THIS IS A SUMMATION OF 5 OTHER ARTICLES I HAVE POSTED:
1- UKRAINE ADMITS IT AIDED CLINTON IN 2016 ELECTION
2- 7 TIMES LEFT-WING MEDIA REPORTED THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN 2016 U.S. ELECTION
3- CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY CRIMINALS BUT NO POLITICIANS GO TO JAIL FOR TAKING THE MONEY
4- UKRAINIAN TIMELINE, FROM PRE-COUP 2014 TO ELECTION 2016, OBAMA, BIDEN AND THE CIA INTERFERED
5- TRUMP IS THE LAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT YOU MAY EVER SEE
A coup d'etat is the illegal, often violent overthrow of an existing government or leader by a small group.
Coups d'etat are typically conducted by aspiring dictators, military forces, or opposing political factions.
Unlike revolutions, coups d'etat usually seek only to replace key government personnel rather than forcing sweeping changes to the country’s fundamental social and political ideology.
“The matter before the House today is based solely on a fundamental hatred of our president,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said. “It’s a sham, a witch hunt—and it’s tantamount to a coup against the duly elected president of the United States.”
AS OF TODAY, JANUARY 12, 2020, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE HERE IN AMERICA.
Having cleared the House, the Democrats’ impeachment articles SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT to the Senate by now, just as they were sent within the week when we saw the impeachments of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
"The Framers never envisioned that the speaker of the House would withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate," said Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett.
She and other Democrats "in charge" hurried us through closed-door, SECRET 'hearings' into which few Republican representatives were even allowed, transcripts of which have been classified by the Democrats as "SECRET", and then they continued their show with a few days of "open" testimonies which were highly publicized and shown live, in some instances, on national TV.
They never produced their "STAR WITNESS", whom they initially credited with the beginning of their "investigation", a man whom they demanded remain SO anonymous that they refused, in the end, to even allow him to testify, and instead produced "witnesses" from the Obama administration who, naturally, want Trump deposed.
The anonymous one is most likely a CIA/Anti-Trump gossip-monger named Eric Ciaramella.
He has been busted for lying on his submitted form to start an investigation, and others in the Trump White House/Intelligence community as well as Adam Schiff and other Democrats have been busted trying to help him cover up his failed cover-up.
His statements are all hearsay, he did NOT hear anything in Trump's phone conversation that at least 15 other listeners heard, as his boss, another traitor and liar, has stated.
THIS MAY BE THE PROVERBIAL "ICING ON THE CAKE" THAT SHOWS THIS HAS BEEN A COUP ATTEMPT, NOT A FAIR NOR HONORABLE HEARING:
In late November, an ace investigative reporter, Paul Sperry, tweeted out a question related to secret impeachment inquiry testimony before the House Intelligence Committee related to Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community:
"Specifically, though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Community chair Adam Schiff have released 15 transcripts of testimony, the transcript of Atkinson’s testimony has yet to be made public.
Why?"
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former federal prosecutor, responded:
"I know why @paulsperry_ It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his “investigation” into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified “secret” so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions."
Then, on December 9, while our attention was focused on the release of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s do-nothing report on FBI abuses of the FISA Court, Ratcliffe was banging away at Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, trying to persuade them to release Atkinson’s testimony.
In doing so, Ratcliffe managed to essentially lay out why Schiff & Co. are sitting on Atkinson’s testimony.
Directing his attention to Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman, RATCLIFFE asked if the counsel was present for Atkinson’s testimony, to which he responded in the affirmative. Ratcliffe noted:
"…On pages 53-73, the Inspector General’s testimony confirms the following: That the whistleblower (HE'S NO WHISTLEBLOWER. HE'S A GOSSIP, AN OBAMA HOLD-OVER, A FRIEND OF BIDEN'S, WITH A LONG HISTORY OF OPPOSING TRUMP) made statements to the Inspector General under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct. That the whistleblower first made statements in writing under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct.
The whistleblower then made statements under the penalty of perjury that were not true and correct in his or her verbal responses to the Inspector General’s investigative team.
Because of the whistleblower’s statements in writing and verbally, that were neither true, correct or accurate, pages 53 to 73 of that testimony reveal that the IG was not able to answer any questions.
