Home
Portal
Gallery
Register
Log inWho is online?
In total there are 78 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 78 Guests :: 1 BotNone
Most users ever online was 721 on Wed 10 Jul 2024, 7:14 am
Latest topics
BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Page 3 of 3 • 
1, 2, 3
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Wed 04 Dec 2019, 3:45 pm
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/news-alert/adam-schiff-mercilessly-mocked-by-white-house.htm
Adam Schiff mercilessly mocked by White House
December 3, 2019
Adam Schiff has made a reputation for himself as an uptight, grim-faced authoritarian in the impeachment hearings.
This, of course, has made him fair game for anyone with a sense of humor. And the White House is taking advantage.
After releasing the impeachment report from the Intelligence Committee, Schiff was roasted by White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.
“Basement blogger”
“Chairman Schiff’s report reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing,” wrote Grisham.
She continued:
“At the end of a one-sided sham process, Chairman Schiff and the Democrats utterly failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump. This report reflects nothing more than their frustrations.”
Schiff’s report was a rambling 300 words. It remains to be seen whether any of his theories will gain traction with the public.
Adam Schiff mercilessly mocked by White House
December 3, 2019
Adam Schiff has made a reputation for himself as an uptight, grim-faced authoritarian in the impeachment hearings.
This, of course, has made him fair game for anyone with a sense of humor. And the White House is taking advantage.
After releasing the impeachment report from the Intelligence Committee, Schiff was roasted by White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.
“Basement blogger”
“Chairman Schiff’s report reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing,” wrote Grisham.
She continued:
“At the end of a one-sided sham process, Chairman Schiff and the Democrats utterly failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump. This report reflects nothing more than their frustrations.”
Schiff’s report was a rambling 300 words. It remains to be seen whether any of his theories will gain traction with the public.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Sun 01 Dec 2019, 9:45 pm
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/conservative-news/pelosi-caved-on-impeachment.htm
Pelosi caved on impeachment because she’s ‘at risk of losing her speakership,’ says GOP Rep. Brooks
November 29, 2019
According to one Alabama Republican, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has no desire to impeach President Trump. However, she is being forced to do so against her better judgment because her speakership position is at risk.
That’s the opinion of Rep. Mo Brooks, who made the claim during an episode of The Jeff Poor Show.
“[B]ear in mind, Nancy Pelosi did not want to go through this process unless there was bipartisan support for it,” Brooks told Poor.
He went on: “She made plenty of public statements last year to that effect. But she is at risk of losing her speakership because Nancy Pelosi, believe it or not, is considered to be too conservative by the majority of the members of the Democratic conference in the House of Representatives.”
Pelosi’s predicament
“That put her in a very perplexing position,” Brooks said. “Ultimately, she yielded to her far-left wing. And we are where are because of that.”
It’s no secret that far-left members of Pelosi’s caucus have both long supported impeachment and chaffed under her leadership.
One of them is “Squad” member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). On election night in 2018, Tlaib pledged to “impeach the motherf*****” and later began marketing t-shirts bearing that slogan.
“Lean in with me to hold this lawless President accountable. Together, we will fight back and protect our democracy,” Tlaib said in a tweet advertising the shirts.
Looking forward
Meanwhile, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) isn’t satisfied with just removing President Trump: in September she introduced an impeachment resolution against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, according to USA Today.
“I believe Christine Blasey Ford. I believe Deborah Ramirez. It is our responsibility to collectively affirm the dignity and humanity of survivors,” Pressley said in a statement. “We must demand justice for survivors and hold Kavanaugh accountable for his actions.”
But while impeachment may be popular among the more radical members of Congress, much of the public seems less enthused.
A recent survey published by Emerson Polling found that support for impeaching Trump “has flipped since October” with 45% now opposed, compared to 43% who are in favor. It also noted that “the biggest swing is among Independents” — a group that Democrats need to win over if they hope to succeed next year.
Pelosi caved on impeachment because she’s ‘at risk of losing her speakership,’ says GOP Rep. Brooks
November 29, 2019
According to one Alabama Republican, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has no desire to impeach President Trump. However, she is being forced to do so against her better judgment because her speakership position is at risk.
That’s the opinion of Rep. Mo Brooks, who made the claim during an episode of The Jeff Poor Show.
“[B]ear in mind, Nancy Pelosi did not want to go through this process unless there was bipartisan support for it,” Brooks told Poor.
He went on: “She made plenty of public statements last year to that effect. But she is at risk of losing her speakership because Nancy Pelosi, believe it or not, is considered to be too conservative by the majority of the members of the Democratic conference in the House of Representatives.”
Pelosi’s predicament
“That put her in a very perplexing position,” Brooks said. “Ultimately, she yielded to her far-left wing. And we are where are because of that.”
It’s no secret that far-left members of Pelosi’s caucus have both long supported impeachment and chaffed under her leadership.
One of them is “Squad” member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). On election night in 2018, Tlaib pledged to “impeach the motherf*****” and later began marketing t-shirts bearing that slogan.
“Lean in with me to hold this lawless President accountable. Together, we will fight back and protect our democracy,” Tlaib said in a tweet advertising the shirts.
Looking forward
Meanwhile, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) isn’t satisfied with just removing President Trump: in September she introduced an impeachment resolution against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, according to USA Today.
“I believe Christine Blasey Ford. I believe Deborah Ramirez. It is our responsibility to collectively affirm the dignity and humanity of survivors,” Pressley said in a statement. “We must demand justice for survivors and hold Kavanaugh accountable for his actions.”
