list includes: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, Alexandra Chalupa, Tim Morrison, David Hale, Kurt Volker, Nellie Ohr and the “Whistleblower”.  [Direct House pdf Link]

It is unlikely Chairman Adam Schiff would permit the republicans to call Nellie Ohr as a witness because her activity throughout the 2016 election would be too damaging to the current impeachment narrative.  Indeed, questions to Nellie Ohr would likely expose the origin of the Clinton-DNC-Fusion opposition research and manufacturing operation that eventually blended with the DOJ  and FBI.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, CIA, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, Impeachment, Joe Biden, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY. Bookmark the permalink.

207 Responses to House Republicans Deliver List of Eight Witnesses Requested for Impeachment Inquiry….

  1. Vegas Guy says:

    Good luck on this…..The requests will be summarily declined….in the quest for truth & justice no doubt.

    Remember…No one is above the Law, except certain corrupt Dems…LOL

    Liked by 15 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Should have had Joe Biden on the list too.

      Liked by 9 people

    • ‘corrupt Dems’ is a redundant phrase. There are no other kind.

      Liked by 10 people

      • Scott McLachlan says:

        I don’t know about that. Tulsi Gabbard stood up to the corruption in the DNC and stepped down as vice chair, and she recently called out Hillary Clinton… so she may be the exception to the rule.

        Like

        • ann says:

          How so? Tulsi demonstrates selective blindness. And die hard partisanship. Has any Democrat, inc Gabbard, broke ranks w Resist? Any vote for the agenda that put POTUS in office?
          Have any dems repudiated “Resist”? Or blew the whistle on dirty DoJ? Or called out the Senate Judiciary’s latter day Salem trial on Kavanaugh ?

          Nope. Courage & integrity require you Walk your talk. Calling out a Hillary, isn’t some earthshattering stamp of objectivity , it’s actually a pretty safe win, as half the Dems loathe Clinton.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Redzone says:

      Schiff already spelled out the rules R’s have to follow:

      House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Thursday released a tightened set of guidelines over what potential witnesses can be called in the impeachment hearings, saying Republicans must justify their relevance according to a three-point criteria.

      The California Democrat, in a letter to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the committee, formally asked for the GOP members’ requests for witnesses they would like to call for next week’s public hearings.

      The narrowed-scope of the questions, first obtained by Politico, are:

      • Did the president request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the president’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the president’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 US presidential election?

      • Did the president — directly or through agents — seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the president’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the president of Ukraine or by withholding US military assistance to Ukraine?

      • Did the president and his administration seek to obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the president’s actions and conduct?

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedoc00 says:

        Schiff has an issue with his witness as not a single one meets any of the criteria, as not a single one can get past the criteria of “DID THE PRESIDENT”…. That is why the response to this list will be interesting.

        Liked by 6 people

      • joshashland says:

        Does that mean the witness can answer yes to all three questions because “they read it in the NYT?”

        Like

    • snellvillebob says:

      Hopefully, Nunes keeps asking Schiff why he turned down every single witness the GOP requested, in the public meetings. Just embarrass the heck out of Schiff and his followers.

      Liked by 6 people

    • bkrg2 says:

      yep.
      im so far beyond cold anger, but not at the Demonrats, uniparty, deep state. Im a furious that 45-55% of the country supports impeaching the President.
      Nothing he has done fits the definition of impeachable offenses. Yet half the idiots in this country think its a good idea to have a one sided trial?

      We have totally lost control of our justice system in this country.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Jederman says:

        Can’t prove it at the moment but I’m willing to bet a pay check that the 45-55% number: one is a BS poll and number two, without the eager and unethical SUPPORT of the msm (every platform) the number would be less than half that.

        The media is part of the PLAN to drive PT’s approval numbers down. That is their purpose. I have no idea what the FEC or whatever governing agency thinks the purpose of the msm is but the msm has all but screamed – peach fotyfive.

