Luongo: Pelosi’s Coup Attempt Is Now Open Warfare, “There Will Be Casualties”

CAP

By Tyler Durden – 12/20/2019

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

The Democrats declared war this week. Not on President Donald Trump but on the United States and the Constitution.

What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran-feces) presided over the passage of a bill which creates a clear Constitutional Crisis.

And that means we have multiple factions vying for control of our government, the definition of a Civil War.

In passing these articles of impeachment against President Trump Congress has arrogated to itself powers it does not have.

The first article asserts a motive to Trump’s actions to invalidate his role as chief law enforcement officer for the country. It doesn’t matter if you like him or any President having this power, he does have it.

Read that first article and then apply it to a country other than Ukraine where Trump didn’t have ‘probable cause’ for investigation into corruption and malfeasance there.

That could be Abuse of Power.

But this happened in Ukraine where Trump clearly has probable cause.

The following is the scenario the first impeachment article is asserting as the basis for abuse of power, through ascribing political motives to the President:

One day President Trump wakes up and says, “Shit! Joe Biden’s leading me in the polls. I need to do something about this.”

So, Trump twirls his orange comb-over and calls up the Prime Minister of Armenia, a Russian ally, to whom we’ve pledged aid. Since it’s a Russian ally and Trump may have colluded with the Russians, they would be a good candidate to help him.

But Joe Biden has no history of diplomacy or oversight in Armenia as Vice-President. There’s no record of any contact of any kind with Biden in Armenia, for argument’s sake.

Trump then, during the phone call, shakes down the Armenian PM for that aid, explicitly saying he must create dirt on Joe Biden or he would withhold appropriated aid funds to the country.

Then, after getting caught, Trump tries to hide the record of the phone call by hiding behind Executive Privilege.

That would be Abuse of Power and an impeachable offenseIt would be regrettable but indefensible that the odious jackals in Congress were right to impeach him. They would, actually, be defending the Constitution and fully within their rights.

But, that’s not what happened.

Biden was put in charge of Ukraine by President Obama. He had full discretion on policy towards Ukraine and was caught on tape bragging about doing exactly what the impeachment article is accusing Trump of doing. Shaking Ukraine down for favors in order to get $1 billion in aid.

Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired was investigating corruption into his son Hunter’s involvement with Ukrainian gas company Burisma, this admission is pretty damning, showing clear personal motive to use his office to stop investigation into his family.

This is Abuse of Power. This is subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the whims of an elected official, squelching an investigation into his personal family, using the office for personal gain.

So, when viewed through this lens the first impeachment article is a complete lie. Trump didn’t do the things asserted. The transcript of the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky proves that.

Trump made the phone call public immediately.

The phone call and Trump’s order to review the foreign aid were contemporaneous but not conditional. If you have a non-charitable view of the President it may raise some questions, but there was probable cause here.

Your opinions on Trump do not add up to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The implications of this impeachment article are, however, staggering.

It says explicitly that the U.S. president cannot discharge his duties as a law enforcement official if the person of interest is someone of the opposite party or a potential electoral opponent.

It says that probable cause is not a standard for investigation only political considerations.

That’s a clear violation of Congress’ role. Congress writes laws. The President executes them. If the Congress wants to assume law enforcement powers it should work to amend the Constitution.

This is a clear example of why impeachment is a political process not a legal one. But, if they are going to act this politically, at least they should put the veneer of legality on it. Even the equally odious Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton did that.

But in asserting this as an offence Congress seeks to place the Legislative Branch as superior to the Executive in matters of law enforcement and implementation.

That’s a clear violation of the separation of powers. It may suck that the guy holding the Office of the Presidency is someone you don’t like or not willing to turn a blind eye to corruption, but doing his job is not a ‘high crime or misdemeanor.’

The second article is even worse. Because asserts the power to subpoena members of the Executive branch under the impeachment inquiry into the first article. And since Congress has sole authority over impeachment, no judicial review of its subpoena power can be made.

This is fully unconstitutional since it subverts the power of the Judicial branch to settle disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches as established by the Constitution.