But while impeachment may be popular among the more radical members of Congress, much of the public seems less enthused.
A recent survey published by Emerson Polling found that support for impeaching Trump “has flipped since October” with 45% now opposed, compared to 43% who are in favor. It also noted that “the biggest swing is among Independents” — a group that Democrats need to win over if they hope to succeed next year.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Sun 01 Dec 2019, 3:36 pm
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/conservative-news/the-idea-was-to.htm
‘The idea was to get rid of me’: Justice Thomas says Biden-led confirmation fight was about abortion
November 29, 2019
PBS is scheduled to release a documentary about Justice Clarence Thomas in May. In it, not only will we get an inside look at one of the most private members of the United States Supreme Court, a true rarity, but we will also get to hear Thomas speak about his controversial confirmation to the High Court.
Reflecting on this turbulent event, in which he was accused of sexual misconduct, Thomas revealed why he believes the likes of Joe Biden, who at the time led the Judiciary Committee, brought this baseless claim forward. For Democrats like Biden, Thomas says that he was just “the wrong black guy” for the job — not because of sexual misconduct, but because of his conservative beliefs about abortion, the Washington Examiner reports.
Candid as always
Thomas’s confirmation recently came back into the spotlight during the most recent Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. For those old enough to remember Thomas’ 1991 confirmation, Kavanaugh’s must have seemed like deja vu: both men were baselessly accused of sexual misconduct by the Democrats during the confirmation hearings, an obvious ply to keep conservatives off of the bench.
The similarities go deeper than that. Democrats really seemed to fear the same thing in both cases: that Thomas and more recently Kavanaugh would help the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. To Thomas, this was made clear by Biden’s line of questioning during his 1991 confirmation.
“I have no idea what he [Biden] was talking about,” says Thomas in the documentary, which was previewed by Time magazine. “I understood what he was trying to do. I didn’t really appreciate it. Natural law was nothing more than a way of tricking me into talking about abortion.
“Most of my opponents on the judiciary committee cared about only one thing: How would I rule on abortion rights,” Thomas continued. “You really didn’t matter, and your life didn’t matter. What mattered is what they wanted and what they wanted was this particular issue.”
“The wrong black guy”
Thomas says that the sexual abuse allegations from Anita Hill, which he has always vehemently denied, were just a means to an end, designed to keep him off the Supreme Court — just as Republicans now believe that the allegations from Christine Blasey Ford were designed to keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed.
“Do I have like stupid written on the back of my shirt?” Thomas asks in the documentary. “I mean come on. We know what this is all about.”
Thomas went on to explain, saying: “People should just tell the truth: ‘This is the wrong black guy; he has to be destroyed.’ Just say it. Then now we’re at least honest with each other. The idea was to get rid of me. And then, after I was there, it was to undermine me.”
Thankfully, Democrats have failed on both accounts.
Biden responds
Biden’s campaign team has released a statement in response, saying: “Then-Senator Biden voted against Clarence Thomas in the Senate Judiciary Committee, he argued against him on the Senate floor, and he voted against his confirmation to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. It is no surprise that Justice Thomas does not have a positive view of him.”
This response, of course, fails to address Thomas’ criticism that Biden and other Democrats underhandedly attacked Thomas with a sexual misconduct allegation because of his beliefs on abortion.
‘The idea was to get rid of me’: Justice Thomas says Biden-led confirmation fight was about abortion
November 29, 2019
PBS is scheduled to release a documentary about Justice Clarence Thomas in May. In it, not only will we get an inside look at one of the most private members of the United States Supreme Court, a true rarity, but we will also get to hear Thomas speak about his controversial confirmation to the High Court.
Reflecting on this turbulent event, in which he was accused of sexual misconduct, Thomas revealed why he believes the likes of Joe Biden, who at the time led the Judiciary Committee, brought this baseless claim forward. For Democrats like Biden, Thomas says that he was just “the wrong black guy” for the job — not because of sexual misconduct, but because of his conservative beliefs about abortion, the Washington Examiner reports.
Candid as always
Thomas’s confirmation recently came back into the spotlight during the most recent Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. For those old enough to remember Thomas’ 1991 confirmation, Kavanaugh’s must have seemed like deja vu: both men were baselessly accused of sexual misconduct by the Democrats during the confirmation hearings, an obvious ply to keep conservatives off of the bench.
The similarities go deeper than that. Democrats really seemed to fear the same thing in both cases: that Thomas and more recently Kavanaugh would help the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. To Thomas, this was made clear by Biden’s line of questioning during his 1991 confirmation.
“I have no idea what he [Biden] was talking about,” says Thomas in the documentary, which was previewed by Time magazine. “I understood what he was trying to do. I didn’t really appreciate it. Natural law was nothing more than a way of tricking me into talking about abortion.
“Most of my opponents on the judiciary committee cared about only one thing: How would I rule on abortion rights,” Thomas continued. “You really didn’t matter, and your life didn’t matter. What mattered is what they wanted and what they wanted was this particular issue.”
“The wrong black guy”
Thomas says that the sexual abuse allegations from Anita Hill, which he has always vehemently denied, were just a means to an end, designed to keep him off the Supreme Court — just as Republicans now believe that the allegations from Christine Blasey Ford were designed to keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed.
“Do I have like stupid written on the back of my shirt?” Thomas asks in the documentary. “I mean come on. We know what this is all about.”
