May 26, 2020
American media CNN, MSNBC and others not even mention this at all
By Joe Hoft – May 15, 2020
Sara Carter reported overnight:
Republicans are demanding that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo turn over a broad scope of unredacted Obama-Biden State Department documents pertaining to the corrupt Ukrainian company that was at the center of the impeachment inquiry earlier this year against President Donald Trump.
In a document sent to Pompeo, Jordan wrote:
“I write regarding documents that the State Department recently released pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” stated Jordan, in a letter to Pompeo on Thursday. “Although these documents are partially redacted, they appear to shed new light on the actions of State Department employees during the Obama-Biden Administration in relation to the corrupt Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings, and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky.”
Jordan requested that the information be delivered to the committee by May 28. He asked for:
- Unredacted copies of all documents released pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act relating to Burisma Holdings, Mykola Zlochevsky, or Hunter Biden;
- All documents and communications referring or relating to Burisma Holdings or Mykola Zlochevsky for the period January 1, 2014, to January 20, 2017; and
- All documents and communications referring or relating to Hunter Biden, Christopher Heinz, or Devon Archer for the period January 1, 2014, to January 20, 2017.
According to Jordan the State Department documents also reveal that the alleged “whistleblower” who began the partisan impeachment against Trump “also played a role in facilitating the Obama-Biden Administration’s interactions with the Ukrainian government relating to Burisma and Hunter Biden.”
Jordan told Pompeo that the documents reportedly detail “how the ‘whistleblower,’ as a National Security Council (NSC) detailee, hosted a White House meeting that took place with Ukrainian prosecutors in January 2016 regarding a concern that Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma could complicate a potential prosecution of the company’s wrongdoing.”
According to Stephen McIntyre a demand that Ukrainian top prosecutor Viktor Shokin be fired as a condition for an IMF loan, almost certainly originated with Biden staff.
The demand was first announced to Ukrainian prosecutors at a January 19, 2016 meeting with US officials hosted by Eric Ciaramella.
A search on the White House visitor logs during the final year (2016) of the Obama administration lists Eric Ciaramella over 200 times. Ciaramella hosted a meeting with Ukrainian diplomat Andrii Telizhenko on January 19, 2016 in the Obama White House.
And we also discovered that Artem Sytnyk, the director of Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), a Soros group, who leaked documents on kickbacks to Manafort during the 2016 election, was also at the meeting.
Fool Nelson first reported this on October 12 before Ciaramella was alleged publicly to be the whistleblower.
We reported that this was the only listed White House meeting attended by Andrii Telizhenko in 2016. This was also the meeting where Hunter Biden was discussed. This was the meeting where Ukrainians were told to end their investigation of Hunter Biden. And White House expert Eric Ciaramella HOSTED the January 19, 2016 meeting.
Here’s a guest from the Hudson Institute and Estonia –
(The Hudson Institute promoted a piece by George Soros where he claimed the war on drugs had failed.)
And another from Estonia –
And a Deep State Pentagon official specializing in Russia, George Tagg, Jr. –
And another connection to Soros via USAID – Suren Avanesyan – Soros reportedly received US taxpayer dollars through this agency –
Suren Avanesyan currently serves as Acting Division Chief of the Democracy and Governance Division and Senior Advisor for Rule of Law, Governance and Anti-Corruption in the Bureau for Europe and Eurasia in the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). As Division Chief, he is responsible for managing a team of senior technical advisors, project support staff and for determining strategic direction and priorities of the Democracy and Governance Division.
Here’s Bart M.J. Szewczyk from the Marshall Fund –
About the Marshall Fund –
And here’s another connected to USAid and George Soros – John VanSandt –
And another connection to the Ukraine – Joseph Wereszynski –
And the Ambassador to Lithuania –
And another from the Marshall Fund – Michael Kimmage –
And a lady from Lithuania – Solvita Aboltina – she looks nice –
And a couple more from the Baltic States – where money laundering ran high
And another from Latvia –
Hat tip D. Manny
By HANNAH BLEAU
President Trump and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien have removed 70 Obama holdovers from the NSC, which previously boasted a staff of roughly 200 people, according to the Washington Examiner:
The news follows Saturday’s CNN report, which indicated “major cuts” to NSC staff in the coming days, citing “two sources familiar with the matter.”
It comes days after the contentious impeachment battle on Capitol Hill — a battle ignited by a complaint from a so-called “whistleblower.” The “whistleblower’s” complaint, regarding Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry, which ultimately ended in a full acquittal.
The administration removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, from his post at the NSC last week. It also removed his twin brother Yevgeny, who worked as a lawyer on the NSC.