Pelosi and company are broadening the definition of ‘the sole power of impeachment’ to say that whatever Congress deems as worthy of an impeachment inquiry is therefore law and the other branches have no say in the matter.

This is patent nonsense and wholly tyrannical.

Rod Rosenstein and Andrew Weismann tried to use an equally broad interpretation of ‘obstruction of justice’ to include future harm to continue the special council’s investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.OB

Moreover it renders the concept of judicial review as laid down in Marbury vs. Madison null and void. Congress cannot just make up laws and crimes out of whole cloth and then unilaterally declare them constitutional under the rubric of impeachment.

The Supreme Court has the right to strike down bills Congress passes as unconstitutional.

This drives a massive wedge through the separation of powers in a blatant power grab by Pelosi and the Democratic House majority to protect themselves from Trump’s investigations into their crimes surrounding events in Ukraine.

When viewed dispassionately, Obstruction of Congress is not a crime but rather a function of each of the other two branches of government. It’s no better when the President hides behind Executive Orders to legislate unconstitutionally.

And it’s even worse when the Supreme Court makes up laws from the bench rather than kick the ball back to Congress and start the process all over again.

That’s what the whole three co-equal branches of government is supposed to mean.

Now, in practice I don’t believe the three branches are equal, as the Judicial branch routinely oversteps its authority. But in this case if it does not step in immediately and defend itself from this Congress then the basic fabric of our government unravels overnight.

That the second impeachment article is directly dependent on the flawed (or non-existent) logic of the first impeachment article renders the whole thing simply laughable on the face of it.

I’m no legal scholar so when I can see how ridiculous these articles are then you know this has nothing to do with the law but everything to do with power.

And the reality is, as I discussed in my latest podcast, what this impeachment is really about is distracting and covering up the multiple layers of corruption in U.S. foreign and domestic policy stretching back decades. Many of the tendrils emanating from the events surrounding the FISA warrants improperly granted connect directly to the Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, William Browder and the rape of Russia in the post-Soviet 90’s.

We’re talking an entire generation or more of U.S. officials and politicians implicated in some of the worst crimes of the past thirty years.

The stakes for these people are existential. This is why they are willing to risk a full-blown constitutional crisis and civil war to remove Trump from office.

They know he’s angry at them now. This is personal as well as philosophical. Trump is a patriot, a narcissist and a gangster. That’s a powerful combination of traits.

The polls are shifting his way on this as the average person knows this impeachment is pathetic. They are tired of the Democrats’ games the same way British voters are over the arguments against Brexit.

So the old adage about killing the king come to mind. If Pelosi et.al. miss here, the retribution from Trump will be biblical.

The damage to the society is too great to argue irrelevancies. No one outside of the Beltway Bubble and the Crazies of the Resistance cares about what Trump did here. It’s too arcane and most people are against giving a shithole like Ukraine taxpayer money in the first place.

The whole thing is a giant pile of loser turds steaming up the room and impeding getting any work done.

In the end We’ll know if Trump has his ducks in a row in how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plays his cards versus Pelosi. If McConnell pussy-foots around and gives Pelosi anything on how the trial in the Senate is conducted then the fix is in and Trump is done.

But, if McConnell shuts this down then what comes next will be a righteous smackdown of Trump’s political opponents that will make the phone call with Zelensky look like a routine call to Dominos’ for a double pepperoni.

Either way, this coup attempt by Pelosi is now open warfare. There will be casualties.

*  *  *

Join My Patreon if you want help navigating what’s the next stop on the short bus to Crazytown. Install the Brave Browser to suck the money away from Google and protect your privacy.

The 1st Deep State FISA Warrant on Page Was the 1 In 10,000 Denied by the Court – For Some Reason DOJ IG Horowitz LEFT THIS OUT of His Report!

 

The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance) Court is in the news this weekend after President Trump tweeted that former President Obama had petitioned a court twice in order to wire tap current President Trump when he was running for office.  [At this time we were not aware of the multiple renewals of the Carter Page FISA warrant application used to validate spying on President Trump.]