None, from me, about the whistleblower’s contact or communication with Mr. Schiff’s staff of which Mr. Goldman is a member.
After the IG testified on October 4th and after media reports revealed that the whistleblower and Mr. Schiff did not disclose their prior contacts or communications with each other, the whistleblower contacted the IG to explain why he or she made statements under penalty of perjury in writing or verbally that were true, correct and accurate…
Ratcliffe then noted further that no changes made by the whistleblower regarding prior contact with Schiff were made to the report:
On October 2, Patrick Boland, Mr. Schiff’s spokesman, acknowledged publicly that the outlines of the whistleblower’s accusations against the President had been disclosed to the House Intelligence staff and shared with Chairman Schiff.
Once again, Ratcliffe notes that the contact information was excluded from the report, as he requests release of pages 53-73, which he further notes would not reveal the whistleblower’s identity:
Look, maybe there’s a good reason why the whistleblower made statements that weren’t true about his or her contact with Schiff in writing…Maybe there’s a reason why Chairman Schiff was not truthful about his staff’s previous contact with the whistleblower…
Additionally, several weeks ago, we learned that the day after the July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Schiff hired Sean Misko, a close friend and former colleague of the whistleblower, who is alleged to be Eric Ciaramella, as an aide. Misko and Ciaramella worked together on the National Security Council and are said to have a “bro-like” relationship."
Radcliffe’s request didn’t work.
The entire transcript remains hidden from the American people.
Judicial Watch founder Tom Fitton announced that his organization filed FOIA lawsuits against the CIA and the DOJ to obtain Ciaramella’s communications. We know that Ciaramella “worked on Ukraine issues while on CIA detail to both the Obama and Trump White Houses.”
Fitton explained that the lawsuit was filed because neither the CIA nor DoJ had responded to FOIA requests. The Democrats also REFUSED to allow the Republicans (GOP) to call ANY witnesses or to deeply (and without interference from one Adam Schiff, a Democrat representative from California) question the Democrat-called 'witnesses'.
Schiff would pound his little gavel and make the GOP congressmen cease questioning, time and time again.
Still, the GOP House members who were allowed questions managed to show that the charges against Trump were ALL based on hearsay evidence and did NOT constitute impeachable offenses.
Many of the Democrats' own witnesses surprised them by stating publicly in open hearings that Trump had NOT bribed or coerced anyone during his phone conversations with the two Ukraine presidents and BOTH those presidents have said publicly that they never felt threatened, intimidated, or coerced in ANY way by Trump or anyone on his staff.
They have BOTH stated that they had for years wanted AND SOUGHT their own investigation into Burisma, including a long look into the Bidens' part in that very shady deal.
BOTH Ukrainian presidents and MANY more high-level Ukrainian government officials have repeatedly, FOR OVER A DECADE BEFORE TRUMP WAS ELECTED, called for the U.S. to STOP interfering with Ukrainian governance and their position in the international community, and wanted America to STOP forcing the dismissal of their prosecutors and to STOP allowing American businessmen to swarm into the Ukraine to make big profits there and deprive Ukraine of any benefits.
They had also asked REPEATEDLY that the U.S. RECALL both Pyatt and Yovanovitch and replace them.
If the U.S. House's 'articles of impeachment' are ever presented to the U.S. Senate, as prescribed by our Constitutional LAW, the Senate will hold another historic impeachment trial in 2020 on whether to acquit the 45th president or convict and remove him from office. The Senate will then be able to FINALLY call their own witnesses to defend Trump, who, up to this point, has been denied defense of any kind.
A 'super-majority vote' by two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes of our 100 Senators) is required to convict and remove the president, meaning 20 Republicans would need to get onboard with the Democrats.
Republicans control the Senate with 53 seats currently, while Democrats occupy 45 and Independents have 2 seats, usually voting with Democrats.
Democrats would need an additional 22 Republican votes in order to impeach Trump.
Republicans in the Senate have shown no interest in removing Trump, who wields a 95 percent approval rating among Republican voters.
"This is a political trial not a judicial trial. If this was a Judicial trial the whole gang would have been laughed right out of court."