Thomas went on to explain, saying: “People should just tell the truth: ‘This is the wrong black guy; he has to be destroyed.’ Just say it. Then now we’re at least honest with each other. The idea was to get rid of me. And then, after I was there, it was to undermine me.”
Thankfully, Democrats have failed on both accounts.
Biden responds
Biden’s campaign team has released a statement in response, saying: “Then-Senator Biden voted against Clarence Thomas in the Senate Judiciary Committee, he argued against him on the Senate floor, and he voted against his confirmation to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. It is no surprise that Justice Thomas does not have a positive view of him.”
This response, of course, fails to address Thomas’ criticism that Biden and other Democrats underhandedly attacked Thomas with a sexual misconduct allegation because of his beliefs on abortion.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Sun 01 Dec 2019, 3:35 pm
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/29/kildee-impeachment-opinions-have-changed-marginally-among-my-constituents/
Democrat congressman admits public opinion moving away from Dems, impeachment
November 30, 2019
Sometimes CNN asks one of those questions that they really wish they could take back. That happened last week on CNN’s “OutFront,” when they asked Representative Dan Kildee (D-MI) about impeachment.
“I think it’s changed marginally. The president clearly still has a strong base that is with him, 40, 43%, whatever it might be,” Kildee said.
Kildee is right. The President’s base is standing up for fairness and for the truth. And conservatives will not be moved by the lies and half-truths peddled in rigged committee hearings run by partisan Democrats.
But that hasn’t stopped Democrats. They are charging forward with impeachment. They hope they can dirty-up Trump leading into the 2020 election and damage his re-election efforts.
As for Kildee, he isn’t being swayed. He wants to take out Trump no matter what. “But I have been saying from the beginning,” he continued, “the polls are interesting in this case, but we don’t poll test the Constitution.”
Peddling conspiracy theories about Ukraine, Kildee insinuated that Republicans didn’t have the courage to impeach and remove Trump. He even suggested that their children might be ashamed of them.
This is the kind of dishonesty and nastiness we’ve all come to expect from Congress. And that is why the polls are moving so hard against the Democrats.
Read the full story here.
Democrat congressman admits public opinion moving away from Dems, impeachment
November 30, 2019
Sometimes CNN asks one of those questions that they really wish they could take back. That happened last week on CNN’s “OutFront,” when they asked Representative Dan Kildee (D-MI) about impeachment.
“I think it’s changed marginally. The president clearly still has a strong base that is with him, 40, 43%, whatever it might be,” Kildee said.
Kildee is right. The President’s base is standing up for fairness and for the truth. And conservatives will not be moved by the lies and half-truths peddled in rigged committee hearings run by partisan Democrats.
But that hasn’t stopped Democrats. They are charging forward with impeachment. They hope they can dirty-up Trump leading into the 2020 election and damage his re-election efforts.
As for Kildee, he isn’t being swayed. He wants to take out Trump no matter what. “But I have been saying from the beginning,” he continued, “the polls are interesting in this case, but we don’t poll test the Constitution.”
Peddling conspiracy theories about Ukraine, Kildee insinuated that Republicans didn’t have the courage to impeach and remove Trump. He even suggested that their children might be ashamed of them.
This is the kind of dishonesty and nastiness we’ve all come to expect from Congress. And that is why the polls are moving so hard against the Democrats.
Read the full story here.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Wed 27 Nov 2019, 7:08 pm
Impeachment trial should be dismissed, says Mark Levin
November 26, 2019
Senate Republicans have talked a big game recently about the possibility of a Senate trial of President Trump.
But for Mark Levin, that talk is unwise. Levin put Republicans on notice – impeachment should be dismissed by the Senate right away, with no trial.
Levin made the comments on Breitbart News Daily, with host Alex Marlow.
Levin noted:
“Our problem is to make sure the Senate is strong enough. You’ve got some weak sisters in there in [Susan Collins] and [Lisa Murkowski], you’ve got [Mitt Romney]. [Senate Republicans] have a very thin line. You’ve got McConnell — who other than judges — has shown himself to be terrible, and our friend Lindsey Graham, who talks a good game, but his actions are less so. So we’ve got our own weaknesses in the Senate.”
He then continued to the crux of his argument:
“This is why I disagree with the president and others who are saying, ‘I want a trial [in the Senate].’ My concern about that is, the motion to dismiss is perfectly legitimate in any other form. It ought to be legitimate here but for the fact that McConnell refuses to change the rules, or he doesn’t have the votes to change the rules.”
These are legitimate arguments to make. As tempting as it might be to force Adam Schiff and the whistleblower to testify in front of the nation, the potential downside is high.
Read the full story here. https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/11/25/mark-levin-senate-should-make-effort-to-dismiss-impeachment-trial/
November 26, 2019
Senate Republicans have talked a big game recently about the possibility of a Senate trial of President Trump.
But for Mark Levin, that talk is unwise. Levin put Republicans on notice – impeachment should be dismissed by the Senate right away, with no trial.
Levin made the comments on Breitbart News Daily, with host Alex Marlow.
Levin noted:
“Our problem is to make sure the Senate is strong enough. You’ve got some weak sisters in there in [Susan Collins] and [Lisa Murkowski], you’ve got [Mitt Romney]. [Senate Republicans] have a very thin line. You’ve got McConnell — who other than judges — has shown himself to be terrible, and our friend Lindsey Graham, who talks a good game, but his actions are less so. So we’ve got our own weaknesses in the Senate.”