        FYI, the lofos can’t help themselves, and that’s just the way the dems like it. However the msm (in theory) can. They have made a corporate level decision to support socialism and the DS. They is the appropriate target for cold/hot/righteous anger.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Maquis says:

          I never buy their numbers, ever.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Kintbury says:

          I would say that a more accurate number would be in the mid thirties. That would cover the base and the idiots. Then the majority against would be Republicans and independents who actually tend to think for themselves. Anyone with more than one brain cell can see what a sham this is.

          Like

    • Pale rider says:

      ‘List’ sounds cool but I want to see prosecutions from our justice system and not Trump guys and gals, crooked democrat, FBI, CIA, DOJ employees. Congress critters like Schiff need a midnight raid til those eyes go ahead and pop. Take the gloves off already!

      Like

  2. tominellay says:

    Good letter, good list. Good luck…

    Liked by 9 people

  3. drdeb says:

    Can’t wait to hear his response as to why these people cannot appear. Or, will he even respond?

    Liked by 5 people

    • raptors2020 says:

      Alinsky Rules: pick a target and personalize it. Insist Hunter Biden is the one person the Republicans must talk to. Don’t let Schiff hide behind vague rules and procedures. Make it all about one man.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Dutchman says:

      With the authority he has been given, or given himself, I don’t think he needs to give a reason, or even an excuse.
      No is all he HAS to say.

      Liked by 2 people

      • vikingmom says:

        And when he does, the Republicans need to broadcast that information in every single media interview they do, regardless of the subject…talk about it on every single Sunday talk show…Tweetstorm it everywhere!!

        Liked by 6 people

  4. Pap says:

    Great list.. but what happened to shift face…

    Like

    • litenmaus says:

      Nunes sent Shifty a separate letter formally ‘requesting’ that Shifty gives testimony before Shifty starts the inquisition hearings on Wednesday…..

      Liked by 8 people

    • fabrabbit says:

      Pap: Schiff would be implicated because D Nunes asked for anyone who assisted the whistleblower with his complaint to testify. That would include Schiff’s staff and ostensibly Schiff. We know Schiff will not testify but he was called to testify earlier.

      Like

  5. scrap1ron says:

    Why participate in this farce?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Magabear says:

      Exactly. Though using the time allotted for questioning to relentlessly mock pencil neck Schiff would be funny to watch.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sherri Young says:

        The part in Vindman’s transcript where John Ratcliffe shut down Eric Swalwell by calling him “President Swalwell” (a la Corey Lewendowski) was definitely worth a chuckle.

        Like

      • Jan says:

        AND Mark Meadows told Swallowwell to “shut up” when Meadows was trying to make a point of order during the Bill Taylor interview (I think).

        Thank God Swallowwell dropped out of the 2020 race.

        Like

    • Cheese says:

      Trade the Lovely Nellie for John Brennan?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Battleship Wisconsin says:

      It’s probably a wash between participating and not participating. Six of one argument for participating and a half dozen of the other argument for not.

      If Schiff refuses to call a key witness the Republicans have asked for, they can use his refusal as proof the Democrats are manipulating what is supposed to be an unbiased inquiry.

      IMHO, articles of impeachment will be passed by the House in late 2019 or early 2020. The Democrats are too far down the road to turn back now.

      That it will be done in such a corrupt, high-handed fashion is a situation which must be dealt with politically once impeachment has become a done deal.

      Liked by 1 person

      • twingirls (@twingirls49) says:

        I think the Nunes list is a warning to democrats as to who the Senate will call as witnesses if the impeachment moves forward.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Gary Thomson says:

          Agreed. Also, if there is a trial in the Senate, I’m assuming the President’s legal team has fairly wide latitude in calling witnesses just as in a regular trial. The President’s legal team could use the line of thought that they see this impeachment as part of an overall scheme to unlawfully remove him from office. They could start from the very beginning calling for testimony lawyers from Perkins Cole law firm who were the cutouts for passing funds from Clinton to Fusion GPS. And then go from there.

          Liked by 6 people

          • Battleship Wisconsin says:

            Let’s presume the Democrats will include the obstruction of justice allegations from the Mueller Report in their articles of impeachment.

            A properly managed Senate trial might offer the perfect opportunity to expose the Deep State coup against Donald Trump from its very inception in late 2015 on through to how the House of Representatives denied the President due process while impeaching him.