While Vindman has denied knowing the identity of the “whistleblower,” he has been suspected of being a leaker in the past. Some Republican lawmakers, such Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), believe the former NSC official leaked details the president’s July 25 phone call to the “whistleblower.”
As Breitbart News reported:
First and foremost, Vindman admitted openly during his testimony before HPSCI last year under questioning from ranking GOP member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) that he leaked the contents of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to two officials who were not in the White House. Vindman claimed during his testimony then that these two officials he leaked the call to were “cleared U.S. government officials with appropriate need to know.” While Vindman claimed under oath he did not know who the whistleblower was, Schiff intervened saying that answering Nunes’s questions identifying the individuals outside the White House to whom Vindman leaked the Trump-Zelensky call details may out the identity of the whistleblower who filed the original complaint.
The person who filed the complaint has been long been–and was at the time of this hearing–publicly reported to have been CIA official Eric Ciaramella. According to a follow-up report published this week by the outlet that first reported Ciaramella’s identity, RealClearPolitics, Vindman was the person who leaked the call details to Ciaramella.
Vindman’s removal drew a strong reaction from Democrat leaders. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called his firing “shameful” and a “brazen act of retaliation,” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Monday wrote a letter to 74 inspectors general, requesting an investigation into “any and all instances of retaliation” against whistleblowers, according to the Hill.
“These attacks are part of a dangerous, growing pattern of retaliation against those who report wrongdoing only to find themselves targeted by the President and subject to his wrath and vindictiveness,” Schumer claimed.
The Trump administration has also identified and will remove the senior official who penned an anonymous “resistance” op-ed and book, according to U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova.
February 10, 2020
Rep. Nunes ripped the liberal media after their disastrous three years of lying and misleading the American public.
The leftie mainstream media TRULY is an enemy to Truth.
Rep. Nunes: I believe we’re going to get accountability. I believe Durham is going to get to the full story… I’ve been saying for a long time that the National Security Council that’s there at the White House, 400 and some people, he would be best to take all of those people, ship them across the Potomac, quarantine them, get them the hell away from the White House, because we know that a lot of the leaks for the last three plus years have been coming from that National Security Council. The President really only needs to have Trump appointees with him in the White House.
Rep. Nunes: We know that it is highly likely that many of the leaks that started at the very beginning of President Trump’s administration came from the National Security Council.
February 6, 2020
Senator Johnson wrote the Congressman a letter to provide his first-hand information and perspective on events relevant to the impeachment inquiry.
Johnson traveled to Ukraine with special envoy Kurt Volker, spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in person and spoke to President Trump about the hold on military aid — unlike all of the ‘witnesses’ Schiff has dragged in to testify using fourth-hand information.
Johnson clearly suggested Vindman was behind the leaks ‘outside his chain of command.’
During his trip to Ukraine Vindman told Ukrainians to ignore President Trump — Vindman actually thinks he is superior to Trump even though he is an inferior official in the intel department.
Vindman, during his closed-door testimony also flatly denied he knew the identity of the whistleblower (Eric Ciaramella); however, it is believed he was the primary source for Eric Ciaramella.
On Thursday night news broke that Vindman will be removed from the National Security Council!
The White House is weighing a plan to dismiss Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council after he testified in President Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, preparing to position the move as part of a broader effort to shrink the foreign policy bureaucracy, two people familiar with the matter said.
Any moves would come after the Senate on Wednesday acquitted Trump on a near party-line vote at the conclusion of the two-week impeachment trial. The White House intends to portray any house-cleaning as part of a downsizing of the NSC staff, not retaliation, according to the people.
February 6, 2020
Yaacov Apelbaum put together information regarding the many individuals misidentified as Deep State’s Eric Ciaramella.
Below is a list of some of those individuals as well as a picture of the real leaker, Ciaramella.
On October 30th, Paul Sperry announced at RealClearInvestigations.com in a post that the so-called ‘whistleblower’ in lying Adam Schiff’s fake impeachment sham is none other than Eric Ciaramella. This was old news to us at TGP as well as Dan Bongino and others on the web. (We first reported on Ciaramella on October 11th.)
But in Sperry’s post, he notes the exact pronunciation for Ciaramella’s name – (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) –
Bongino suspected that Sperry was trying to hint at something as the pronunciation of a name is not usually included in posts like Sperry’s. What Bongino suggested was that there is a connection between Sperry’s article and the Grassley and Johnson letter – Char-a-MEL-ah is the same ‘Charlie’ in the Strzok and Page communications.