Well, when their initial charges of bribery, something they called "quid pro quo", interfering in the upcoming 2020 election by asking that Ukraine look into the role Joe Biden played during the 2013-2014 Obama-funded coup in the Ukraine, thereby misusing his presidential powers didn't hold up, as their own witness after witness stated Trump did none of the above, they held yet another "secret meeting" and came up with the latest two NEW "articles of impeachment', neither of which constitutes an impeachable crime, neither of which can ever be proven by hearsay evidence and third-party opinion.
House Democrats 'probed' the events surrounding a July 25, 2019 phone call between President Donald Trump and newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to “look into” the firing of former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, something Joe Biden had demanded or else the U.S. would withhold loans to Ukraine in 2014-2015.
Ukraine, according to its own government websites, had already been looking long and hard since 2013 at not just Joe Biden, but also at John Kerry and Joe's son Hunter.
Weeks before his ouster, Shokin had seized the property of the owner of a Ukrainian gas firm which, at the time, paid Joe Biden’s son Hunter tens of thousands of dollars a month to sit on its board of directors, something he was unqualified to do.
Joe Biden has bragged, in a well-publicized filmed interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, about how he FORCED Shokin’s ouster by threatening then-president Porshenko that Obama would withhold from Ukraine $1 billion in much needed loans if Shokin wasn't fired.
Shokin WAS fired and, months later, the U.S. authorized the loans.
THAT WAS 'QUID PRO QUO'!
Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland and Obama's appointed ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt were recorded and then outed having conversations about how to DEPOSE the elected Ukrainian president, and deciding whom the U.S. wanted to be appointed instead.
Other Ukrainian prosecutors and MPs had complained of CIA involvement in the coup, suggested that CIA snipers had assisted in the 'Maidan Massacre', protested American involvement in Ukraine's business dealings, American meddling in Ukraine's dealings with the European Union and the UK, Russia and Germany, and pointed out the withholding of funds (designated to Ukraine's internal investigations) by TWO of Obama's ambassadors in Kiev over a period of years.
They had also protested the U.S. allowing a Burisma-connected tycoon to take refuge in America to avoid prosecution in Ukraine and that America was the cause of the siphoning of almost $18 BILLION of Ukraine's wealth to offshore banks, suggesting also that the Bidens and John Kerry benefited from that siphoning.
ALLEGATIONS THAT YOVANOVITCH'S EMBASSY HAD PERHAPS EMBEZZLED OVER $4 MILLION IN DESIGNATED FUNDS FOR UKRAINE'S INVESTIGATIONS HAD ALSO BEEN MADE PUBLICLY BY UKRAINE BEFORE TRUMP TOOK OFFICE.
SO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HERE DECIDED TO INVESTIGATE, NOT OBAMA, BIDEN, JOHN McCAIN, JOHN KERRY, TWO U.S. AMBASSADORS AND NULAND, BUT INSTEAD OPENED HEARINGS ON....DONALD J. TRUMP.
WELCOME TO AMERICAN 'JUSTICE', DEAR READERS FROM OUTSIDE THE U.S.
BUT THEN, I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL BEEN VICTIMS OF THAT MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN SOME WAY WHEREVER YOU ARE ON THE GLOBE.
I CAN'T SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF US U.S. CITIZENS LOATHE INJUSTICE AND LIES, BUT MANY OF US DO.
BY THE WAY, I DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP NOR ANY NAME ON THE BALLOT IN ANY YEAR SINCE GOLDWATER RAN.
David Plouffe was the campaign manager for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
What he tweeted is precisely what drives the Democrats today.
MORE RECENTLY, WE LEARNED THAT THE FBI HAS LIED TO THE FISA COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THEIR OKAY TO SPY ON MEMBERS OF TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN, AND POSSIBLY ON TRUMP HIMSELF.
POSTED TO TWITTER, AUGUST 29, 2018
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
“Ohr told the FBI it (the Fake Dossier) wasn’t true, it was a lie and the FBI was determined to use it anyway to damage Trump and to perpetrate a fraud on the court to spy on the Trump campaign. This is a fraud on the court. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is in......