            Given how complicated the Spygate story is, a two month trial might be what is necessary to include all the gory details of the coup.

            A question: If all those gory details were to be presented in the course of a long post-impeachment Senate trial, would the criminal trials of the Spygate perpetrators be legally prejudiced if the material being presented is the same material that will become the DOJ prosecution’s evidence in the criminal trials?

            Like

    • The Boss says:

      Because certain High-T GOP are using every opportunity to hit back at the commies masquerading as dems. Read the letter. Notice what was done? This is not the typical defeatist, McCain-esque duplicity and surrender that we’ve been accustomed to the RINOs exhibiting.

      Liked by 5 people

      • John55 says:

        The Republicans always exhibit high T behavior when they are in the minority and cannot actually do anything. As soon as they have the majority they manage to make jellyfish look like they have backbone.

        Case in point, the Senate, where the Republicans ARE supposedly in control, though you’d be hard pressed to tell that from what goes on there.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Jederman says:

      Legit question. If sch!tstick rejects their witnesses maybe they should just not show up. It would certainly draw attention to sch!t’s unethical, commie tactics.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Nom de Blog says:

    Those are good asks. At least House Republicans have some leadership. No more Paul Ryan nonsense.

    Liked by 15 people

    • Zorro says:

      Why not call Paulie Numnuts Ryano at some point?

      Like

      • warrprin1 says:

        For Zorro: Yeeaaahhh, baby! Paulie R prolly thinks he’s safely off the hook, stashed away in his cushy FAUXnews Board position. First he destroyed the GOP majority in the House. Now he’s hunkered down working to destroy the formerly reliable news reporting force built by Daddy Murdock and Roger Ailes. Paulie needs to face the 🎼. That would be us.

        So Paulie, here’s subpoena for you. And here’s another few tucked in my back pocket for your recently retired Congressional GOP buddies…

        Liked by 3 people

  7. Perot Conservative says:

    Is Chalupa the CIA’s first Mexican cover name?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. T2020 says:

    Time for real republicans to “go in for the kill” and CRUSH this fake impeachment. STOMP it out right now.

    Liked by 9 people

  9. Zy says:

    The R’s need to make a big, f’in deal about every witness that can’t be called. “Obstruction of our subpoenas”. Bring in a bucket of chicken. Make it a Democommunist style spectacle.

    Liked by 7 people

  10. gringz says:

    The letter was great. I doubt very seriously that Schiff will allow Hunter, the WB, or the WB’s contacts to testify. It will be interesting to see how Schiff responds.

    Liked by 1 person

    • litenmaus says:

      Schiffs’ response….

      “The Committee is evaluating the minority’s witness request and will give due consideration to witnesses within the scope of the impeachment inquiry as voted on by the House.

      As we move into the hearing phase of the inquiry, the Committee is mindful that we are engasged in a sober endeavor rooted in the Constitution to determine whether the President of the United States engaged in misconduct that warrants impeachment by the House.

      This inquiry is not and will not serve, however, as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigations into the Bidens or 2016 that the President pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit, or facilitate the President’s effort to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm.”

      Like

  11. John says:

    What About?

    Liked by 5 people

  12. Skidroe says:

    Schiff is like tick on a dog’s *ss! YES a blood sucking TICK!

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Skidroe says:

    Schiff is like a tick on a dog’s *ss. YES a blood sucking TICK!

    Like

  14. JohnCasper says:

    By DNA analysis, Warren is 1 / 1,024th Indian and Schiff is 1,023 / 1,024 Kangaroo.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. kevin m miele says:

    i am sayin it “WHOA NELLIE” …..Kieth Jackson finest rendition

    Like

  16. Shyster says:

    THAT’s It, 9 lousy witnesses? What about more of the US Ukraine staff, what about everyone involved in the do not prosecute list, everyone involved in the list of social accounts to be monitored, EX VP Biden’s staffers who fielded the Devon Archer requests to the state department, or the individuals on Biden’s staff who advised there was a conflict but sleepy Joe didn’t want to hear it….Seems like weak sauce and should have included 20 to 30 names so it would look worse and worse that Schiff is denying all 20 or 30. What a joke!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Troublemaker10 says:

    Schiff is going to reject almost all of them.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Somebody's Gramma says:

    Well, at least they put out a list on short order. The list is now public. Even if the Shifty people decline… we all see the list. And we all know this is a farce, a 3 ring circus. And while it’s infuriating to see our tax dollars go down the drain, we will remember that it was the DEMOCRATS who wasted our money on this charade. I’ll do my part to remind everyone I know that this is how our tax dollars are spent on a regular basis. And those struggling to pay for health insurance and taxes will get it. It’s truly disgusting.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. 335blues says:

    In the picture above, Devin is singing
    🎵 “I’ve got left hook on my mind…” 🎶

    Like

  20. L4grasshopper says:

    Why didn’t they call Schiff himself?

    Like

  21. mugzey302 says:

    Impeachment?? Please, let’s call it what it is ~ INQUISITION!!

    Like

  22. todayistheday99 says:

    Here is where Shifty appeared on Tucker in case anyone needs a reminder of what a weasel Shifty is:

    Liked by 5 people

  23. Beigun says:

    Nunes and team should walk out if ANY witnesses are disapproved! Let history record this farce before the Articles of Impeachment are voted on.

    Like

    • Somebody says:

      No they should not walk out, they should vigorously cross examine Schiff’s witnesses. After the ambassador whines about being fired, ask her how long she’s been ambassador, who before her, who appointed her, blah, blah., to point out ambassadors change frequently and almost always with a new POTUS. Then ask her if she’s aware she serves at the pleasure of POTUS.

      Ask every single one of them who sets foreign policy. Point out POTUS can’t usurp or undermine foreign policy, since it’s his job to set it. Point out the only undermining was by her and her cronies. Ask her about the do not investigate list, where did it come from, from POTUS Trump? His SOS? If not under what authority did she approach Ukraine with said list. Ask her why she denied visas for people from the new Ukraine administration that were trying to bring information about election interference to POTUS. What did those officials tell her about that and what did she do with the information, who did she tell.

      The republicans should stay and do their best to discredit Schiff’s witnesses. For sure drive home the point they NEVER spoke to POTUS, except Sondland. Drive home the point they are speculating.

      Liked by 5 people

  24. pucecatt says:

    Schiff won’t approve any ..😡

    Like

  25. covfefe999 says:

    Urgent message to Nellie:

    .--. .-.. . .- ... . / .-. . .--. --- .-. - / - --- / - .... . / ... - .- .-. / -.-. .... .- -- -... . .-. / ..-. --- .-. / -.-- --- ..- .-. / .. -. - . .-. .-. --- --. .- - .. --- -.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. De Oppresso Liber says:

    Great list, Rep. Nunes, and great strategy too!

    Force SchittferBrains to REJECT ALL of your witnesses, to prove (again – like it’s needed, s/) once more how ridiculously assinine the whole sleazy affair is on its face, OR you’ll force SchittferBrains to ALLOW testimony from witnesses whose testimony could very easily destroy the America haters’ COUP on national TV.

    When we combine President Trump’s coy comments at his Friday presser, with his comm. director’s “TICK…TOCK…” tweet, I expect something to happen this next week after Veteran’s Day.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. ChampagneReady says:

    Chalupa–it’s about time somebody nailed her ass. The sneaky dumpster rat for Clinton

    Liked by 9 people

  28. The Devilbat says:

    Hillary Clinton was on the ticket in 2016 because Obama bankrupted the DNC. Hillary basically took over the party by paying their debts. She is likely still paying them. Here is my guess as to what is happening today. Hillary is vicious and vindictive but she is by no means smart. She is living in a state of rage. The current impeachment circus is almost certainly her idea but she is too damned stupid to understand just how badly it is all going to backfire.

    Liked by 4 people

  29. Raquel says:

    Love the list, especially number 9. It’s like saying “etc, etc, etc!” The Republicans are going to have fun with this list no matter which way Schiff goes. Even if he says “no,” they get the opportunity to explain in public why Schiff refused and more and more info gets out. Have to be proud of the Republicans after many years of watching them whimp out!