He then continued to the crux of his argument:
“This is why I disagree with the president and others who are saying, ‘I want a trial [in the Senate].’ My concern about that is, the motion to dismiss is perfectly legitimate in any other form. It ought to be legitimate here but for the fact that McConnell refuses to change the rules, or he doesn’t have the votes to change the rules.”
These are legitimate arguments to make. As tempting as it might be to force Adam Schiff and the whistleblower to testify in front of the nation, the potential downside is high.
Read the full story here. https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/11/25/mark-levin-senate-should-make-effort-to-dismiss-impeachment-trial/
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Wed 27 Nov 2019, 1:13 pm
House Judiciary Committee Invites Trump to Testify in First Impeachment Hearing
4,808
(INSET: Donald Trump) House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) speaks during a news conference, on Capitol Hill to highlight the MORE Act (Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act) legislation in Washington, DC on November 19, 2019. (Photo by Olivier Douliery / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty, Mark Wilson/Getty
JOSHUA CAPLAN26 Nov 20194,043
2:25
The House Judiciary Committee announced Tuesday that the panel will hold its inaugural impeachment hearing next week and has invited President Donald Trump to testify.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said the December 4 hearing, called the “the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment,” is expected to feature legal experts weighing on purported evidence of President Trump committing impeachable offenses during his July 25 telephone call with the leader of Ukraine.
Dan Friedman
@dfriedman33
Nadler announces first Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing and tells Trump he can participate. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/2019-11-26%20JN%20Ltr%20to%20White%20House.pdf …
View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
62
7:00 PM - Nov 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
58 people are talking about this
In a whistleblower complaint, a partisan CIA officer mischaracterized President Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, alleging the president pressured the European leader to investigate allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in exchange for U.S. military aid. The White House countered this framing of the call with a transcript of the conversation showing neither Trump nor Zelensky tying the potential investigation to the aid money.
House Judiciary Dems
@HouseJudiciary
Judiciary Committee Schedules Impeachment Hearing for December 4
View image on Twitter
339
7:44 PM - Nov 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
274 people are talking about this
Nadler’s announcement comes after the House Intelligence Committee held a series of public hearings on impeachment. The House Democrats’ decision to shift inquiry into the public view came after weeks of pressure from Republicans, who accused House intelligence panel chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) of conducting closed-door depositions in a bid to selectively leak witnesses’ transcripts to the media to boost the public’s approval of impeachment.
During last week’s high-stakes hearings, several witnesses testified that they believe no “quid pro quo” occurred on the Trump-Zelensky call, with the exception of U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland, who claimed the contrary. However, in a significant exchange with Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), Sondland confirmed nobody told him that the president sought to tie the aid to an investigation into the Bidens.
Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) requested documents from the State Department as part of an effort to illuminate former vice president Joe Biden’s role in the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who at the time, was probing into Burisma Holdings — the Ukrainian gas firm where Hunter Biden was paid up to $83,000 per month as a board member while his father was in the White House.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/26/house-judiciary-committee-invites-trump-to-testify-in-first-impeachment-hearing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191126&utm_content=Final
4,808
(INSET: Donald Trump) House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) speaks during a news conference, on Capitol Hill to highlight the MORE Act (Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act) legislation in Washington, DC on November 19, 2019. (Photo by Olivier Douliery / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty, Mark Wilson/Getty
JOSHUA CAPLAN26 Nov 20194,043
2:25
The House Judiciary Committee announced Tuesday that the panel will hold its inaugural impeachment hearing next week and has invited President Donald Trump to testify.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said the December 4 hearing, called the “the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment,” is expected to feature legal experts weighing on purported evidence of President Trump committing impeachable offenses during his July 25 telephone call with the leader of Ukraine.
Dan Friedman
@dfriedman33
Nadler announces first Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing and tells Trump he can participate. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/2019-11-26%20JN%20Ltr%20to%20White%20House.pdf …
View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
62
7:00 PM - Nov 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
58 people are talking about this
In a whistleblower complaint, a partisan CIA officer mischaracterized President Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, alleging the president pressured the European leader to investigate allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in exchange for U.S. military aid. The White House countered this framing of the call with a transcript of the conversation showing neither Trump nor Zelensky tying the potential investigation to the aid money.
House Judiciary Dems
@HouseJudiciary
Judiciary Committee Schedules Impeachment Hearing for December 4
View image on Twitter
339
7:44 PM - Nov 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
274 people are talking about this
Nadler’s announcement comes after the House Intelligence Committee held a series of public hearings on impeachment. The House Democrats’ decision to shift inquiry into the public view came after weeks of pressure from Republicans, who accused House intelligence panel chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) of conducting closed-door depositions in a bid to selectively leak witnesses’ transcripts to the media to boost the public’s approval of impeachment.
During last week’s high-stakes hearings, several witnesses testified that they believe no “quid pro quo” occurred on the Trump-Zelensky call, with the exception of U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland, who claimed the contrary. However, in a significant exchange with Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), Sondland confirmed nobody told him that the president sought to tie the aid to an investigation into the Bidens.
Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) requested documents from the State Department as part of an effort to illuminate former vice president Joe Biden’s role in the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who at the time, was probing into Burisma Holdings — the Ukrainian gas firm where Hunter Biden was paid up to $83,000 per month as a board member while his father was in the White House.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/26/house-judiciary-committee-invites-trump-to-testify-in-first-impeachment-hearing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191126&utm_content=Final
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Wed 27 Nov 2019, 1:11 pm
Update: Democrat Brenda Lawrence Suggests Impeachment Exit Strategy — but Quickly Recants
9,534
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 21: U.S. House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (L) and Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) (R) listen during a "shadow hearing" before the Democratic Women's Working Group (DWWG) June 21, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The hearing addressed immigration and family separation at the …Alex Wong/Getty Images
KYLE MORRIS25 Nov 20194,915
2:36
UPDATE: Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) has withdrawn her suggestion of “censure” instead of impeaching President Donald Trump — a trial balloon for an exit strategy in response to dismal polling for Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment hearings.
