Republicans to Subpoena Whistleblower, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 20: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) listens as Gordon Sondland, the U.S ambassador to the European Union, testifies before the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 20, 2019 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony during the fourth day of …

By KRISTINA WONG

Republicans intend to subpoena testimony and documents related to the anonymous whistleblower, Hunter Biden, and Democratic National Committee contractor Alexandra Chalupa, according to a letter they sent to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA).

“Although Speaker Pelosi promised that Democrats would ‘treat the President with fairness,’ you have repeatedly prevented Republicans from fully and fairly examining issues central to the Democrats’ ‘impeachment inquiry,’” House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Oversight and Reform Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-OH) wrote in a November 20, 2019, letter.

“We therefore write to inform you that we intend to subpoena testimony and records in an attempt to inject some semblance of fairness and objectivity into your one-side and partisan inquiry,” they said.

On the whistleblower, they wrote that the whistleblower’s testimony is “necessary for a full and fair understanding of all relevant facts.” They wrote:

The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported that the whistleblower had a political bias against President Trump and public reports suggest that the whistleblower worked closely with former Vice President Joe Biden. In addition, there are multiple discrepancies between the whistleblower’s complaint — the piece of evidence central to the Democrat’ inquiry — and the closed testimony of the witnesses. For these reasons, we must assess the whistleblower’s credibility and the sources he or she utilized to develop the anonymous complaint.

On Biden, they wrote that since witnesses raised the issue of Hunter Biden getting paid $50,000 per month for sitting on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company that was under investigation, learning more about it would be “directly relevant to the inquiry”:

According to the New York Times, Hunter Biden was ‘part of a broad effort by Burisma to bring in well-connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations backed not just by domestic Ukrainian forces but by officials in the Obama administration.’ Reports suggest that Burisma paid Hunter Biden $50,000 per month through a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC. Because witnesses explained that Hunter Biden’s presence on Burisma’s board raised concerns during the Obama Administration and President Trump briefly raised this issue during his phone call with President Zelensky, this information is directly relevant to the Democrats’ ‘impeachment inquiry.’

On Chalupa, they also wrote that her testimony would be “directly relevant” since witnesses have testified that Trump believed the Ukrainians “tried to take [him] down”:

In August 2016, less than three months before the election, Valeriy Chaly, then-Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, authored an op-ed in a U.S. newspaper criticizing candidate Trump. In addition, in January 2017, Politico reported about Ukrainian government’s effort to ‘sabotage’ the Trump campaign in 2016 by working closely with the media and a Democratic National Committee consultant named Alexandra Chalupa. The Politico article detailed how Chalupa ‘traded information and leads’ with staff at the Ukrainian embassy and how the Ukrainian embassy ‘worked directly with reporters researching Trump, [Trump campaign manager Paul] Manafort, and Russia to point them in the right directions.’ Because witnesses testified that President Trump believed that Ukraine ‘tried to take [him] down’ in 2016, this information is directly relevant to the Democrats’ ‘impeachment inquiry.’

Nunes and Jordan concluded:

The American people see through your sham ‘impeachment inquiry.’ The American people understand how you have affirmatively prevented Republicans from examining serious issues directly relevant to the issues. Therefore, to provide some basic level of fairness and objectivity to your ‘impeachment inquiry,’ we intend to subpoena the anonymous whistleblower and Hunter Biden for sworn testimony in closed-door depositions. We also intend to subpoena the following entities for record relevant to the Democrats’ ‘impeachment inquiry’:

    1. The whistleblower for documents and communications relating to the drafting and filing of the complaint dated August 12, 2019, and the personal memorandum drafted on or around July 26, 2019.
    2. Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC and any subsidiaries or affiliates for records relating to Hunter Biden’s position on the Board of Directors of Burisma Holdings; and
    3. The Democratic National Committee for communications with Ukrainian government officials and for records relating to Alexandra Chalupa.