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Stephen Paul says:

    Well at least the Republicans will be able to show how unfair and rigged the process is,I think by now most Americans with with an IQ over 50 can see how they are going after Trump 24/7 everyday of the week. That’s all the democrats have done and they won’t let up because they realize that nobody in their right mind wants them in power and the only way they will get it ,is by deceit ,lies and trickery. They want this power so bad they have stopped lower than ever before and lower than anyone ever thought they would . They openly Lie and think nothing of it and everyone in the media pretends it never happened . I do think Trump will prevail but the Democrats are causing a lot of damage to the office and wasting time and money in pursuit of their own personal agenda.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. LouisianaTeaRose says:

    Thoughts:

    How difficult it must have been for the President to foresee the calculus of these events as they are playing out is completely mindblowing, and for his allies in Congress to parallel those observations without benefit of, at minimum, coordination or “comparing notes” is stunning. The depth and breadth is overwhelming. The most impossible result would be for our President to run this gauntlet and come out alive. So many here on this very blog, including me, have been grinding our teeth to nubs, impatiently waiting for President Trump to deliver what these people have coming, but he’s done it by the rules, and with both arms and one leg tied like a roped calf. Who else could have done that?

    John Bolton called Rudy a grenade……I believe him! Truer words…BWAAAAHAHAHAHA……I. CAN’T. WAIT.

    The Nancester has a hard choice: make Schitt honor witness requests OR Senate says compress silicate.

    Media knows they’re cooked. Beyond recourse.

    Lawfare will be known as Lawless Losers. Good thing the job market has a bunch of openings for defense attorneys in DC. Losing counsel still gets paid.

    The bench got the biggest remodeling in history. Give Yurtle his due.

    It’s gonna be a really cold winter, but that’s OK….lots of live action TV will be coming out of DC, the best entertainment is gonna be at the hacienda! Invest in popcorn futures!!! And beer!!!!

    Liked by 4 people

    • warrprin1 says:

      From your touchpad to God’s ear, LTR.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sherri Young says:

      It would be interesting to know how much time Lt Gen Flynn and candidate, then POTUS-Elect, Donald Trump spent in communication or together in person on the campaign trail and during the transition. Flynn could not discuss classified matters until Trump had an appropriate security clearance. However, he would have been free to discuss potholes, pitfalls, personalities, and inside baseball. Besides that, Trump in his private life as an international businessman was said to have had access to the type of intelligence he would have needed to be able to avoid problems. He consulted with people such as Newt Gingrich before entering the race.

      Donald Trump knew a lot before he even started.

      Liked by 4 people

    • TarsTarkas says:

      Here’s a prediction – if indictments come down, will there be any members of Lawfare indicted? Or personnel of the Brookings Institute? Sundance and others have repeatedly pointed out that China funds Brookings Institute who funds Lawfare. FARA violation, anyone?

      Like

  32. thedoc00 says:

    Schiff has a PR problem and maybe even a parliamentary problem.

    He issues his 3 criteria and the transcripts he has released prove that not a single witness can get past the first words of the criteria, “DID THE PRESIDENT”, because all have admitted their evidence is not first hand.

    On the other hand Volker, Morrison and Hale have relevance.

    That is what makes this list interesting and Schiff’s response even more interesting should the Republicans mount a parliamentary challenge to his witnesses. Plus, I believe those types of challenges go to the House Rules committee, who are not operating under the new House Rules of Pelosi.

    Liked by 5 people

    • thedoc00 says:

      If Nancy desires, she actually has an off ramp to end (actually reset) this particular impeachment effort.

      Nancy’s “House Rules Committee”, which she purposely held out of her ne rules could be used to chastise Schiff for over reaching and end the effort.

      Like

    • mimbler says:

      Another thing his criteria prevents is any republican-called witnesses to challenge credibility of the accusers. Hard to mount a defense against liars if you are only allowed to call witnesses that support the dems position.

      Like

      • thedoc00 says:

        There is one major exception to your comment. Nunes has proposed 3 rebuttal witnesses who actually meet the criteria. While the MSM will spin otherwise, the optics for the public will be very bad for the democrats, if Republicans point out the difference in context of testimony.

