The fact that Brit Hume could ask this proves that we trust too much in “experts”
Vindman claimed to be ‘deeply troubled’ by Trump’s effort to ‘subvert’ US foreign policy; however, then Brit Hume pointed out this ‘huge fallacy’
Brit Hume of Fox points out how the American public has become conditioned to unquestioningly accept the arguments of “experts” that the left-leaning press trots out — like the supposed “whistleblower” (as detailed in a 2 November 2019 Daily Caller article).
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reportedly “deeply troubled” by what he saw as President Donald Trump’s efforts to “subvert U.S. foreign policy,” but Fox News commentator Brit Hume pointed out a “huge fallacy” in that line of thinking.
“[Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen,” The Washington Post reported Friday, referring to the NSC official’s Tuesday impeachment inquiry testimony.
Hume, however, used Twitter to point out the fact that there is a “huge fallacy” in Vindman’s reasoning.
“Anyone know what it is?” Hume asked in the Saturday tweet.
The answer, as nearly every respondent to Hume’s tweet pointed out, is that it is the president himself who is tasked to set United States foreign policy.
(Read more at the Daily Caller)
Just because someone with scrambled eggs on his cap and ribbons on his chest voices opposition to a President, it doesn’t mean we don’t have to examine the situation
Vindman may have served honorably in the armed force. However, if he is trying to tamper with evidence (revise the transcripts to something that none of the transcriptionists heard), then we do not have to accept his word.
In the case of Vindman, in contradiction to what all transcriptionists heard, Vindman argued unsuccessfully to have the transcripts changed.
Three crippling facts about the lies promoted by the Democrats focused on impeachment
The Western Journal outlines how the call for impeachment came from one National Security staff employee and, based on that fact, exposes three crippling issues with the testimony.
On Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff’s super-secret committee heard testimony from the Democrats’ latest star witness — Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
But if Vindman’s opening statement is any indication, the impeachment narrative pushed by Schiff, the Democratic Party and the establishment media took another brutal shellacking.
Vindman, a career Army officer, Purple Heart recipient, and the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, appeared before Schiff’s kangaroo court — which included lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees as well — to discuss his “concerns” regarding President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Without a hint of irony, The New York Times reported Monday, ahead of his testimony, that Vindman “will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call.”
It should strike anyone as bizarre that it has taken over a month since the entire Trump-Ukraine “scandal” began for Schiff and company to finally get someone in the room who was actually on the call.
The intelligence community whistleblower who sparked the entire controversy wasn’t on the call. He just heard grousing from people who were.
Also, what the whistleblower reported was incorrect — and he or she submitted it around the time that the intelligence community whistleblower form was reportedly updated to — wait for it — allow submissions like theirs.
The whistleblower’s earliest memo regarding the call also relayed at least seven lies or pieces of misinformation (We compared that memo to the call transcript and counted ourselves) that did not at all correspond with the call transcript Trump shrewdly released.
Then, there were assorted other witnesses, including former, and now acting, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.
Taylor imploded on the stand in Schiff’s super-secret SCIF by confirming he could only offer hearsay and that Zelensky’s people didn’t even know of the much-ballyhooed suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine until after the much-ballyhooed July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky.
Now we come to Vindman, whose testimony anti-Trumpers everywhere were certain would prove Trump tried to execute a quid pro quo scenario with Zelensky.
Vindman, however, not only bombed in terms of helpfulness to the Democrats, but he also revealed four pieces of information — one of them extremely important — and effectively pulled a Tonya Harding on the quid pro quo narrative’s knees.
First, Vindman appears to have at least attempted to mislead the committee, claiming on page five of his pre-written opening statement that he “did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen.”
The only problem with that comment is that it’s predicated on a complete lie.
Trump didn’t demand anything during the call. Remember, it was Zelensky who urged Trump to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, and it was Zelensky who offered to investigate.
“We are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine,” Zelensky said during the call, adding, “I guarantee as the president of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.”
Whether Vindman was actually trying to mislead (which seems foolish given the transcript) or genuinely doesn’t recall the conversation he heard (which obviously presents other credibility problems), the net effect was not good for Democrats.
Second, Vindman took note of an earlier Trump-Zelensky call he sat on that took place on April 21, 2019.
During that call, Vindman claimed that “Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.”