...charge of the FISA court. He should direct the Presiding Judge, Rosemary Collier, to hold a hearing, haul all of these people from the DOJ & FBI in there, & if she finds there were crimes committed, and there were, there should be a criminal referral by her....” @GreggJarrett
6:51 PM - 29 Aug 2018
August 30, 2018 in Courts, Crime, Current Events
"Criminal Misconduct:
During an appearance Wednesday night on Fox News, network legal analyst and attorney Gregg Jarrett suggested that judges on the secretive FISA court should call in Deep State figures from Obama’s FBI and Justice Department and press charges against them for allegedly misrepresenting information used to get a spying warrant on a Trump campaign figure.
The entire concept of a “secret court” in the United States of America is anathema to our founding principles of open, transparent government and judicial processes.
We understand why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court exists in secret — because the judges serving on the court must review highly classified information before making the determination to allow the federal government to spy on an American citizen."
But as we’ve seen, Obama and those working for him have completely abused the system and destroyed the court’s credibility and Americans’ trust in it.
The only way to restore trust and send an unmistakable signal that such abuses cannot and will not be tolerated in the future is to hold people accountable for those abuses.
The ability of the federal government to collect intelligence so it can protect all of us is a power that we can’t undermine, and yet Obama and his sycophantic Deep State have done just that.
We need to repair the damage.
People have to be held accountable.
That’s the only way to fix this.
Former officials who signed off on four FISA warrants allowing the FBI to spy on Trump campaign figure Carter Page over a bogus “Russian collusion” narrative using a fake ‘dossier’ include James Comey, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
They have to be deposed by the FISA court.
They have to be held responsible if they’re determined to be guilty of breaking laws just so they could spy on a rival political campaign and a presidential candidate they despise.
Our system of justice and intelligence-gathering depend on it.
IT TOOK 15 MONTHS FOR FISA TO ADMIT IT WAS 'DUPED'.
THE HOROWITZ INVESTIGATION THAT WAS ONGOING FOR OVER A YEAR MADE EXCUSES FOR THE CIA, FBI AND FISA AND DID NOT WANT TO MENTION THAT POLITICAL BIAS CAME INTO PLAY.
"FUNNY THING" ABOUT MICHAEL HOROWITZ...HE'S SERVED REPEATEDLY FOR DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATIONS. From 1999-2000 he worked in Bill Clinton's Department of Justice headquarters in Washington D.C., first as a deputy assistant attorney general, then as chief of staff.
In 2002 he returned to private practice as a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, where he focused on white collar defense, internal investigations, and regulatory compliance.
Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of Obama's United States Department of Justice on April 16, 2012.
Since 2015, he has also been the chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization consisting of all 73 federal Inspectors General.
HOROWITZ IS MERELY ANOTHER CLINTON/OBAMA HOLDOVER WHOM TRUMP SHOULD HAVE REMOVED SOMEHOW.
His wife Alexandra Leigh Kauffman is a former field producer for CNN, one of mainstream media's most vicious anti-Trump ragsheets. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR HAD WARNED ABOUT BIAS BEFORE THAT LONG-AWAITED HOUSE VOTE TO IMPEACH.
"Ahead of President Donald Trump’s historic impeachment on Dec.18, Attorney General William Barr warned against the president’s indictment being “trivialized” and used as a “political tool” by Democrats.
In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday as the House of Representatives debated two articles of impeachment against the president, Barr argued that the allegations against Trump do not meet the high standard for impeachment required by the Constitution.
Barr added that the two articles of impeachment “do not allege a violation of law.”
STOP RIGHT THERE AND REMEMBER THAT BARR IS EX-CIA (1971-1977), WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER REAGAN DURING THE IRAN-CONTRA YEARS, OVERSAW 2 OTHER INVESTIGATIONS OF CORRUPTION IN THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE (DoJ), ONE IN 1991, THE OTHER IN 1992, AND BOTH FAILED TO FIND WHAT EVERYONE KNEW WAS THERE...CORRUPTION.
AND...In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather records of innocent Americans' international phone calls.
The DoJ inspector general concluded that this program had been launched without a review of its legality.On December 5, 2019, Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Patrick J. Leahy asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate Barr for approving an illegal surveillance program without legal analysis.
PELOSI PRESSES ON, STALLING ALL THE WAY
Mark Levin, a well-known attorney who worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese, recently spoke out to offer a solution to Nancy Pelosi’s sham impeachment of President Trump:
"Nancy Pelosi was apparently advised by left-wing Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe to delay sending the impeachment to the Senate. So she’s unilaterally sitting on the impeachment.