“We look forward to your prompt concurrence. Your failure to concur with all of these subpoenas shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process,” they wrote.

WRONG NARRATIVE? AFP & REUTERS SCRUB STORY ABOUT 100,000 DETAINED MIGRANT CHILDREN AFTER UN SAYS IT HAPPENED ON OBAMA’S WATCH

Wrong narrative? AFP & Reuters scrub story about 100,000 detained migrant children after UN says it happened on Obama’s watch

Instead of issuing corrections, however, Nowak’s clarification prompted several outlets to withdraw their stories altogether, including Reuters and AFP, who both said no replacement story would be forthcoming

11/20/2019

Several news agencies have opted to delete a story stating that 100,000 migrant children were detained in US border facilities after the United Nations clarified that the number is years old, predating the age of Trump.

After media outlets published stories trumpeting the 100,000 figure earlier this week, based on the word of UN refugee specialist Manfred Nowak, the expert was forced to correct his initial statement on Tuesday. As it turns out, the figure Nowak cited to reporters dates back to 2015, meaning the dramatic number of detentions he revealed occurred under the watch of President Barack Obama, rather than Donald Trump, who is often assailed by progressive critics over his border policies.

Instead of issuing corrections, however, Nowak’s clarification prompted several outlets to withdraw their stories altogether, including Reuters and AFP, who both said no replacement story would be forthcoming.

CAP

At the time of publishing, AFP’s version of the story containing the outdated figure was still live on its website.

CAP

Once responsibility for the vast number of detentions was passed from Trump to Obama, however, Nowak decided to clarify further that the 100,000 figure referred to the cumulative number of migrant children detained at any point in 2015, rather than all at one time, another caveat he apparently forgot to explain to reporters previously.

Despite frequent and vocal criticisms of President Trump’s border policies, his predecessor’s approach to immigration was not entirely different, even earning Obama the moniker of “Deporter in Chief.” During his first term, President Obama deported some 400,000 migrants each year, setting a record for himself in 2012 at over 409,000. President Trump, meanwhile, has deported fewer than 300,000 each year since taking office in 2017.

A widely-circulated photo showing migrant children locked in a cage is also often attributed to President Trump’s policies, but just like the figure presented by Nowak, it also dates back to the Obama years.

CAP

A handful of netizens took notice of the abrupt reversal by the news agencies, some critical of the move to outright scrub the offending articles, rather than simply correcting them to reflect the facts.

“The appropriate action would be to correct the story and issue a retraction, not delete it,” one user suggested. “The fact that this self proclaimed ‘news agency’ is going to bury news because it didn’t fit the narrative they’ve been tasked with dispensing encapsulates everything wrong with the press.”

CAP

CAP

Jim Jordan Blasts Pelosi for Calling President Trump an ‘Impostor’

11/20/2019

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) used a portion of his time during Tuesday’s public impeachment hearing before the House Intelligence Committee to remind the American people that Democrats have been hell-bent on impeaching President Trump since the day he took office and slammed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for calling the duly elected president an “imposter.”

This impeachment scam is otherwise called, THE SHAMING OF TRUMP AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.. Pelosi confirmed it.

She’s confused as usual and she’s projecting about Ocommie.

 

RUSH LIMBAUGH Warns Audience: “Lower Your Expectations on FOX News, Folks”

 

Legendary radio host Rush Limbaugh went off in October on FOX News.

This was after another day of Never-Trumper hacks and hosts attacked President Trump and refused to defend the US president from the flimsy accusations of Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi and a partisan CIA “whisleblower.”

Rush must be tired with the BS on FOX News — so much so that he told the channel to change its name to “FOX Never Trumper Network.”

Since that time FOX News has loaded its impeachment panel with Never-Trumpers who hardly defend this president from the scurrilous accusations by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

On Tuesday Rush Limbaugh went off on FOX News once again.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I can’t tell you the number of people who are complaining to me about Fox and their analysis here. And, folks, all I can tell you is there’s nothing new about that. I’d lower my expectations if I were you. If you’re expecting what Fox used to be, you need to shift your perspective.