        During his opening remarks, Nunes can:
        1. Enter the President’s transcripts into the congressional record.
        2. Raise parliamentary challenge to Schiff’s witnesses.
        3. Point out the witnesses he has called who meet the criteria vs Schiff’s who do not.
        4. Go into detail about not allowing his other witnesses who have as much or even more relevance than Schiff’s, especially the Whistleblower who is the predicate for the impeachment inquiry.

        Liked by 5 people

    • McConnell should threaten Shiff ,if he does not call everyone but the WB ,( the Dems can spin him easier), then impeachment is DOA
      They can’t spin the others as easy .

      Like

      • warrprin1 says:

        This is a tired question but it remains unanswered: can we count on Mitch to do the right thing? If he had been clear, decisive, and loud about this from the beginning, our nation would not be slogging through this charade. I hold the vast majority of the Senate “GOP” every bit as responsible as the House Dimms.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Sherri Young says:

          Matt Gaetz stated in a recent interview that Mitch has said publicly that he was prepared to devote 6 weeks to trial in the Senate.

          This travesty needs to die in the House.

          If we had an 80-20 majority of MAGA senators, having a big show trial in the senate and using the opportunity to make Swamp Dweller after Swamp Dweller after coupster after coupster melt down, roll over, and humiliate and even incriminate themselves and like-minded associates, I’d be good with it. Considering that this is the Swamp, the sooner a bad play dies, the better.

          Like

        • dallasdan says:

          IMO, the short answer is “No,” McConnell has stated he will “play it straight” with a trial if impeachment is voted out of the House. It appears to me he is not committed to stopping it.

          Like

  33. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Like

  34. Genie says:

    Well, that is a bunch of people Boob Toobin and CNN know nothing about or how to pronounce their names.

    Like

  35. Sherri Young says:

    I thought these were Schiff’s words and was wondering why he was repeating himself. Wrong. This came from one of his stenographers (independent journalists in the Deep State fantasy world).

    “Nunes’s impeachment witness list was a shadow investigation into the debunked Joe Biden and Ukraine 2016 election conspiracy theories that Trump has been pushing.

    Trump and his stooges like Devin Nunes aren’t going to be allowed to turn impeachment into a circus. The House impeachment resolution clearly states that only witnesses who are related to Trump’s Ukraine call and shadow foreign policy will be allowed to testify.

    Trump and Nunes tried to hijack impeachment, but they were stopped cold by Adam Schiff.

    For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.”

    https://www.politicususa.com/2019/11/09/schiff-trump-nunes-impeachment.html

    “Trump’s Ukraine call and shadow foreign policy”…So, are they trying to tailor part of this to go after Rudy?

    Like

    • John55 says:

      “Shadow foreign policy”? The foreign policy of the President is the official foreign policy of the US. The people engaging in a “shadow foreign policy” are all the presidents opponents in the federal bureaucracy who believe that their personal opinions should constitute US foreign policy.

      Liked by 4 people

  36. Sherri Young says:

    Liked by 6 people

    • John55 says:

      It seems to make absolutely no difference that their credibility has been destroyed. In a police state all that matters is who has the power, not who has “credibility”.

      Liked by 3 people

  37. ChampagneReady says:

    Farkas — here’s another snake they should drag in and grill until she’s dripping with sweat.

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/30/evelyn-farkas-leak/

    Like

  38. Honest Abbey says:

    The Creepy Porn Lawyer has his dirty hands in this farce. Somehow, in some way, he is connected. Although he’s been quiet about his involvement, the internet is forever.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Mike in a Truck says:

    Another fake phoney play by the cowardly Republicans. They should have been doing this the two years they had control.They know full well they have little power in the House. Where the F are the Senate Rinos? That’s where the power is and that’s where subpoenas and hearings should be goin on round the clock.

    Like

  40. tmack8080 says:

    Hapless Republicans.They missed their opportunity to out the whistleblower.