This is another brazen unconstitutional act.
Here’s what Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans must do in response:
The Senate has the sole power under the Constitution to adjudicate an impeachment. Therefore, Pelosi is attempting to obstruct the Senate’s power to act on its constitutional authority.
McConnell should immediately put an end to this and declare the impeachment null and void as the speaker has failed to complete the impeachment process by timely sending it to the Senate for adjudication.
McConnell has no less authority to unilaterally make such a decision than Pelosi does to withhold the administrative notification of an impeachment to the Senate either indefinitely or with conditions.
Her effort to cripple the presidency and blackmail the Senate must be defeated."
THE REAL REASON DEMS ARE TRYING TO DUMP TRUMP?
THEY KNOW NONE OF THEIR LUDICROUS CANDIDATES CAN DEFEAT HIM.
THEY KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN IS SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA AND IS SEEN AS A POSSIBLE CHILD MOLESTER BY MANY IN BOTH PARTIES.
HIS NICKNAME IS "GROPING JOE" BECAUSE HE HAS GROPED SO MANY WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
HE HAS ADMITTED HE FORCED A UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO FIRE HIS OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WHO HAD SAID HE WAS LOOKING INTO HUNTER BIDEN'S DEALINGS IN THE UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY BURISMA HOLDINGS, AND INTO THE SIPHONING OF MULTI-BILLIONS IN FUNDS THAT BELONGED TO THE UKRAINE TO OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS, ONE THAT THEY ASSOCIATED WITH JOE BIDEN AND POSSIBLY JOHN KERRY.
THEY WANT THEIR BILLIONS BACK AND MAY GO AFTER JOE BIDEN TO GET IT.
BERNIE SANDERS JUST HAD A HEART ATTACK, IS FAR TOO OLD TO APPEAL TO THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS AND IS A CARD-CARRYING COMMUNIST WHOM EVEN OBAMA HAS CLASSIFIED AS "TOO FAR LEFT'.
CHANCES ARE THAT SANDERS, LIKE BIDEN, WOULD DIE IN OFFICE AND NO ONE KNOWS WHOM HE MIGHT NAME AS VICE PRESIDENT.
FEW ARE WILLING TO RISK SANDERS.
ELIZABETH WARREN WAS BUSTED AND RIDICULED FOR CLAIMING TO BE NATIVE AMERICAN, HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN OTHER LIES AND CAN'T WIN A SINGLE DEBATE WITH THE OTHER DULLARDS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
HER "PLAN FOR AMERICA" WOULD COST TWICE AS MUCH AS OUR CURRENT TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT.
AMERICAN VOTERS ARE SICK OF CARRYING THAT DEBT ON THEIR ACHING BACKS AND DON'T WANT MORE DEBT.
IT'S ALMOST A PRECISE THREE-WAY TIE ON WHOM THE VOTERS WANT AS A LAME DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE.
THEIR PARTY IS FRACTURED.
THE VOTERS KNOW NONE OF THE TOP 3 HAVE A CHANCE.
NONE OF THE CANDIDATES CAN MUSTER EVEN HALF OF THE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS TO VOTE FOR THEM OVER THE OTHER TWO.
TRUMP, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS A 95% REPUBLICAN VOTER APPROVAL.
TRUMP IS A SURE THING FOR THE GOP.
HILLARY CLINTON LOST TO TRUMP BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THE RUSSIANS OR HER OWN PARTY COULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF ANY ELECTORAL VOTE.
OBAMA HIMSELF, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, VERIFIED THAT NO POPULAR VOTES WERE CHANGED BY SO-CALLED 'RUSSIAN MEDDLING' IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN.
TOO MANY DEMOCRATS WERE SIMPLY ANGRY THAT CLINTON APPEARED TO ROB SANDERS OF THE CANDIDACY, AFTER THE EMAIL LEAKS WERE READ.
AMERICA LEARNED THAT THE DNC (DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE) CONSPIRED WITH HER TO CUT BERNIE OUT.
SHE CHEATED TO WIN AND FAILED BECAUSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SORTED IT ALL OUT.
