WATCH: Journalist Caught Spying on Congressional Papers During Impeachment Hearing Recess

The fake news got caught red handed.

By Shane Trejo

During an adjournment of today’s impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, a member of the fake news media can be seen taking photographs of potentially sensitive intelligence.

Capitol police stood nearby and did nothing as this journalist photographed Congressional papers related to the ongoing Democrat-led witch hunt against President Trump.

The dastardly deed was caught on video and can be seen here:

A final vote on the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump could come as early as Thursday night, as the House Judiciary Committee continues to argue about the language within the articles.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) proposed an amendment for the following language to be inserted into the articles of impeachment regarding foreign aid released to Ukraine: “The aid was released within days of Ukrainian President Zelenskiy signing two major anti-corruption measures into law, convincing President Trump that the new Ukrainian administration was serious about reform measures, and consistent with Administration policy to ensure foreign aid is not used for corrupt purposes.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) proposed that “Joe Biden” be replaced with “Burisma and Hunter Biden” in his proposed amendment to the article of impeachment referencing President Trump’s supposed abuse of power.

“This amendment strikes the reference to Joe Biden as the center of the proposed investigation and replaces it with the true topic of the investigation: Burisma and Hunter Biden,” Gaetz said in reference to the Ukrainian gas firm that once paid off the former vice president’s son.

“An essential element of the Democrats’ case on abuse of power is that the Bidens did nothing wrong. It can only be an abuse of power and not a correct use of power if the president was pursuing something under which there was no reasonable basis to ask a question about Hunter Biden and Burisma,” he added.

“Working for some foreign government while your dad’s the vice president of the United States. Is there anyone who believes this is OK?” Gaetz continued.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) tore into Article 1 , which claims that the President tried to coerce the Ukrainian government into subverting an election.

“This strikes Article 1 because Article 1 ignores the truth. Four facts, five meetings. We’ve known there have been four facts that have not changed, will not change, will never change and we’ve known it since September 25th when the call transcript was released,” Jordan says. “It shows no quid pro quo. What’s interesting is the day the transcript came out, even chairman Nadler said there was no quid pro quo in the transcript,” Jordan said.

“Article 1 in this resolution ignores the truth, the facts. It ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the American people over the last three weeks. So I hope that this committee will come to its senses, that it will adopt the amendment and strike article 1 from the resolution,” he added.

President Trump is also hammering Congressional Democrats for lying about what he said in his transcript with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy:

CAP

The impeachment farce is going very poorly for Democrats, which may be why they have their fake news goons collecting intel.

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.

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.

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.

 

Vindman Testified Earlier That He DID NOT Know the Identity of the Whistleblower But Nunes Just Caught Him (VIDEO)

 

On Tuesday NSC leaker Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams testified on day 3 of the Adam Schiff Show Trial.

Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) straight up asked Vindman if he discussed the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call with anyone outside of the White House.

Vindman testified on Tuesday that he spoke two people about Trump’s call to Zelensky — George Kent, a State Department employee and ‘someone in the intelligence community’ about Trump’s phone call — Vindman would not name the second person.

House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) quickly interjected when Nunes began to drill down to find out which agency this second anonymous person worked for.

Schiff said he wanted to “protect the whistleblower” and wouldn’t let Vindman answer.

Nunes then pointed out that Vindman previously testified in a closed-door deposition that he DID NOT know the identity of the whistleblower and if that were true then how would he know to keep the second person’s name private?

WATCH:

Vindman testified behind closed doors recently that he has no idea who the whistleblower is.

“I want the committee to know I am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee’s attention. I do not know who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower,” Vindman previously said under oath.

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Secrity and Governmental Affairs Ron Johnson (R-WI) blasted Lt. Col Vindman in an 11-page letter written to ranking member of the House Intel Committee Devin Nunes and Rep. Jim Jordan and accused Vindman of illegally leaking contents of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky.

Suspicions are growing on The Hill that Lt. Col Alexander Vindman was also the source of leak of the suspension of US aid story published by far-left Politico in August.

Republicans Laugh at Schiff’s Outrageous Claim He Doesn’t Know Name of “Whistleblower”

 

Republicans House Members in the room for Wednesday’s Intelligence Committee public impeachment inquiry hearing laughed when committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) claimed he does not know the name of the whistleblower whose anonymous second-hand claim of misconduct by President Trump with regard to Ukraine instigated the partisan impeachment process by Democrats.

The reaction by Republicans was reported by Alex Miller of Newsy, “Schiff says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower, entire front row of republicans laugh.”