That testimony undermines the idea that Zelensky’s invitation to the White House was predicated on him launching investigations into the Bidens, Burisma Holdings (where Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the board) and Crowdstrike.
Taylor helped undermine that Democratic chestnut when he confirmed the Ukrainians — and the general public — didn’t know about the aid freeze until August, after the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky.
Now, Vindman’s testimony makes the quid pro quo premise that much more unlikely by moving the date that the White House invitation was extended back to April 21.
If Trump invited Zelensky to the White House back in April with no strings attached, how could the White House visit been part of the alleged quid pro quo?
(Read more at the Western Journal)
To restate the third point, we need to elevate US national security above Democrat partisanship
To restate the third point made by the Western Journal commentator Josh Manning, we need to put national security above protecting politicians who take bribes on the side. National security needs to be ranked over the current liberal pet project of the day.
However, on the same note, the NSC should not be involved in an apparent attempt to frame the President in a set-up conversation.
Fishing: House Democrats impeachment lawyer suggests probe May Extend Beyond Ukraine
Breitbart reports in an 18 October 2019 article that House Democrats seem to be fishing for reasons to impeach the President.
House Democrats may extend the impeachment inquiry beyond U.S. President Donald Trump’s Ukraine-related activities, the general counsel behind the investigation recently indicated.
Democrats can impeach Trump even if his Ukraine-related actions are not criminal, Douglas Letter, the lawyer, argued before a federal judge last week.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) handpicked Letter in January to serve as the general counsel for the Democrat-led House of Representatives.
Since then, he has been at the center of strategizing the House Democrats’ impeachment fight against the president, CNN reported Thursday.
Letter does not talk to the press. CNN, however, quoted him as telling a federal judge last week that the impeachment probe may extend beyond Ukraine.
“I can’t emphasize enough: It’s not just Ukraine. If it’s criminal, but even if it’s not — President Trump can clearly be impeached if he was obstructing justice,” the lawyer reportedly said.
Letter also said that even simply lying to the American public could prompt impeachment. In the court proceeding, Letter was fighting on behalf of House Democrats to obtain the FBI memos from interviews with key White House witnesses that Robert Mueller conducted as part of his two-year probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether anyone from President Donald Trump’s campaign was involved.
The lawyer, who reportedly spent four decades at the U.S. Department of Justice, is reportedly working on behalf of House Democrats with a team of nine attorneys.
The impeachment probe is supposed to focus on determining whether Trump abused his power as president by withholding aid to Ukraine in a bid to get dirt on Joe Biden.
A “whistleblower’s” allegation that Trump made a quid pro quo offer to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a call on July 25 triggered the impeachment probe. The “whistleblower” claimed Trump demanded Zelensky’s cooperation in investigating Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for aid.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the leader of the probe, has also said, however, that there does not need to be a Ukraine-linked quid pro quo to impeach Trump.
House Democrats have accused President Trump of obstruction of justice for refusing to cooperate with their impeachment probe, particularly for not relinquishing documents.
Former President Barack Obama refused to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking information on his administration’s fatal gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. Nevertheless, neither Republicans nor Democrats sought to impeach him for it.
Under Fast and Furious, the Obama administration allowed criminals in Mexico to buy hundreds of guns. Some of the weapons were used to kill U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. They were also used to kill or wound an estimated 300 Mexicans.
(Read more at Breitbart)
Just as this blog has pointed out, certain Democrat members of Congress want to use any measure possible to remove their opposition
Maxine Waters has trumpeted her desire to impeach the President from November 2016. Al Green famously said as recently as May 2019:
I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected. If we don’t impeach him, he will say he’s been vindicated. He will say the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House and didn’t take up impeachment. He will say we had a constitutional duty to do and we didn’t. He will say he’s been vindicated.
I think we should do everything we can to make certain that every point Al Green made comes true. Otherwise, they might see it as an endorsement of their socialistic, baby-killing agenda.
The “whistleblower” is identified as a Democrat who worked with John Brennan and Joe Biden
Lifezette reported in a 31 October 2019 article on the previously-unknown “whistleblower” in the Democrat’s impeachment scheme.
The identity of the whistleblower behind the Ukraine hoax has reportedly been revealed as CIA officer Eric Ciaramella, a registered Democrat who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.
Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations identified the man suspected of initiating allegations against the president — allegations that resulted in today’s impeachment proceedings.