After her radio remarks blew up overnight, Lawrence issued a statement declaring “I still support impeachment”:
“I was an early supporter for impeachment in 2017,” Lawrence says. “The House Intelligence Committee followed a very thorough process in holding hearings these past two weeks. The information they revealed confirmed that this President has abused the power of his office, therefore I continue to support impeachment.
“However, I am very concerned about Senate Republicans and the fact that they would find this behavior by the President acceptable.”
The original story follows below:
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) stated Sunday that she no longer believes the impeachment of President Donald Trump is the route Democrats should take to winning back the White House.
Lawrence’s comments on the House impeachment process came during a discussion with Charlie LeDuff on the Michigan radio show No BS News Hour. Instead of removal from office, Lawrence hopes her colleagues will seek to censure the president.
Lawrence said:
We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of taking him out of office. I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.
I want to censure. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior and, under our Constitution, we will not allow it.
Lawrence added that she aims to have a “discussion with the party and with the caucus” in order to censure Trump, rather than impeaching him.
In contrast to the remarks she made on Sunday, Lawrence once seemed to be on board with impeachment in an October 4th interview with Sirius XM host Dean Obeidallah.
M ORE https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/25/democrat-brenda-lawrence-backtracks-on-impeachment-i-dont-see-the-value-of-taking-him-out-of-office/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191126&utm_content=Final
9,534
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 21: U.S. House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (L) and Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) (R) listen during a "shadow hearing" before the Democratic Women's Working Group (DWWG) June 21, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The hearing addressed immigration and family separation at the …Alex Wong/Getty Images
KYLE MORRIS25 Nov 20194,915
2:36
UPDATE: Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) has withdrawn her suggestion of “censure” instead of impeaching President Donald Trump — a trial balloon for an exit strategy in response to dismal polling for Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment hearings.
After her radio remarks blew up overnight, Lawrence issued a statement declaring “I still support impeachment”:
“I was an early supporter for impeachment in 2017,” Lawrence says. “The House Intelligence Committee followed a very thorough process in holding hearings these past two weeks. The information they revealed confirmed that this President has abused the power of his office, therefore I continue to support impeachment.
“However, I am very concerned about Senate Republicans and the fact that they would find this behavior by the President acceptable.”
The original story follows below:
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) stated Sunday that she no longer believes the impeachment of President Donald Trump is the route Democrats should take to winning back the White House.
Lawrence’s comments on the House impeachment process came during a discussion with Charlie LeDuff on the Michigan radio show No BS News Hour. Instead of removal from office, Lawrence hopes her colleagues will seek to censure the president.
Lawrence said:
We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of taking him out of office. I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.
I want to censure. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior and, under our Constitution, we will not allow it.
Lawrence added that she aims to have a “discussion with the party and with the caucus” in order to censure Trump, rather than impeaching him.
In contrast to the remarks she made on Sunday, Lawrence once seemed to be on board with impeachment in an October 4th interview with Sirius XM host Dean Obeidallah.
M ORE https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/25/democrat-brenda-lawrence-backtracks-on-impeachment-i-dont-see-the-value-of-taking-him-out-of-office/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191126&utm_content=Final
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Wed 27 Nov 2019, 1:10 pm
Nolte: Impeachment Polls Prove Schiff Hearings Were a Huge Failure
8,346
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/11/26/nolte-impeachment-polls-prove-schiff-hearings-were-a-huge-failure/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191126&utm_content=Final
(INSET: Donald Trump) WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 19: (L-R) Democratic Counsel Daniel Goldman and committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) confer as they listen as former National Security Council Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs Tim Morrison and former State Department special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker testify before …Photos by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
JOHN NOLTE26 Nov 20191,804
6:45
The latest impeachment polling has come in from HuffPost, CNN, and Politico, and it proves Adam Schiff’s House hearings were a massive failure.
This is not just a massive fail on Schiff’s part — it is also a massive media fail. Because, if you recall the last two weeks, Schiff’s kangaroo court was backed by billions and billions of dollars in corporate propaganda through the fake media, including far-left CNN, MSNBC, and even a number of lying morons on Fox News, like Chris Wallace and Andrew Napolitano.
What’s more, as a means to give Schiff’s hoax the air of legitimacy, all the major networks broadcast the hearing live throughout the day, which included commentary from their own left-wing analysts.
Over and over and over again, Schiff and his confederates in the media screamed BOMBSHELLBOMBSHELLBOMBSHELL, and here are the hilarious results…
HUFFPOST POLL
Most telling, at least to me, is the fact that after all this, after all this gaslighting, the latest polling from HuffPost/YouGov shows only 42 percent of the public believe President Trump is guilty of what he is being accused of — withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden.
Only 42 percent.
Two weeks of “historic” impeachment hearings, billions of corporate dollars funding endless hours of media propaganda, and only 42 percent believe what all of that gaslighting told them to believe.
That number is even more striking when you remember that 54 percent of the country did not vote for Trump in 2016…
Granted, only 31 percent believe Trump did not withhold aid in return for an investigation into Biden, but after all this, 26 percent are still unsure.