CAP

Axios reporter Alayna Treene reported Republicans laughed and sneered, “Republican members of Congress in the audience laughed & sneered to each other when Schiff said this”

CAP

Schiff’s dubious claim (falsely reported as a “fact check”) was also challenged online by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), “In response to @Jim_Jordan, Adam Schiff claims he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower. If he doesn’t know their identity, how will he prevent them from being named?”

CAP

Daily Mail reporter David Martosko, “Adam Schiff claims he doesn’t know the identity of the Ukraine whistle-blower. How is this possible? His staff met with the person.”

CAP

Trump War Room co-host Raheem Kassam noted problems with Schiff’s denial, “Schiff says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower, despite his staff being in contact with the whistleblower. Ok, but if he doesn’t know the identity, how can he as the Intel Chairman stop the whistleblower being named? And how is the name being redacted in docs?”

CAP

Presumably Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was one of those laughing at Schiff from his front row seat.

CAP

Unfortunately, Gohmert and his fellow Congressmen were placed by Schiff in “Bob Uecker” front row seats in the back of the room behind the media.

Intel Committee Republicans set up a sign on their side of the dais that said, “93 days since Adam Schiff learned the identity of the whistleblower.

CAP

Chairman Mao Tse Schiff is not amused.

CAP

“And You’re Their Star Witness?” – BOOM! Jim Jordan RIPS TO SHREDS Schiff’s Star Witness Anti-Trumper Ambassador Taylor (VIDEO)

 

“I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this!”

— Rep. Jim Jordan.

BOOM! Jim Jordan just destroyed Schiff’s star witness Ambassador Taylor.

OMG! SOOOOOO GOOD!

Jim Jordan got Ambassador Taylor to admit that everything he has said in his testimony is based on second-hand, third-hand and fourth-hand information!

Pelosi Faces Tough Decision On Formal Impeachment Vote As Case Against Trump Comes Under Pressure

By Tyler Durden

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is in a tough spot. After caving in to pressure from her party to launch an impeachment inquiry based on a CIA ‘whistleblower’ report that Trump abused his office to pressure Ukraine into investigating 2020 rival Joe Biden, Pelosi must now decide on whether to proceed with a formal vote amid mounting evidence that Trump did nothing wrong. 

Trump has pushed for a vote – which would allow Republicans to issue subpoenas, as well as grant the White House the ability to cross-examine witnesses. To that end, the White House outlined in a Tuesday letter that they will refuse to cooperate with an inquiry that is “invalid” due to Pelosi’s refusal to make it official.

“Never before in our history has the House of Representatives — under the control of either political party — taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

When asked on Wednesday if he would cooperate with Pelosi’s impeachment inquiry, Trump told reporters “we would if they give us our rights, it depends.” 

Pelosi, meanwhile, says the effort to force a vote is nothing more than a “Republican talking point.” 

“If we want to do it, we’ll do it. If we don’t, we don’t. But we’re certainly not going to do it because of the president,” said Pelosi in an interview last week with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

A decision whether to call the president’s bluff is likely to be a main topic when Pelosi convenes a conference call with House Democrats at the end of the week. Representative Dan Kildee of Michigan, one of the leadership’s vote counters, said Democrats could easily pass a resolution authorizing the impeachment inquiry with as many as 230 votes.

With the White House vowing to block any cooperation, Pelosi is scheduled to hold the conference call on Friday to chart the next steps. The committees conducting the investigation have already issued a salvo of subpoenas for testimony or records directed at administration officials such as Secretary of State Michael Pompeo as well as Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. –Bloomberg

“We continue investigating and digging to uncover more of the truth. Nothing has changed,” said Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne on Wednesday, adding that Democrats have yet to settle on legal or tactical responses to the White House letter.

Pushback

House Republicans led by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California have been “using ads, press releases and other efforts to hammer Democratic House members from GOP-leaning districts over impeachment,” according to Bloomberg.

Trump and Republicans also have complained about the fairness of the process, citing closed-door hearings, and what they say are limitations by committee Republicans to subpoena their own rebuttal witnesses, or for the White House to have legal counsel in the room during depositions. –Bloomberg

According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “If Democrats were interested in fairness, they would follow the same process as previous impeachment proceedings. Instead, they just make up the rules as they go along.” 

Quid Pro Nope

The House impeachment inquiry was launched after a CIA officer reported that President Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter for alleged corruption.

After Democrats uncritically launched their impeachment inquiry based on the initial whistleblower report, the White House upset their strategy – releasing a transcript of the call between Zelensky and Trump and the whistleblower complaint itself – plain readings of which reveal that Trump did not threaten, pressure or suggest a quid pro quo in exchange for a Biden investigation. Furthermore, Zelensky himself has said as much.

So as the case against Trump continues to unravel, Pelosi and the Democrats have some tough decisions to make as we head into the 2020 election.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