Representative Lee Zeldin appears on Fox News to discuss the ongoing House impeachment inquiry and how HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff is manipulating the release of transcripts that are adverse to his political agenda.
As a reminder John Ratcliffe is one of only four members of congress who has reviewed all of the classified documents that surrounds the current background for the Inspector General report on FISA abuse. That said, the quoted comment from Ratcliffe, while it will be overlooked by most, is the first visible sign reconciling a fundamental challenge previously highlighted.
In the 2018 IG report on FBI conduct in the 2016 election, the IG stated there was no evidence of any FBI activity being taken for political intents. Yes, there was a tremendous amount of politically motivated evidence noted within the report; but the top-line statement by Horowitz was counter to the underlying evidence.
A year ago that led us to ask: how could the IG outline political motives in the FISA investigation, if he previously stated there was no politically motivated action by the FBI?
The statement today by Rep. John Ratcliffe seems to speak to this issue. The implication within the words is that the evidence is so overwhelming the IG has few options.
Representative Elise Stefanik brought to light interesting information today surrounding how the Obama administration was concerned about issues surrounding Vice-President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his connection to a corrupt Ukraine company Burisma. This revelation directly contradicted the Yovanovitch opening statement.
During questioning Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch admitted the Obama White House spent time briefing her on how to respond to congress if questions about Hunter Biden and Burisma were raised. This testimony highlights the concerns by the Obama administration about a clear issue with the Biden family and corrupt Ukraine interests.
[Yovanovitch Opening Statement November 15th, Page #8]
The preferred impeachment narrative amid Democrat party leadership surrounds creating articles of impeachment that are based on constitutional principles, not hard-line partisan politics. However, with the latest shift by Speaker Pelosi to focus on the word “bribery” it is now discovered the reason for the impeachment change was a political focus-group:
(Washington Post Article Link)
By focus-group testing the impeachment design the Democrats are admitting the entirety of their construct is based on political motives and intents.
Focus-group polling and testing was the preeminent approach for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election campaign. Candidate Clinton used the focus groups to test each of the talking points used by her campaign. It would appear that same approach is now being applied to Speaker Pelosi’s impeachment effort.
(more…)
Within the current claims of the Democrats there is a baseline action that needs to exist for any “bribery” or “undue influence” claim to exist. Meaning there had to be pressure by President Trump upon the government of Ukraine to initiate an investigation of Joe Biden.
The call transcript between President Trump and President Zelenskyy doesn’t show such a request. Ukraine President Zelenskyy said there was never such a request by President Trump; and now Ukraine Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko says there was never such a request from U.S. Ambassador Sondland on behalf of President Trump:
(Via Daily Mail) The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vadym Prystaiko told Ukrainian reporters a day after the first public impeachment hearing that Ambassador Gordon Sondland did not detail any relationship between the assistance and probe, according to Interfax, a Ukrainian news agency.
‘Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,’ Prystaiko told journalists in Kiev. ‘You should ask him. I do not recall any conversation with me as with foreign minister. It was not we, the Ukrainian officials (who were told this).’
Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan discuss the testimony of State Dept. officials George Kent and Bill Taylor yesterday, as well as the upcoming testimony of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch scheduled for tomorrow.
Plan-A “collusion” didn’t work, because it never happened; no Americans colluded or conspired with Russia.
Plan-B “obstruction” didn’t work, because it never happened; the FBI and Robert Mueller completed their investigations without impediment.
Plan-C “whistleblower” doesn’t work, because the hearsay claims never happened. The request to investigate corruption and potential Ukraine interference with the 2016 U.S. election was actually requested by many U.S. officials prior to President Trump.
Today Speaker Poli-Grip Pelosi moves to Plan-D, “bribery”. See if you can make heads-or-tails of this logic:
During the impeachment hearing today State Department officials George Kent and Bill Taylor both stated they never heard of any claims of Ukrainian political interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Additionally, both claimed to have no knowledge of any U.S. investigation that might overlap with Ukraine.
When pressed with specifically cited reports about DNC operatives engaging with Ukraine government officials to gather opposition research against candidate Donald Trump, both Mr. Kent and Ambassador Taylor denied any knowledge of the outlined reporting.
However, what everyone in the media –and on Capitol Hill– seems to forget is a letter in July, 2017 [LINK HERE], written by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley to Dept. of Justice Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, specifically outlining 2016 election interference by Ukrainian government officials; and specifically asking for an U.S. DOJ investigation therein:
(more…)
They are called “decepticons” for a reason. McConnell is king, and Cornyn, Thune and Barasso are his praetorian guards. {Go Deep}
Senator John Cornyn (TX), a key member of the Senate GOP leadership; and a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees; warns the White House that a vote to immediately dismiss articles of impeachment and avoid a trial won’t work.
“There’s some people talking about trying to stop the bill, dismiss charges basically as soon as they get over here. I think that’s not going to happen. That would require 51 votes,” Cornyn told reporters Wednesday. “I think it would be hard to find 51 votes to cut the case off before the evidence is presented.”
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A top Senate Republican, John Cornyn, said on Wednesday that should the U.S. House of Representatives vote to impeach President Donald Trump, he doubts a motion in the Senate to immediately dismiss the charges would succeed.
Day One of the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare effort to publicly construct support for the impeachment of President Trump ends. Within the questioning of State Department officials George Kent and Bill Taylor the value of adding Jim Jordan to the hearings became clear.
Jim Jordan, Elise Stefanik and John Ratcliffe methodically deconstructed the false premise advanced by the impeachment crew. It became clear that both Kent and Taylor held no specific and direct knowledge of the substance behind the claims made by the democrats leading the effort. Here’s a few highlights starting with Jim Jordan:
Jordan pressed Taylor on how he came to have a “clear understanding” that the U.S. aid to Ukraine was dependent on opening an investigation into Trump’s political rivals. Jordan said there was no “linkage” and Ambassador Taylor said he came to his “clear conclusion” based on what other people said about what other people heard about conversations with other people.
A visual recap of the “clear understanding” of Ambassador Taylor’s knowledge of what happened. #ImpeachmentHearings
.@Jim_Jordan pic.twitter.com/5sZD2CozfL— Mad Liberals (@mad_liberals) November 13, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
(more…)