In his first tweet President Trump tweeted:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

CAP

He next tweeted:

Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

CAP

The FISA Court was put in place in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. Each judge serves for a maximum of seven years and their terms are staggered to ensure continuity on the Court. By statute, the judges must be drawn from at least seven of the United States judicial circuits, and three of the judges must reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia. Judges typically sit for one week at a time, on a rotating basis.

Pursuant to FISA, the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. Most of the Court’s work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and due to the need to protect classified national security information.

Only two in over 10,000 applications were turned down by the FISA Court.

According to ABC News:

More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved. From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government.

A very disturbing fact about the wire tapping request of President Trump is that the FISA Court turned down President Obama’s Administration’s first request to wire tap President Trump that was evidently signed off on by Attorney General Lynch. With only two applications denied out of 10,700 from 2009 through 2015, the fact that the Obama Administration’s application was denied by the FISA Court is very disturbing. The odds of this happening were 0.02% .

The Obama Presidency is clearly the most corrupt in US history.

Horowitz remains silent on this in his 450 plus page report –>>

According to the FISA Report on page 412, Obama’s Deep State DOJ and FBI decided to move forward with obtaining a FISA Warrant to spy on Carter Page and therefore candidate Trump in mid-August of 2016:

CAP

We also now know that this is when Deep State lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussed the insurance policy via texts on August 15, 2016 –

CAP

The DOJ OIG FISA Report does not mention that the first FISA warrant for Carter Page was denied.  It only states that the Deep State attempted to put together information to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page in August 2016 and by September, the Deep State believed they had enough information to obtain the warrant.

We know that the first FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page and Trump was obtained in October 2016 shortly before the 2016 Presidential election.  This now confirmed garbage report was then renewed three times.

Omissions like this leave the reader to question the validity of the the entire FISA Report.  Was more than this omitted from the massive report?  If so, why?

Hat tip D. Manny

Eric Holder Sends Warning to John Durham, Says William Barr ‘Unfit’ to be Attorney General, in WaPo Op-Ed

by Kristinn Taylor

Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder sent a chilling message in a very public way to U.S. Attorney John Durham–the man investigating abuses by the FBI and Justice Department against President Trump and members of his administration and campaign in the Russia-election investigation–warning Durham he is risking his reputation.

 

Holder wrote an op-ed published Wednesday night by the Washington Post calling current Attorney General William Barr “unfit” to serve as attorney general. The threat to Durham iss buried in the op-ed, but jumps out like a dagger thrust from the dark.

…As a former line prosecutor, U.S. attorney and judge, I found it alarming to hear Barr comment on an ongoing investigation, led by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, into the origins of the Russia probe. And as someone who spent six years in the office Barr now occupies, it was infuriating to watch him publicly undermine an independent inspector general report — based on an exhaustive review of the FBI’s conduct — using partisan talking points bearing no resemblance to the facts his own department has uncovered.

When appropriate and justified, it is the attorney general’s duty to support Justice Department components, ensure their integrity and insulate them from political pressures. His or her ultimate loyalty is not to the president personally, nor even to the executive branch, but to the people — and the Constitution — of the United States.

Career public servants at every level of the Justice Department understand this — as do leaders such as FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Their fidelity to the law and their conduct under pressure are a credit to them and the institutions they serve.

Others, like Durham, are being tested by this moment. I’ve been proud to know John for at least a decade, but I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general’s findings. Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.

This is certainly true of Barr, who was until recently a widely respected lawyer. I and many other Justice veterans were hopeful that he would serve as a responsible steward of the department and a protector of the rule of law.

Holder closes with his statement that Barr is ‘unfit’. His case is totally based on policy differences and his claimed understanding of the nature of the job, which is odd considering Holder once called himself Obama’s “wingman” when he served as his attorney general and called Obama “my boy”: “I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr’s words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution. Which is why I now fear that his conduct — running political interference for an increasingly lawless president — will wreak lasting damage.

The American people deserve an attorney general who serves their interests, leads the Justice Department with integrity and can be entrusted to pursue the facts and the law, even — and especially — when they are politically inconvenient and inconsistent with the personal interests of the president who appointed him. William Barr has proved he is incapable of serving as such an attorney general. He is unfit to lead the Justice Department.