This is why Schiff wanted to keep his identity hidden. Not only because Ciaramella is a clearly a leaker and is culpable for crimes due to his leaking but because he was spying on President Trump in the White House and was involved in the Russia collusion scam as well.
As we reported on October 11th, in a hit piece on conservatives in July, 2017, Yahoo reported that Mike Cernovich targeted an individual who worked for former National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, claiming the individual wanted to ‘sabotage’ President Trump. The article also said the individual claimed he is ‘pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia’.
Cernovich reported in June, 2017, that McMaster promoted Ciaramella in spite of his connections to Susan Rice in Obama’s White House:
West Wing officials confirmed to Cernovich Media that Eric Ciaramella, who worked closely with Susan Rice while at NSC, was recently promoted to be H.R. McMaster’s personal aide. Ciaramella will have unfettered access to McMaster’s conversations with foreign leaders.
Others noted Ciaramella was Obama’s NSC Director for the Ukraine. This connects him and his team at the NSC to Joe Biden. Biden was Obama’s lead in the Ukraine so it’s implausible that Ciararmella and his team were not connected to Biden. Schiff’s leakers are connected to Biden also.
Fool Nelson on Twitter was one of the first to out Ciaramella –
Another Internet sleuth, Greg Rubini, may have been the first to identify Ciaramella. Rubini however noted that Ciaramella was in the White House at an event and was seated directly behind Melania Trump –
This turned out to be incorrect as the individual in the picture above with Melania Trump was not Ciaramella. The individual identified as Eric Ciaramella is Hugo Verges, he is French President Emanuel Macron’s advisor for Latin America. This image was taken prior to the state diner on April 24, 2018.
by Nebojsa Malic
Trump’s acquittal in the Senate on Wednesday was a foregone conclusion, given as it takes two thirds of the senators present to convict. The only way for 20 Republicans to switch sides was for the House case to be open and shut – something that only Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) and ‘Russiagate’ truthers in the media actually believed.
In the end, the sole Republican to break ranks was Mitt Romney, and only on one of the articles. Not guilty, exonerated, case closed, let’s “move on” – as Democrats themselves advised in 1999, after the same thing happened to Bill Clinton.
Not so fast. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has rejected the verdict, calling it “meaningless” because what happened in the Senate “wasn’t a trial.” It’s a retreat to last week’s talking points, arguing that the Senate should have called additional witnesses and documents that the House didn’t care to obtain before rushing to impeach back in December.
Never mind that doing this would have meant the House process was flawed, fatally undercut the second article – “obstruction of Congress” – or that the House managers themselves objected to any new evidence being introduced. If you’re expecting logic rather than lawfare, you’re in the wrong town.
Democrats began talking impeachment from the second Trump took office, having failed to prevent that from happening through a variety of long-shot schemes such as “Hamilton electors.” Their initial strategy was to allege “emoluments” and harp on Trump’s undisclosed tax returns, before settling on “Russiagate.” Then the Mueller Report came out and proved to be a dud of epic proportions. Hopes to at least get obstruction of justice charges out of it were decisively crushed by Attorney General William Barr.
Report came out and proved to be a dud of epic proportions. Hopes to at least get obstruction of justice charges out of it were decisively crushed by Attorney General William Barr.
Under tremendous pressure to find something – anything – to impeach Trump over, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi turned to Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff, a fellow Californian. Schiff seized upon a phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he was told about by staffers in touch with their former colleagues inside the intelligence community.
Schiff seized on Trump’s reference to Joe Biden’s bragging about getting a corruption prosecutor in Ukraine fired, to claim that this amounted to “soliciting foreign interference” in the 2020 election, since Barack Obama’s former VP was the front-runner for the Democrats’ presidential nomination.
While Schiff and his crew did their best to conjure a crazy conspiracy involving Trump holding up military aid for political leverage – mind-reading and inventing fake transcripts along the way – their case was ultimately smoke and mirrors. Zelensky himself said he was not being extorted, and the parade of other witnesses from within the very bureaucracy Trump had sworn to purge (but obviously hadn’t) had only their personal, anti-Trump opinions to offer.
Paradoxically, impeachment only made Trump stronger – and more popular, if the latest polls are anything to go by. By contrast, Democrats have gone from one defeat to the next this week, starting with Monday’s fiasco at the Iowa caucuses and continuing with Pelosi’s tantrum at Trump’s State of the Union on Tuesday.
“This impeachment was a destructive debacle in every conceivable respect, but don’t worry I’m sure [Democrats] will change their behavior moving forward, they have a well-established track record of taking responsibility for failure,” quipped political journalist Michael Tracey after the Senate acquittal.