Attorneys for the whistleblower have, naturally, declined to confirm their client’s name.
“But,” Sperry wrote on Wednesday, “the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings.”
He indicated that Ciaramella’s identity was raised as well “in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry.”
Democrats all along have been very clearly shielding the whistleblower’s identity, claiming they were doing so because of concerns about his or her safety.
The media, who have no obligation to keep the name under wraps, have been obediently following the Democrat Party’s lead, in our view — to nobody’s surprise.
That very identity, however, seems to indicate the individual was being protected for more nefarious reasons.
Who he is and what he stands for undermines the resistance party’s efforts to portray the impeachment proceedings as anything other than a charade.
Ciaramella isn’t just a politically neutral and concerned citizen.
“Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan,” Sperry reported on Wednesday.
He added that the ardent Democrat is “a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia ‘collusion’ investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”
In other words — the man bears a striking resemblance to every single Democrat lawmaker pushing for impeachment right now.
Ciaramella is their golden boy and everything they are — as determined to undo the results of a presidential election as they were.
And that is why they tried hiding him from the public, as we see it.
As Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) pointed out, the outing of Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower calls into question the entire genesis of the drive to impeach President Donald Trump.
His motivations are well known to the intelligence community, if not the public.
“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” a former NSC official told RealClearInvestigations.
Ciaramella reportedly huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
“Guidance” is a suspect word — the true description should be “coaching.”
(Read more at Lifezette)
Odd that all of these socialists and their supporting cast have such close ties to Biden
Additionally, it is certainly odd how communists like Comey, Brennan, and Ciaramella all got together to work against Donald Trump.
Just like the Democrat’s Nuclear Option, House approves Democrat’s impeachment rules
The left-leaning Associated Press reports in a 21 October 2019 article how the Democrats again slit their own throats. Just as Democrats previously approved and then condemned the use of the “nuclear option,” the Democrats need to regret this subversion of due process.
Nonetheless, the Associated Press reported it as follows:
Democrats swept a rules package for their impeachment probe of President Donald Trump through a divided House, as the chamber’s first vote on the investigation highlighted the partisan breach the issue has only deepened.
By 232-196, lawmakers on Thursday approved the procedures they’ll follow as weeks of closed-door interviews with witnesses evolve into public committee hearings and — almost certainly — votes on whether the House should recommend Trump’s removal.
All voting Republicans opposed the package. Every voting Democrat but two supported it.
Underscoring the pressure Trump has heaped on his party’s lawmakers, he tweeted, “Now is the time for Republicans to stand together and defend the leader of their party against these smears.”
Yet the roll call also accentuated how Democrats have rallied behind the impeachment inquiry after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent months urging caution until evidence and public support had grown.
She and other Democratic leaders had feared a premature vote would wound the reelection prospects of dozens of their members, including freshmen and lawmakers from Trump-won districts or seats held previously by Republicans. But recent polls have shown voters’ growing receptivity to the investigation and, to a lesser degree, ousting Trump.
That and evidence that House investigators have amassed have helped unify Democrats, including those from GOP areas. Rep. Cindy Axne, D-Iowa, said she was supporting a pathway to giving “the American people the facts they deserve,” while Rep. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said voters warrant “the uninhibited truth.”
Yet Republicans were also buoyed by polling, which has shown that GOP voters stand unflinchingly behind Trump.
“The impeachment-obsessed Democrats just flushed their majority down the toilet,” said Michael McAdams, a spokesman for House Republicans’ campaign arm.
Elsewhere at the Capitol on Thursday, three House panels led by the Intelligence Committee questioned their latest witness into the allegations that led to the impeachment inquiry: that Trump pressured Ukraine to produce dirt on his Democratic political rivals by withholding military aid and an Oval Office meeting craved by the country’s new president.
Tim Morrison, who stepped down from the National Security Council the day before his appearance, testified — still behind closed doors — that he saw nothing illegal in Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president that is at the center of the Democrat-led investigation.
(Read more at the Associated Press)
Add to these rules, Adam Schiff blocks Republicans from being legally exposed
As reported at The Last Refuge and as shown in the below table. Alexander Vindman was available to attend and listen in to the conversation between the Presidents of the United States and the Ukraine.
Similarly, as reported by Sundance of The Last Refuge, it seems that Vindman did not exclusively wear his military uniform while executing his (Democrat, conniving) duties at the White House. (Yes, that is Vindman in the red oval below.)