Barr, 69, is serving as attorney general a second time–the first during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. Barr is at the peak of his profession and is immune to Holder’s criticism.

Durham, on the other hand, while also Barr’s age, has been a career assistant U.S. attorney who was promoted by President Trump to U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut in 2017 after 35 years of service there. Holder’s message to Durham is clear, play ball or face ruin.

Durham’s statement that so “troubled” Holder:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Why would Holder find that statement so troubling that he would send a warning to Durham via the Washington Post? Holder knows very well what he is doing with his carefully worded threat and should know better than to warn or threaten a prosecutor–but the Deep State and its corrupt actors must be protected and “wingman” Holder has a job to do.

UPDATE: Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) understands, “Did Eric Holder obstruct justice in this threat to US Atty Durham?
“Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember …”

CAP

REP. JIM JORDAN: IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT DEMOCRATS NOT ACCEPTING ELECTION RESULT

Rep. Jim Jordan: Impeachment is About Democrats Not Accepting Election Result

“They have never accepted the will of the American people.”

 | – NOVEMBER 22, 2019

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) says that the impeachment hearings are just another consequence of Democrats not accepting the 2016 election result and defying the will of 63 million Americans.

During an appearance on Fox News, the Ohio Republican said the entire basis for the hearings was flawed given there’s no evidence of Trump delivering anything to Ukraine and “quid pro quo” claims are just a ruse.

“So this idea that there was a this for that, a quid for quo — a quid pro quo didn’t happen,” Jordan said. “And yet they continue to say, oh, oh, but this is impeachable.”

“This is not about that at all, Bret. This is — this is about they have never accepted the will of the American people, when 63 million Americans, in an Electoral College landslide, said, we’re going to send Donald Trump to Washington shake that town up,” he added.

“And the establishment here, and particularly the Democrats, have never accepted that,” said Jordan. “And they’re going to do whatever it takes, Mueller report, FBI investigation, dossier, or now this, whatever it takes to try to get him out. That’s what this is really about.”

It’s now been 1109 days since the 2016 presidential election. Democrats who once chided President Trump for suggesting he might not accept the election result have been doing precisely that every day ever since.

Ignored by Liberal Media and So-Called “Ukraine Experts”: Ukraine Was Already Investigating the Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings Before Trump Call with Zelensky

CAP

 

The head of Burisma Holdings was indicted this week in Ukraine!

Ukrainian Prosecutor General indicted Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky.

The claim alleges that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million for their ‘services’ with Burisma Holdings.

The indictment was damning and revealed Hunter Biden’s income under his contract with Burisma shows a “link that reveals how money is siphoned [from Ukraine].”

Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden took a lucrative post on the Burisma Board in 2014.
Hunter Biden was making millions from the corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company.

Via Tass.com:

The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General has drawn up an indictment against the owner of the Burisma Holdings energy company, ex-Ecology Minister Nikolai Zlochevsky, that contains information that the son of former US Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter, as a Burisma board member along with his partners received $16.5 million for their services, Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada MP from the ruling Servant of the People party Alexander Dubinsky told a press conference on Wednesday, citing the investigation’s materials. According to him, the money came from duplicitous criminal activity.

According to the politician, “the son of Vice-President Joe Biden was receiving payment for his services, with money raised through criminal means and money laundering.” He also clarified that “Biden received money that did not come from the company’s successful operation but rather from money stolen from citizens.”

Dubinsky stressed that the information on Hunter Biden’s income under his contract with Burisma is a “link that reveals how money is siphoned [from Ukraine].“

Ukrainian MP Alexander Dubinsky said in a presser Wednesday that he will reveal information about a “pyramid scheme” created in Ukraine using stolen funds, moved offshore and “bought Ukrainian public bonds turning them into the Ukrainian sovereign debt.”

Joe Biden’s drug addict son Hunter was sitting on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company and being paid by some accounts over $200,000 a month even though he had zero experience in the field.

According to Reuters the investigations into Burisma was going on FOR YEARS!