If Trump wins re-election in November – which increasingly looks like it might happen – expect the Democrats to try to impeach him again. What for? It doesn’t matter, any excuse will do.
Simply put, they have to. In retrospect, impeachment seems to have always been a coping mechanism for 2016, the election that neither Hillary Clinton nor her party ever recovered from losing.
Clinton herself offered more proof of that on Wednesday, accusing 52 Senate Republicans of betraying their oath to the Constitution and saying the US was “entering dangerous territory for our democracy.”
She’s actually correct about that, though not in a sense she may have intended. Democracy works only so long as all participants agree to abide by electoral results. Refusing to accept defeat and attempting to rules-lawyer one’s way out would be bothersome enough at a board game night, but is downright toxic when it infects national politics.
Kaiser Report co-host Stacy Herbert summed it up best, calling the last three years “one horrible remake of ‘Goodbye, Lenin’ in which the entire political and media classes have constructed an elaborate alternative reality so as to avoid having Hillary encounter any further distress which might compound her humiliation.”
Unlike in the 2003 German film, nothing so far has been capable of bursting this particular delusion bubble – which means that America’s long national nightmare is nowhere near over.
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
“The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a ‘high crime and misdemeanor,’” Romney said. “Yes, he did.”
IMAGE CREDITS: SENATE TELEVISION VIA GETTY IMAGES.
January 31, 2020
McConnell will be holding a vote on additional witnesses Friday after closing arguments wrap up.
In a huge blow to Democrats, Senator Lamar Alexander announced Thursday night he will be voting against new witnesses, giving the Republicans a probable victory with a 50-50 tie.
Chief Justice Roberts is not expected to cast a tie-breaker vote, according to Republicans.
Once the witnesses are blocked, Republicans will move to acquit President Trump.
Schumer knows it’s over and he looked defeated and angry Friday morning.
Schumer wants to drag out the impeachment circus as long as possible so he wants every Senator to explain to the American public why they voted the way they did.
“I believe that the American people should hear what every Senator thinks and why they’re voting the way they’re voting. And we will do what we can to make sure that happens.”
It’s over, Cryin Chuck. Move on.
With the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump nearing its final stages, senators gathered on Capitol Hill on Thursday to question the Democratic prosecution team, and Trump’s defense attorneys. However, Paul (R-Kentucky) found his question shot down by presiding Chief Justice John Roberts, who declined “to read the question as submitted.”
Paul left the chamber after Roberts’ denial.
Taking to Twitter afterwards, Paul revealed that he planned on asking whether Obama-era “partisans” within Trump’s National Security Council conspired with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to engineer impeachment proceedings against Trump, by sounding the alarm on the now-infamous July phone call between Trump and Ukrainain President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together,” Paul’s question read. “And are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.”
Ciaramella, a CIA analyst, is widely believed to be the ‘whistleblower’ who kickstarted the impeachment inquiry by alleging that Trump tried to strong-arm Zelensky into reopening a corruption investigation into Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and his business activities in Ukraine.
According to a recent RealClearPolitics report, Ciaramella was reportedly overheard in 2017 “plotting” with Misko to have Trump “removed from office.”
Schiff, the lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial, has both denied knowing the identity of the whistleblower and called the report of Ciaramella’s plot a “conspiracy theory.” Schiff has also repeatedly warned Republicans against naming the whistleblower, citing a need to protect his or her identity – though no statutory requirement for that actually exists.
However, Roberts’ refusal to read Ciaramella’s name and the media furor that followed Paul’s question – with mostly liberal pundits hounding the senator for “naming the whistleblower” – all but confirms that he is indeed Schiff’s source. Paul never mentioned the term “whistleblower” in his written question, yet Roberts still refused to read Ciaramella’s name. Earlier, Roberts had vowed not to read any question that might “out” the whistleblower.
Roberts was not compelled to censor Paul’s question by law. Rather, his decision was a personal one. Contrary to Schiff, the whistleblower does not enjoy a “statutory right to anonymity.” If Ciaramella is indeed the whistleblower, his only guarantee is that the intelligence community inspector-general may not name him as such.
Senators will likely vote on Friday on whether to allow testimony from additional witnesses, beyond those heard during the inquiry led by House Democrats. While Democrats have pushed for testimony from former National Security Advisor John Bolton, some Republicans have argued that if they even agree to witnesses, they intend to call on the whistleblower, conclusively revealing their identity and giving Trump his constitutional right to confront his accuser.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made clear that he will move to block any additional witnesses from testifying, bringing the trial to a speedy conclusion and acquittal as soon as possible.