"What the Democrats are attacking is the transition of power. They have never supported the transition of power from the Obama administration to a Trump administration,”
Mark Levin recenrly stated, directing his attention to the “slow learners” like Joe Scarborough:
“The president sets foreign policy. It doesn’t make a damn’s worth of difference if you don’t agree with it. I don’t care what a former Obama ambassador to Ukraine thinks.
The whole house of cards will collapse and the American people will see this was an outrageous, unconscionable attack by them on the president.
The law is on the president’s side, the facts are on the president’s side.
What the hell is going on here?" Levin asked rhetorically.
THE HOUSE VOTE TO IMPEACH WAS STRICTLY PARTISAN, BUT 4 DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO VOTE YES ON THE TWO "ARTICLES":
Two Democrats—Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.) and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)—broke ranks with their party to vote no on the first article of impeachment. Rep. Justin Amash, an independent from Michigan who left the Republican Party earlier this year, voted with the Democrats. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) joined Van Drew and Peterson in voting no on the second article of impeachment. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) voted “present” on both articles.
ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED "NO" ON BOTH ARTICLES.
The impeachment resolution alleges that Trump abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival and that the president obstructed justice when Democrats began to investigate the matter.
NO. WRONG.
ANYONE WHOM CONGRESS CALLED TO TESTIFY HAD THE ABILITY TO TESTIFY, EVEN AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS IF THEY SO CHOSE.
THEY ALL HAD A CHOICE, AS EVERYONE DOES.
ADAM SCHIFF AND NANCY PELOSI AND POOR, SERIOUSLY ILL JERRY NADLER BLOCKED THE GOP FROM FULL ACCESS TO TRANSCRIPTS, UNOBSTRUCTED QUESTIONING OF DEMOCRAT-CALLED WITNESSES, AND DISALLOWED ALL 8 WITNESSES THAT THE GOP WANTED TO CALL.
SCHIFF WAS ACCUSED BY A FEW IN EVEN MAINSTREAM MEDIA OF LEADING WITNESSES, DIRECTING THEIR ANSWERS, RESTATING THEIR CLEAR ANSWERS IN FALSE WAYS, CUTTING OFF GOP QUESTIONERS AND OF REWRITING AND THEN READING THE TRANSCRIPTS OF TRUMPS CALLS TO TO/FROM THE UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD NOT ISSUE VISAS TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO HAD PERTINENT INFORMATION FOR PETE SESSION'S DEPT. OF JUSTICE. THESE WERE OFFICIALS WHO HAD STATED SINCE 2016 THAT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND ALEXANDRA CHALUPA, WHO WAS ON THE DEMOCRATS' PAYROLL, HAD COME TO THEM FOR 'DIRT' ON TRUMP.
DURING THE HEARINGS, IT ALSO CAME OUT THAT THE FBI HAD LIED TO THE FISA COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN WARRANTS TO WIRETAP TRUMP ASSOCIATES.
TWO OF THOSE MEN ARE NOW SUING TO OVERTURN THEIR CONVICTIONS OF UNRELATED CRIMES WHICH THEY MAY NOT HAVE EVEN COMMITTED.
IT WAS INDEED A CIRCUS AND SCHIFF WAS LEAD CLOWN.
.LET THE NEW CHESS MATCH BEGIN!
1- WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HOPE FOR:
"It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC (House Judicial Committee) court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.
Because the FULL House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas. No one was charged with failure to appear.
The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority. Additionally, downstream consequences from that original flaw have surfaced in cases working through courts.
There is an argument to be made that the rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for 'pending judicial proceedings', a trial in the Senate.
This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped.
Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that can facilitate pending court cases.
If accurate, that perspective means the (Mueller) grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.
The "6(e) material" relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.
Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely, a goldmine of political opposition research.
Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.
We know from the alignment of interests it is likely Jerry Nadler and his legal Lawfare contractors are well aware of exactly what Weissmann and Co. created for them to discover. The problem for the House team(s) is they need legal authority to obtain it and then utilize it to frame and attack President Trump.
With the impeachment articles now approved – the DC Appeals Court is asking Nadler’s team if the purpose of their lawsuit is now moot. Essentially the court believes the prior lawsuit was based on gathering evidence for the impeachment articles:
If my suspicions are correct [SEE HERE] then Jerry Nadler will respond to the court by saying the HJC needs the 6(e) material to support the obstruction article in a Senate Trial. Per the court deadline, we will know by Monday December 23rd. The obstruction article will then become disposable; it will have fulfilled its purpose.