Agreed.

CAP

Mutiny? Navy Brass Set to Demote Eddie Gallagher From SEALs After Trump Restored Rank; IG Complaint Accuses Admiral of Contempt for President

 

The Navy has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday on removing Special Warfare Operator Chief Eddie Gallagher from the Navy SEALs just days after President Trump restored his rank and pay grade after his long ordeal over war crime allegations ended earlier this year when he was acquitted of murder by a court martial but convicted of the minor offense of posing with an ISIS enemy’s corpse for a photo.

CBS News first broke the story Tuesday. Later Tuesday night the Navy Times reported Gallagher, through his attorney, had filed an complaint with the Inspector General for the Department of Defense about the handling of his case that, among other charges, accuses the head of the Navy SEALs, Rear Admiral Collin Green, of using contemptuous words against President Trump. The complaint however, does not specify the words used by Green.

Excerpt from the CBS report.

In what will undoubtedly be interpreted by many as an act of defiance against President Trump, the top Navy SEAL, Rear Admiral Collin Green, will notify Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher and three officers that their case is being sent to a review board which could end in their expulsion from the SEALs.

“This is a review of their suitability to be a SEAL,” a Navy officer said. The action would come less than a week after Mr. Trump intervened in the military justice case against Gallagher by ordering him to be restored to the rank of chief petty officer, despite his conviction for posing for a photograph with a dead ISIS prisoner.

…Although the action is being taken by Green, who is the head of the Navy Special Warfare Command, it has the backing of both the secretary of the Navy and the chief of Naval Operations, this officer said. The officer explained that this is an administrative action which was not affected by the president’s legal action last week.

The other officers are Lieutenant Commander Robert Breisch, who was the troop commander; Lieutenant Jacob Portier, who was the platoon officer in charge and reported to Breisch; and Lieutenant Thomas MacNeil, who was the platoon assistant officer in charge.

ABC News detailed the process:

Green has the ability to pull Gallagher’s Trident without a review board because he is an enlisted SEAL. However, the SEAL commander chose to provide Gallagher with the board process, which is typically reserved for officers. Under the review board, three of Gallagher’s SEAL peers will review a packet of information about his case, as well as Gallagher’s rebuttal statement.

The board will then make a recommendation to Green, who can choose to endorse it before sending it to the Navy’s Personnel Command for action. The process could likely take one month, one official said.

…Since 2011, 154 SEAL Tridents or Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman (SWCC) pins have been revoked for various reasons.

Navy Times excerpt

His pay grade restored by President Donald J. Trump on Friday, Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward “Eddie” Gallagher has filed an inspector general’s complaint against the Navy’s top SEAL, accusing him of uttering contemptuous statements about the commander in chief.

In the works for four months, the move came hours before a Wednesday morning meeting with Naval Special Warfare superiors in California, who are expected to inform Gallagher that Naval Special Warfare commander Rear Adm. Collin Green has convened a Trident Review Board to take the coveted SEAL qualification pin away from the special operator.

Green seems to have mustered the support of his uniformed chain of command to administratively punish Gallagher, 40, even if it’s perceived as defiant to the White House.

“Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Gilday, supports his commanders in executing their roles, to include Rear Adm. Green,” said Gilday’s spokesman, Cmdr. Nate Christensen, in an email to Navy Times.

Cmdr. Sarah Higgins, spokesperson for Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer, echoed that he also “supports his commanders in executing their roles, to include Rear Adm. Green.”

Declining to comment on the IG complaint filed against her command, Naval Special Warfare spokesperson Capt. Tamara Lawrence called allegations that Green uttered contemptuous words about the president “patently false.”

Lawyers for Gallagher and fellow SEAL Lt. Jacob X. “Jake” Portier told the Navy Times that Green and the Navy brass supporting this should resign or be fired.