I guess that the lawyers in Schiff’s office figure that a military uniform provides a certain level of respect that a gapping suit doesn’t.
Trump impeachment hearings must include Obama, Bidens
Tom Del Beccaro from Fox News argues that Republicans should start doing their jobs by calling witnesses close to the issue central to the impeachment narrative. Therefore, Republicans must call Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and other witnesses before Congress.
It’s official now. Democrats are careening toward the impeachment of a president and dragging the American people along with them. In today’s mass media age, it will consume this nation like few other events ever have.
I outlined a broader strategy for the GOP in my recent article for Fox News Opinion: “Republicans must win the impeachment trial – and they can by following these five steps.”
At this point, the formal House vote deprives the Republicans the right to subpoena witnesses without the permission of Adam Schiff – the man who has repeatedly lied to the American people. That is a stark departure from the procedure that was afforded the minority party under Nixon and Clinton.
If the Republicans are serious about winning this truly political fight, here are three witnesses they should demand be subpoenaed:
- Hunter Biden
- Joe Biden
- Barack Obama
Before we talk about them, you might ask the question: What is an impeachable offense?
The Constitution explicitly states: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That is the easy part when it comes to presidents. Treason and bribery are easily defined but “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are not.
Did those words refer to a president challenging a suspect law passed by a Congress seeking to determine who could serve in a president’s cabinet? In 1868, a Republican-dominated House of Representatives impeached Democratic President Andrew Johnson, with an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, for just that. The Senate, however, never convicted Johnson.
Johnson’s acts related to his exercise of official presidential powers. The Nixon impeachment proceedings started based on the ill-famed Watergate break-in and a subsequent cover-up. Nixon’s acts were a combination of private acts and executive power.
Bill Clinton you ask? Well, that was based on his perjurous statement to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice in a private lawsuit against him – largely private actions thought far too unfit for a president by the Republican House. The Senate did not convict Clinton either.
(Read more at Fox News)
Hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show
Joe Biden on the stand would be a Republican advertisement writer’s dream
Considering Joe’s propensity for gaffing, having him on the stand would be heaven on Earth for Trump’s advertisement team.
Republican PACs are already attacking vulnerable Democrats who voted for impeachment resolution
It seems that Fox News has observed some Republicans growing a spine as certain Republican political action committees have started attacking vulnerable Democrats who voted for impeachment.
House Democrats in red districts who voted for the House resolution setting rules for the Trump impeachment inquiry are already under attack after a political action committee dedicated to boosting Republicans launched a digital ad campaign Thursday.
The Congressional Leadership Fund said in a statement that it had targeted 29 vulnerable Democrats with ads that will appear when constituents search for impeachment-related terms online. Those ads will redirect to a website with a petition titled: “Tell your member of Congress: Stop Impeachment Now!”
“The Democrats are so blinded by their personal hatred of President Trump that they’re willing to sacrifice all work on the issues voters care about, just to have one last shot at removing him from office to avenge their 2016 loss,” said CLF President Dan Conston. “Now that they’ve cast their votes in favor of marching headfirst into impeachment, vulnerable Democrats have shown voters there is zero difference whatsoever between them and the radical leftists fighting tooth and nail to impeach this president.”
The House of Representatives passed a resolution Thursday setting rules for the public phase of the impeachment inquiry Democrats have been pursuing into President Trump. A complaint from an anonymous whistleblower and testimony from other administration officials has indicated that Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to open investigations that would be politically beneficial to his 2020 reelection campaign — notably into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter — while withholding nearly $400 billion in military aid.
Democrats and others have accused Trump of trying to use the aid as leverage to get Ukraine to deliver the investigations. Trump and his defenders have said there was no quid-pro-quo — aid for investigations — with Trump describing a July 25 phone call in which he discussed the investigations, but not the aid, with Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelensky as “perfect.”
Conor Lamb, D-Pa., who won his seat in a competitive 2018 special election, is one of the higher-profile Democrats targeted by the campaign. On Thursday, he said his vote for the impeachment rules resolution was simply to establish rules for the investigation and that he had not yet made up his mind if he would vote to impeach Trump.