The original lower court ruling approved the HJC request but limited the scope of the material to only that which Mueller included in his final report.
So it’s not accidental that Nadler’s crew shaped an “obstruction” article considering two-thirds of Mueller’s report was structured around… wait for it…. yep, obstruction.
Conveniently, a pending Senate Trial against President Trump for obstruction paves the way for the DC appeals court to rule in favor of the HJC need for supportive evidence.
While twisted, this approach screams Lawfare…. that is, to make an indictment and then go fishing for the evidence to support that indictment. Evidence that, not accidentally, carries more political usefulness than the indictment it is intended to support.
Also, it is worth remembering HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Mary McCord as part of his contracted team effort.
McCord was the DOJ-NatSec Division head who accompanied Sally Yates, yet another Obama holdover, to the White House to confront Don McGhan about Lt. Gen. Flynn.
My suspicion is the articles of impeachment are a means to an end, and not the end itself.
Defeating and destroying President Trump is the goal, by any means necessary.
This severe type of goal is not guaranteed by relying on a Republican Senate to remove him.
2-WHAT THE GOP HOPES FOR.
That the Democrats will hang themselves so high that no American voter will want to vote for a Democrat.
The Dems have been revealed in a whole new light, one of deceit, chicanery, bumbling, unconstitutionalism, dirty tricks, falsifying facts, twisting the truth, all because Hillary lost by electoral college.
The GOP hopes to regain the House of Representatives, strengthen their presence in the Senate and hold many accountable for this blatant coup attempt on a seated President.
After all, when the U.S. military high command tried to oust Obama, they paid.
Many careers were ruined, charges were brought against big names in our military and the GOP is hoping against hope that the same will happen here and now.
IT WON'T, but they hope.
Republican senators have said they hope to wrap this up in a few weeks, at most.
Trump would be acquitted and life would move on.
I'm not convinced.
Something sinister has been released in America.
It began the night of the fires, riots, Democrats screaming in our streets after Trump won.
It's snowballed, it's outgrown those who started it.
The Democrats will try again to "dump Trump", and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some extremely crazed Democrat didn't at least TRY to assassinate Trump.
We're on a "rinse, repeat cycle" here, my friends, a bad to progressively worse scenario.
America is quickly "going to hell in a hand-basket", dragged along by a rabid mob who once demanded that Trump say he'd accept defeat and not contest the election when Hillary won.
Please pardon the dust of our demise.
It feels a bit like that fictional "zombie apocalypse" here.
Be glad you're watching this horror show from afar.
___________________________________
Addendum:
-- Uncovered Old Footage of Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer Saying Senate Was ‘Susceptible to Whims of Politics’ in Impeachment
"Found footage of a 1999 interview between Schumer and Larry King – where Schumer claimed of Clinton's impeachment that “this is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.”
“It is not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don’t have jurors called and lobbied. It’s quite different than a jury,” Schumer said in 1999.
He sings a much different story today.
He denies political bias.
-- "One of the key witnesses in the impeachment inquiry investigation by House Democrats, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, appears to have lied under oath during her interview.
When New York Rep. Lee Zeldin asked Yovanovitch, who was an Obama-era holdover, if she had responded back to emails sent to her by a Democratic impeachment inquiry staffer, the former ambassador answered that she had not.
But recently discovered emails by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, show that Yovanovitch did, in fact, interact with the staffer, even she swore under oath that she had not.
“It appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her “impeachment inquiry” deposition under oath,” tweeted Zeldin.
That's not all she didn't answer honestly.
A thorough reading of her transcript and a read of the website of the Ukrainian government shows that she has been at odds with government officials ever since she was assigned that post.
She has asked for the firing of every special prosecutor in Ukraine since she took over the embassy.
Her previous assignment was MOSCOW.
With her out of the way, Ukraine has ramped-up its long-time investigation into Burisma and into what part Joe Biden, John Kerry and others from the Obama era played in their loss of $18 BILLION.
They have admitted they tried to help Hillary get elected and apologized for that.
//WW
No comments:
Post a Comment