Interfax reported in May that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General had resumed investigations of Burisma.

The “so-called” experts who testified before Schiff’s show trials these past two weeks FORGOT TO MENTION THIS!

President Trump was not the first to call for investigations into the shady Burisma group — Ukrainian prosecutors have been investigating the shady group FOR YEARS!

The prosecutor who has investigated Burisma is Kostiantyn Kulyk, who previously met Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to discuss accusations against the Bidens.

After he took office in late August, Ryaboshapka launched a wide-ranging audit of criminal cases to see whether they had been conducted properly. Thirteen of them relate to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, Ryaboshapka told reporters at a briefing on Wednesday.

Burisma did not respond to a request for comment.

Ryaboshapka’s predecessors oversaw a series of investigations into Zlochevsky, a multimillionaire former minister of ecology and natural resources. The allegations concern tax violations, money-laundering and licences given to Burisma during the period where Zlochevsky was a minister.

Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky has gone missing.

According to Reuters, the investigation is on hold because Zlochevsky has gone missing!

This has been going on for years…
Memos released earlier this month reveal Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company, pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter.

And Joe Biden was warned by investigators in 2015 of Hunter Biden’s illicit dealings with Burisma.

The Burisma scam has been going on for years and was being investigated LONG BEFORE President Trump spoke with the Ukrainian leader in July.

FBI IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE – FBI Official Under Criminal Investigation for Altering Surveillance Document of Carter Page – Allowing Agency to Spy on Trump Campaign

by Jim Hoft

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham announced this week that he will hold a hearing on Dec. 11 featuring Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

The IG report is expected out before the hearing on Wednesday December 11th.

And the deep state leakers are already at work informing their comrades in the liberal fake news media.

CNN reported today that one FBI official is under criminal investigation for altering surveillance documents on Carter Page.
This likely includes the FISA Court documents that allowed the Obama-Comey deep state to spy on candidate Trump and his family and campaign.

Attorney Sidney Powell weighed in.

CAP

According to CNN, one FBI official has already admitted to making the changes to the documentation.

CNN reported:

An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.

The finding is expected to be part of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the FBI’s effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. Horowitz will release the report next month.

Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.

It’s unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI’s investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

 

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

Welcome to the Schiff Show Trials! Greatest Farce on Earth – Smoke, Mirrors and Tears

CAP

Let the Show Trials Begin!

 

The Gateway Pundit will be following the Schiff public show trials this week.
Look for lots of smoke, mirrors and tears.

The New York Post wins the internet today…

Michael Goodwin in the Post: “Trickster Adam Schiff conjuring ‘guilt’ out of thin air”
Via The New York Post:

Scorned by the president as “Liddle Adam Schiff,” and “pencil neck” and “shifty Schiff,” he can taste revenge. To impeach Trump, even if it goes nowhere in the Senate, will make him a man of history and a hero to the millions of 2016 deniers.

But on what grounds will this great deed be consummated? While Schiff and his fellow travelers loudly declare Trump guilty, they’ve yet to settle on a charge that makes sense to the many millions of Americans who live outside a political hothouse.

Take the talking point that the president engaged in an improper quid pro quo by promising arms to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation of Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s $50,000-a-month cushy gig there. It has everything on its side except a clear set of facts.

Ukraine got the arms — arms Barack Obama refused to give — but Trump never got the Biden investigation or one into what role Ukraine played in 2016.

Either the master of “The Art of the Deal” got snookered or there was no deal in the first place. And if there was no deal, was the phone call with Ukraine’s president really improper? Was the temporary hold on the arms really a crime?

Indeed, the worst possible interpretation of the call still lacks the gravitas to bring down a president less than a year before an election. If you don’t hate Trump beyond all measure, watching the left’s outrage over this is like watching a TV program in a foreign language you don’t understand. You can pick up an occasional word, but ultimately, the whole thing is baffling.

The one sure thing is that deplorables and bitter clingers understand that the death penalty is not a fair sentence for jaywalking. Democrats who defended Bill Clinton’s perjury and sex in the Oval Office with an intern certainly should be able to relate.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