    The list should have read, in part: “whistleblower, Alexandra Chalupa, Eric Ciamarella”. This way you play dumb about knowing who the whistleblower really is by including separate entries for Ciamarella and the whistleblower. This would force the press to ask the question “Who is Eric Ciamarella”. The justification for calling Ciamarella is that he meet with Chalupa 27 times at the White House in 2015-2016. You can’t impeach the President for asking about corruption if, in fact, he was asking about legitimate corrupt acts. If I recall, a Ukrainian court ruled she conspired with a Ukrainian government official to smear the Trump campaign.

    If the Dems say the Republicans outed the whistleblower the simple response is: “How so? Is the whistleblower someone named as a witness?” See? The Dems can’t say the whistleblower has been outed else they would have to admit someone on the witness list is the whistleblower and the press should asking who on the list is the whistleblower.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. dallasdan says:

    SD:
    “Schiff has stated he will arbitrarily approve or deny any request from the House republicans.”

    No need to continue reading.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. jx says:

    The Senate could be investigating NSC leaks. They’re too busy with the Kavanaugh smear.

    Like

  43. Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

    I guess this is an appropriate place as any to drop this….
    Full testimony of Fiona Hill. Having just muddled through all 436 pgs, this wasn’t a sleeper to be sure. Here are the highlights that come to mind. Suffice it to say, you can surmise from her answers, which side was questioning R v D.

    🇷🇺 Hill wanted to get on the record, not once but twice (at the beginning and towards the end of her testimony), “she was NOT the source of the Anonymous letter to the NYT”. Aside from the fact no one from either side brought it up….She is “non partisan”. Got that?

    🇷🇺 Hill left her job on July 19, prior to the 25th phone call, ergo, she wasn’t privy to the call itself, but was “informed” (even though she left her position) via public reporting (sure). Early on her testimony….she left the position, as that was her objective when first hired to serve 2 years and then return to the “think tank, ie., Brookings” sector.

    However, towards the tail end of testimony, Hill stated she left her position so she could, “speak out publicly about her concerns”, i.e., Guiliani…Yovanovitch ouster…Sondland overreach…Kash Patel.

    🇷🇺 Hill personally knew Christopher Steele and MET WITH HIM IN 2016….of course nothing to do with his Dirty Dossier….in fact, Hill asserts “she knew nothing of the Dossier until a day before Buzzfeed released it”. Hill maintains Steele “got played by the Russians”….nothing to do with DNC/Hillary/Coie Perkins/Fusion GPS. She was “unaware” of any of these entities.

    🇷🇺 Hill was OBSESSED with Sondland, in that he “informed her on July 10 that he, as EU Amb, had Ukraine in his purview. She did not take kindly to this….especially since Sondland himself told her that this came from the Pres. and “no one else seemed to know this” including Bolton.

    So Hill went on a rampage, reporting this to anyone and everyone in her “wheelhouse”, including “friends” at Dept of State, DoD, Bolton, Kupperman, Vindman, Tim Morrison, David Hale, Bill Taylor….and her cats. She further stated she had essentially got up in Sondland’s face. You know who she didn’t ask?……Trump.

    🇷🇺 Hill stated emphatically, UKRAINE DID NOT MEDDLE IN 2016 elections. She asserted that TOM BOSSERT (recall his public statement that the WH should not insinuate this as it had been disproven), briefed herself/Bolton/Staff to same. (obviously Bossert is not who we thought he was…good riddance).

    Ironically, Hill a purported expert on all things Russia and Ukraine, had no knowledge of any DNC/Chalupa meddling re Trump/Manafort etc in the run up to 2016 election…other than what she “read in the press”. Hill is obsessed in maintaining that Putin meddled in 2016 to harm Hillary.

    🇷🇺 Hill is obsessed with Rudy’s “unauthorized” State sanctioned (Fiona Hill sanctioned) investigation in Ukraine, further she stated she “red flagged” all the above players, constantly, even after she left her position…..”just to keep in touch with concerned colleagues” mind you.

    🇷🇺 Hill is “alarmed” that Ambassador “Masha” Yavonovitch was “ousted” as a result of Rudy’s “unsanctioned meddling”. She “kept in touch” with her to commiserate, as did newly nominated John Sullivan, Amb to Russia (this guy is baaaaad news IMO).