Not to belabor the point, but after two months of media propaganda and two weeks of impeachment hearings, a healthy majority of 57 either believe Trump is innocent or are unsure — and the “unsure” demographic certainly matters — if people are not convinced by now of Trump’s guilt, other than Trump having a breakdown and confessing, what will convince them? Nothing.
In other words, the coup plotters took a shot at the king and missed by a country mile. In other words, you do not remove a sitting president, you do not overturn this country’s only nationwide election and referendum, when you have convinced only 42 percent of the jury the guy is guilty.
And even if he is “guilty,” who the hell cares?
Joe and Hunter Biden looted Ukraine for millions of dollars, and that is a perfectly legitimate issue for Trump to ask Ukraine to look into.
Oh, and the polls somewhat agree with me on that point, because HuffPost asked that question specifically, and only 40 percent said it was “impeachable” if Trump “withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to get the president of Ukraine to investigate allegations of corruption against the Biden family.”
Granted, only 16 percent said it was “appropriate” for Trump to do that, 26 percent said “inappropriate, but not impeachable,” and 18 percent are unsure, but still…
Only 42 percent of the public believe Trump did that, and only 40 percent believe he should be impeached if he did do it.
Brother, what a fail.
The topline numbers only prove that Democrats do not care if Trump is guilty or not. A plurality of 45 percent of those polled want Trump impeached and removed (even though only 42 percent say he’s guilty), while 42 percent disagree with removing Trump.
It is notable that these numbers look as bad as they do for Democrats when this is an “all adult” poll. When you screen for “registered” of “likely” voters, the numbers always improve for Republicans.
The HuffPost/YouGov poll is of 1,000 adults between Nov. 20-22.
CNN POLL
Over at the far-left CNN, a fake news outlet that traffics in anti-Trump conspiracy theories, the numbers on impeachment are exactly where they were prior to the hearings: 50 percent want Trump impeached and removed, while 43 percent disagree.
In worse news for CNN, since the hearings, Trump’s job approval numbers improved by four net points. Those who approve of the job Trump’s doing increased a point, from 41 to 42 percent; while his disapproval rating dropped three points, from 57 to 54 percent.
It gets better…
Trump’s handling of the economy got six points healthier. A majority of 55 percent approve of Trump’s economic stewardship (up from 52 percent last month), while only 40 percent disapprove (down from 43).
This is also an “all adult” poll.
The CNN poll was taken November 21 through 24 of 1,007 with a +/- 3.7 percent margin of error.
POLITICO POLL
Over at the far-left Politico, the topline numbers all moved in Trump’s direction.
Prior to the hearings, 50 percent of registered voters supported the impeachment inquiry; that figure has now dipped to 48 percent.
Most telling in this poll, though, is where Independents stand. As of today, 39 percent of Independents oppose the inquiry, up from 37 percent prior to the hearings.
A plurality of 44 percent of Independents support the impeachment inquiry, down from 47 percent prior to the hearings.
This poll was conducted Nov. 22-24 online with 1,988 registered voters and a +/- 2 point margin of error.
CONCLUSION: WHAT A FAILURE
Sorry, but if Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and the fake media believe they can remove a president with those numbers, they are nuts. You cannot remove a president from office with support for such a radical thing in the freakin’ forties.
Nevertheless, tee hee, Democrats are now in quite the pickle.
If Democrats do not vote to impeach (and that is exactly the trial balloon that Pelosi has put out), their base will melt down, specifically much of their donor base. Even though there is no chance the Senate convicts, and a big chance the Senate turns the trial into a two- to four-week examination of Joe Biden’s corruption, the Democrat base desperately needs the release of impeachment; they need for this to happen.
On the flipside, if Democrats do vote to impeach, Independent voters in some three dozen swing congressional districts are going to be disgusted, history will be unkind, and a precedent of using impeachment strictly to pout over policy disagreements will have been set, and that precedent will someday haunt a Democrat president.
In my opinion, Pelosi has to impeach. As bad as that option is for her, it is the best of two bad choices for a jackass party that went all in and lost. You always hold on to your base. Always. That is rule number one in politics.
CLOSING REMINDER:
These are all national polls, which mean little for 2020. It is the battleground state polls that matter most — as do the congressional swing districts — and as pathetic as these national polls are for Democrats, the battleground state and district polls always look worse for Democrats.
8,346
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/11/26/nolte-impeachment-polls-prove-schiff-hearings-were-a-huge-failure/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191126&utm_content=Final
(INSET: Donald Trump) WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 19: (L-R) Democratic Counsel Daniel Goldman and committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) confer as they listen as former National Security Council Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs Tim Morrison and former State Department special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker testify before …Photos by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
JOHN NOLTE26 Nov 20191,804
6:45
The latest impeachment polling has come in from HuffPost, CNN, and Politico, and it proves Adam Schiff’s House hearings were a massive failure.
This is not just a massive fail on Schiff’s part — it is also a massive media fail. Because, if you recall the last two weeks, Schiff’s kangaroo court was backed by billions and billions of dollars in corporate propaganda through the fake media, including far-left CNN, MSNBC, and even a number of lying morons on Fox News, like Chris Wallace and Andrew Napolitano.
What’s more, as a means to give Schiff’s hoax the air of legitimacy, all the major networks broadcast the hearing live throughout the day, which included commentary from their own left-wing analysts.