“This resolution sets the rules for the upcoming hearings. I believe everyone benefits from clear rules, so I voted yes. I have not made any decision about impeachment, nor will I until all the evidence is in,” he said in a statement. “I do believe that Russia is a major threat to the United States in Ukraine and around the world, and our oath requires us to put our country first, always.”
The CLF provided an example of what one of the ads would look like with a screenshot of one ad aimed at Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y. It appears as a search result with a hyperlink that reads, “Anthony Brindisi | Just Voted For Impeachment | He’s with Radical Dems Not Us.”
(Read more at Fox News)
There are many more new and old Democrats who need to be voted out
In the Houston area, there is lying Lizzie Fletcher, who promised she would work for the business community and said that she would not be Nancy Pelosi’s rubber stamp (even though her campaign was financed by Pelosi). Lizzie needs to answer for her inaction and for her lies.
Clinton-Obama emails sought by Sen. Ron Johnson amid Democrats’ impeachment inquiry
Now we find that Fox News has observed that Ron Johnson has begun seeking certain certain Clinton-Obama emails amid the impeachment inquisition.
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson on Thursday formally sought “all email communications” between Hillary Clinton and former President Obama, saying the Justice Department was blocking their release — even though they could shed light on whether the former secretary of state discussed sensitive matters on her unsecured personal email system while she was overseas.
Johnson’s letter came as House Democrats approved procedures for their impeachment inquiry against President Trump, warning he may have endangered U.S. national security by allegedly withholding aid to Ukraine for political reasons. Earlier this month, a State Department report into Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business found dozens of people at fault and hundreds of security violations.
In a letter to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Johnson, R-Wis., said summer 2016 communications from FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok to FBI Director James Comey’s Chief of Staff James Rybicki hinted at the existence of the Clinton-Obama messages that were relevant to the issues raised by her private server.
Johnson noted that on June 28, 2016, a week before Comey’s public statement declaring that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Clinton, Strzok wrote, “Jim – I have the POTUS – HRC emails [Director Comey] requested at end of briefing yesterday. I hesitate to leave them, please let me know a convenient time to drop them off.”
“I write to request email communications between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama,” Johnson wrote, setting a deadline of Nov. 14, 2019. “In January 2018, I requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) produce emails Secretary Clinton sent to President Obama while she was located in the ‘territory of a sophisticated adversary.'”
He added: “Given that DOJ acknowledged that they ‘are not in a position’ to produce emails to the committee that contain ‘equities of other executive branch entities,’ I ask that, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, you please provide all email communications between Secretary Clinton and President Obama.”
A May 2016 email from Strzok, obtained by Fox News last year, said “we know foreign actors obtained access” to some Clinton emails, including at least one “secret” message “via compromises of the private email accounts” of Clinton staffers. However, last year, the DOJ watchdog slammed Comey for speculating publicly that Clinton’s emails had been hacked by foreign actors.
Interviews with intelligence community officials released this past August indicated that senior FBI leaders “seemed indifferent to evidence of a possible intrusion by a foreign adversary” into Clinton’s non-government email server, and that State Department officials allegedly sought to “downgrade classified material found on the server,” according to Senate investigators probing the matter.
(Read more at Fox News)
The more about Democrat corruption that comes out, the better
We can only hope that this drags out until the months before the election.
Bolton will not voluntarily testify, says his lawyer
The Hill reports in a 31 October 2019 article that former Obama-era ambassador John Bolton will not testify unless he receives a subpoena.
Former national security adviser John Bolton will not appear voluntarily to testify in connection with the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
Bolton’s attorney Chuck Cooper told The Hill in an email late Wednesday that Bolton would not appear voluntarily and would need to be subpoenaed.
House Democrats have issued subpoenas to several witnesses in order to compel their testimony amid efforts by the White House to prevent their appearance. The White House has refused to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, describing it as illegitimate and an attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.
House investigators on Wednesday invited Bolton, who was dramatically ousted as Trump’s third national security adviser in September, to testify at a deposition on Nov. 7, next week.
It is not clear whether a subpoena will be enough to compel his appearance. Charles Kupperman, former deputy national security adviser, filed a lawsuit on Friday asking a federal court to weigh in on whether he should obey a subpoena to testify or instructions from the White House against cooperating, describing himself as caught between two competing branches of government.
I’m not sure whether Bolton is playing Brier Rabbit or he has done something
Either which way, we should give this guy the treatment that those who would undermine our government would deserve.