“The president has spoken on the punishment of Eddie Gallagher,” said the SEAL’s civilian attorney, Timothy Parlatore, a former surface warfare officer. “A two-star admiral should not be stepping in to substitute the judgment of his commander in chief. “This is a terrible precedent to send and the commander in chief should take swift and decisive action against Rear Adm. Green.

“As for those in his chain of command who appear to be supporting Green, there needs to be a wholesale change in leadership. If Navy leadership can’t accept the commander in chief’s guidance, then they all should leave.

“There’s a long tradition in the military. You don’t rebel. You resign.”

…“Rear Adm. Green is undermining the office of the president of the United States,” Portier’s defense attorney, Jeremiah J. Sullivan III, told Navy Times. “Rear Adm. Green should be the first one to place his trident on the table and resign before he is fired.

“Flag officers cannot challenge the president. It is an act of insubordination and a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

End excerpts. Please read the entire Navy Times article at this link.

Gallgher’s IG complaint does not specify the contemptuous words Green is accused of uttering against President Trump. However it also notes a tweet by Rear Admiral Charlie Brown, the Navy’s Chief of Information, acknowledging Trump’s orders regarding Gallagher that was perceived as insulting to Trump and Gallagher, “As the Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to restore Special Warfare Operator First Class Gallagher to the pay grade of E-7. We acknowledge his order and are implementing it.”

CAP

Excerpts from Gallagher’s IG complaint:

IIX. MISCONDUCT AFTER POTUS INTERVENTION

On Friday, November 14, 2019, the Commander in Chief announced that he was restoring SOC Gallagher’s rank. While this was a controversial decision, certain elements become quite open in their contempt for the President’s exercise of his lawful authority.

First, CHINFO sent out an undeniably contemptuous and snarky tweet, “As the Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to restore Special Warfare Operator First Class Gallagher to the pay grade of E-7. We acknowledge his order and are implementing it.” This tweet was universally received as being a passive aggressive statement of disagreement, but grudging acceptance. If any subordinate officer passed on orders from their superior in this fashion, he would be immediately fired – “As the commander of this ship, the CO has the authority to order us to do maintenance on our equipment. We acknowledge his order and are implementing it”

Second, and more sinister, is that we have learned that on Monday morning, November 18, 2019, RADM Green assembled a staff meeting and made clear his contempt of the President and disagreement with the President’s decision, before declaring that he intended to remove SOC Gallagher’s trident anyway.

The White House could not have been clearer in its statement:

“Before the prosecution of Special Warfare Operator First Class Edward Gallagher, he had been selected for promotion to Senior Chief, awarded a Bronze Star with a “V” for valor, and assigned to an important position in the Navy as an instructor. Though ultimately acquitted on all of the most serious charges, he was stripped of these honors as he awaited his trial and its outcome. Given his service to our Nation, a promotion back to the rank and pay grade of Chief Petty Officer is justified.”

It is incomprehensible to understand how, given the Commander in Chief’s clear guidance that he felt the punishment was too severe for such a minor offense, how RAMD Green thinks it is appropriate to countermand this and increase the punishment. Moreover, no flag officer should ever be speaking contemptuously of the Commander in Chief in front of his subordinates.

Gallagher’s IG complaint can be read at this link.

 

Alexander Vindman Admits Making up Parts of Trump Call Summary

National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

By Charlie Spiering

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Prior to the call, Vindman included a discussion about corruption in the talking points provided to the president but Trump did not use them in the call.

The summary Vindman wrote after the call read:

President Trump underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – within its internationally recognized borders – and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.

CAP

But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

When asked by the Democrat counsel about whether the summary he wrote was false, Vindman hesitated.

“That’s not entirely accurate, but I’m not sure I would describe it as false, it was consistent with U.S. policy,” Vindman said.

Vindman said he included the rhetoric about corruption as a “messaging platform” to describe U.S. policy toward Ukraine, even though it was not discussed on the call.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