Over and over and over again, Schiff and his confederates in the media screamed BOMBSHELLBOMBSHELLBOMBSHELL, and here are the hilarious results…
HUFFPOST POLL
Most telling, at least to me, is the fact that after all this, after all this gaslighting, the latest polling from HuffPost/YouGov shows only 42 percent of the public believe President Trump is guilty of what he is being accused of — withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden.
Only 42 percent.
Two weeks of “historic” impeachment hearings, billions of corporate dollars funding endless hours of media propaganda, and only 42 percent believe what all of that gaslighting told them to believe.
That number is even more striking when you remember that 54 percent of the country did not vote for Trump in 2016…
Granted, only 31 percent believe Trump did not withhold aid in return for an investigation into Biden, but after all this, 26 percent are still unsure.
Not to belabor the point, but after two months of media propaganda and two weeks of impeachment hearings, a healthy majority of 57 either believe Trump is innocent or are unsure — and the “unsure” demographic certainly matters — if people are not convinced by now of Trump’s guilt, other than Trump having a breakdown and confessing, what will convince them? Nothing.
In other words, the coup plotters took a shot at the king and missed by a country mile. In other words, you do not remove a sitting president, you do not overturn this country’s only nationwide election and referendum, when you have convinced only 42 percent of the jury the guy is guilty.
And even if he is “guilty,” who the hell cares?
Joe and Hunter Biden looted Ukraine for millions of dollars, and that is a perfectly legitimate issue for Trump to ask Ukraine to look into.
Oh, and the polls somewhat agree with me on that point, because HuffPost asked that question specifically, and only 40 percent said it was “impeachable” if Trump “withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to get the president of Ukraine to investigate allegations of corruption against the Biden family.”
Granted, only 16 percent said it was “appropriate” for Trump to do that, 26 percent said “inappropriate, but not impeachable,” and 18 percent are unsure, but still…
Only 42 percent of the public believe Trump did that, and only 40 percent believe he should be impeached if he did do it.
Brother, what a fail.
The topline numbers only prove that Democrats do not care if Trump is guilty or not. A plurality of 45 percent of those polled want Trump impeached and removed (even though only 42 percent say he’s guilty), while 42 percent disagree with removing Trump.
It is notable that these numbers look as bad as they do for Democrats when this is an “all adult” poll. When you screen for “registered” of “likely” voters, the numbers always improve for Republicans.
The HuffPost/YouGov poll is of 1,000 adults between Nov. 20-22.
CNN POLL
Over at the far-left CNN, a fake news outlet that traffics in anti-Trump conspiracy theories, the numbers on impeachment are exactly where they were prior to the hearings: 50 percent want Trump impeached and removed, while 43 percent disagree.
In worse news for CNN, since the hearings, Trump’s job approval numbers improved by four net points. Those who approve of the job Trump’s doing increased a point, from 41 to 42 percent; while his disapproval rating dropped three points, from 57 to 54 percent.
It gets better…
Trump’s handling of the economy got six points healthier. A majority of 55 percent approve of Trump’s economic stewardship (up from 52 percent last month), while only 40 percent disapprove (down from 43).
This is also an “all adult” poll.
The CNN poll was taken November 21 through 24 of 1,007 with a +/- 3.7 percent margin of error.
POLITICO POLL
Over at the far-left Politico, the topline numbers all moved in Trump’s direction.
Prior to the hearings, 50 percent of registered voters supported the impeachment inquiry; that figure has now dipped to 48 percent.
Most telling in this poll, though, is where Independents stand. As of today, 39 percent of Independents oppose the inquiry, up from 37 percent prior to the hearings.
A plurality of 44 percent of Independents support the impeachment inquiry, down from 47 percent prior to the hearings.
This poll was conducted Nov. 22-24 online with 1,988 registered voters and a +/- 2 point margin of error.
CONCLUSION: WHAT A FAILURE
Sorry, but if Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and the fake media believe they can remove a president with those numbers, they are nuts. You cannot remove a president from office with support for such a radical thing in the freakin’ forties.
Nevertheless, tee hee, Democrats are now in quite the pickle.
If Democrats do not vote to impeach (and that is exactly the trial balloon that Pelosi has put out), their base will melt down, specifically much of their donor base. Even though there is no chance the Senate convicts, and a big chance the Senate turns the trial into a two- to four-week examination of Joe Biden’s corruption, the Democrat base desperately needs the release of impeachment; they need for this to happen.
On the flipside, if Democrats do vote to impeach, Independent voters in some three dozen swing congressional districts are going to be disgusted, history will be unkind, and a precedent of using impeachment strictly to pout over policy disagreements will have been set, and that precedent will someday haunt a Democrat president.
In my opinion, Pelosi has to impeach. As bad as that option is for her, it is the best of two bad choices for a jackass party that went all in and lost. You always hold on to your base. Always. That is rule number one in politics.
CLOSING REMINDER:
These are all national polls, which mean little for 2020. It is the battleground state polls that matter most — as do the congressional swing districts — and as pathetic as these national polls are for Democrats, the battleground state and district polls always look worse for Democrats.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Sun 24 Nov 2019, 9:01 pm
Public sours on impeachment as Trump approval rises
November 23, 2019
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/conservative-news/polling-drop-support-impeachment.htm
House Democrats remain committed to impeaching President Donald Trump. However, a poll published on Thursday suggests their strategy is backfiring: Support for impeachment is dropping, especially among the key group of independent voters, while Trump’s approval rating is rising.