    🇷🇺 Apparently Connie Mack (son of former FL Sen Connie Mack), had approached VP Pence early on to remove Hill. Hill laughed that Mack was a conspiracy theorist who followed InfoWars. Further, Hill made mentioned several times of the anti-Semitic trope against George Soros, and how this was driven by “White Nationalists, which was a dire problem in our country”….again driven by Putin.

    🇷🇺 Kash Patel, former DOJ, was instrumental in working closely with Devin Nunes (staff) in uncovering the Russia ruse, as well as gathering intel on Ukraine. Recall, his name was not on the radar per se, until Lee Smith mentioned him in his book. But he was on Fiona’s radar!

    Hill “red flagged” Kash Patel as a “concern” when he was on a DISTRO list, seeking Ukraine related materials to brief DJT. She was “alerted” by an Exec Sec (couldn’t recall the name, didn’t want to throw anyone under the bus), and Hill couldn’t figure out how/why Patel would be briefing the President on Ukraine.

    A great deal of time was spent on Kash. Akin to Rudy, Kash is in line (by Dems) to dirty up.

    Lastly, three pertinent details that was glaringly apparent from Hill’s testimony:

    🇷🇺 Hill was angrily obsessed that “she” was not privy to “outside influences/Rudy/Sondland/Patel” doing a runaround without her “knowledge/approval”. IOW, she was incensed that she wasn’t leading foreign policy re Ukraine, and she wasn’t having it!
    It appears she spent a great deal of time covertly “investigating” and running her own smear campaign against “outsiders” (Rudy/Sondland/Patel) to anyone who held her similar interests/opinions, to include Bolton.

    🇷🇺 Not once could she directly point to DJT as being “complicit” in any backdoor “investigations” into Ukraine/Biden. Remember, she left the WH July 19, was not privy to July 25 call, and so when led by D questions, she suddenly (given 20/20 hindsight) “developed concerns” about how DJT parsed the call. But prior to that….nada, nothing as re Trump.

    🇷🇺 The bombshell…maybe this was public knowledge…I wasn’t aware…..Fiona Hill was brought into the Trump Admin by MIKE FLYNN, KT McFARLAND and GENERAL KEITH KELLOG, (Kellog is still employed as Nat’l Security Advisor to VP Pence).

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D010.pdf

    Liked by 6 people

  44. 2013gti says:

    I’m having a fantasy that Monday morning during the hearings, Jim Jordan full body slams ShiffForBrains.

    Liked by 4 people

  45. Tiffthis says:

    Why didn’t the republicans turn in the list on time? WTH? Now Schiff can say no to all of them and not look suspect because the homework was late 😡

    Like

  46. clodfobble says:

    This charade is actually going to play out, it seems. What a pathetic statement to the rest of the world.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 2 people

  48. I’m maintaining much optimism. Just as you can’t force a self-absorbed communist punk like Kim Jong Un or Islamic supremacists like the Iranian terror regime to bargain in good faith or play by the rules, you can’t force the statist ideologues who run the democrat party to behave in a civilized manner using reason either. They have no compunction about what they are apparently about to do and – being ideologues – are operating on the “by all means necessary” model without regard for the consequences for the country, our constitution or the future of their party. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop a mob driven by hate except defeat it.

    My optimism lies in the fact that President Trump has been amassing a gigantic magazine of ammunition in the form of information – extremely damaging information, actionable information – on his enemy and all his powder is still dry (remember last year when many of us were hoping he would do a mass declassification right before the mid terms?).

    Most of us can’t believe, based on what we know about the information we’ve gleaned through SD & this site as well as the bevy of conservatives out there doing real investigative journalism, that there isn’t / hasn’t been something ready drop at the time most advantageous for the President and this country.

    I don’t have any special insight, but if this is the point we’re at, the time for the Chief Executive to execute is getting pretty damn close.

    Liked by 5 people

    • delighteddeplorable says:

      I am in complete accord, CM. Everything going on behind the scenes and in full view for years leads to this. My money remains solidly on VVVSGPDJT. 🇺🇸

      Liked by 1 person

  49. MD says:

    Nunes should have gotten the names of the Russian comics that duped Schiff on that fake phone call and had them on the list.

    Liked by 6 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s