Support for Trump up, support for impeachment down
Conducted by Emerson Polling, the survey found that “support for impeachment has flipped since October from forty-eight percent support with forty-four percent opposing to now forty-five percent opposed and forty-three percent in support.” However, this change wasn’t evenly distributed.
“The biggest swing is among Independents, who oppose impeachment now forty-nine percent to thirty-four percent, which is a reversal from October where they supported impeachment forty-eight percent to thirty-nine percent,” Emerson reported.
The results also point to an upswing in support for Trump, as they now show him ahead of every Democratic challenger aside from Bernie Sanders, who leads the president by a single percentage point.
What’s more, Trump apparently has nothing to worry about in terms of having a Republican challenger: “The president’s support in the Republican primary increased this month to ninety-three percent against primary challengers Bill Weld and Joe Walsh.”
Poll not an outlier
This wasn’t the only poll that contained good news for Trump, as one from Morning Consult and Politico did as well.
Released on Tuesday, it found that forty-seven percent of independents were in opposition to impeachment while only forty percent were in favor. That represents a ten percent drop in support since last month.
Among voters as a whole, forty-eight percent were reported to be in favor of impeachment compared to forty-five percent who opposed it. In October, the same poll found that fifty percent of respondents supported impeaching Trump, indicating that the momentum is moving in his direction.
Regarding Trump’s approval rating, forty-one percent of respondents said they “strongly” or “somewhat” approved of his job as president, whereas fifty-five percent said they “strongly” or “somewhat” disapproved.
Men were more likely to support Trump than women, and his largest base of support was among those between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-four.
What, if any, effect the changing poll numbers will have on how Democrats vote regarding impeachment remains unclear. While support for removing Trump may be eroding among the public, some high profile representatives have made it central to their agenda.
One of them is Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), who on the day she was sworn into Congress in January of 2019 famously pledged to “impeach the motherf—–.” She now sells merchandise bearing that slogan.
November 23, 2019
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/conservative-news/polling-drop-support-impeachment.htm
House Democrats remain committed to impeaching President Donald Trump. However, a poll published on Thursday suggests their strategy is backfiring: Support for impeachment is dropping, especially among the key group of independent voters, while Trump’s approval rating is rising.
Support for Trump up, support for impeachment down
Conducted by Emerson Polling, the survey found that “support for impeachment has flipped since October from forty-eight percent support with forty-four percent opposing to now forty-five percent opposed and forty-three percent in support.” However, this change wasn’t evenly distributed.
“The biggest swing is among Independents, who oppose impeachment now forty-nine percent to thirty-four percent, which is a reversal from October where they supported impeachment forty-eight percent to thirty-nine percent,” Emerson reported.
The results also point to an upswing in support for Trump, as they now show him ahead of every Democratic challenger aside from Bernie Sanders, who leads the president by a single percentage point.
What’s more, Trump apparently has nothing to worry about in terms of having a Republican challenger: “The president’s support in the Republican primary increased this month to ninety-three percent against primary challengers Bill Weld and Joe Walsh.”
Poll not an outlier
This wasn’t the only poll that contained good news for Trump, as one from Morning Consult and Politico did as well.
Released on Tuesday, it found that forty-seven percent of independents were in opposition to impeachment while only forty percent were in favor. That represents a ten percent drop in support since last month.
Among voters as a whole, forty-eight percent were reported to be in favor of impeachment compared to forty-five percent who opposed it. In October, the same poll found that fifty percent of respondents supported impeaching Trump, indicating that the momentum is moving in his direction.
Regarding Trump’s approval rating, forty-one percent of respondents said they “strongly” or “somewhat” approved of his job as president, whereas fifty-five percent said they “strongly” or “somewhat” disapproved.
Men were more likely to support Trump than women, and his largest base of support was among those between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-four.
What, if any, effect the changing poll numbers will have on how Democrats vote regarding impeachment remains unclear. While support for removing Trump may be eroding among the public, some high profile representatives have made it central to their agenda.
One of them is Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), who on the day she was sworn into Congress in January of 2019 famously pledged to “impeach the motherf—–.” She now sells merchandise bearing that slogan.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Tue 19 Nov 2019, 10:12 am
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/18/report-house-democrats-probing-whether-trump-made-false-statement-to-robert-mueller/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191118&utm_content=Final
House Democrats have launched an investigation into whether President Donald Trump made false statements in his written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller as part of his probe into now-debunked allegations of criminal conspiracy between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, according to CNN.
“Did the President lie? Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?” House Judiciary Committee general counsel Douglas Letter asked before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on why lawmakers require access to grand jury material obtained by Mueller.
On Monday, a federal appeals panel is voicing skepticism over the Justice Department’s claim it can defy Congress’ request for secret material from the Mueller report.
Two of the three judges who heard arguments at a hearing seemed prepared to order at least some of the material sought by the House for its impeachment inquiry to be turned over.
The House Judiciary panel is seeking grand jury testimony and other details redacted from the public version of Mueller’s investigation.
Last month, a judge ordered the Justice Department to turn over the redacted material, but the Trump administration appealed.
In the court filings, the Justice Department argued that once the grand jury material is released to the House Judiciary Committee, there is no guarantee that it will remain secret “and the confidentiality of the grand jury information will be lost for all time.”
“In order to reach the decision it did, the Court resolved difficult disputes between co-equal branches of government, including the question of what suffices to initiate the impeachment of a President,” wrote Department of Justice attornies. “The public interest lies in maintaining the status quo until an appellate court has had time to review and resolve these substantial legal question.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/18/house-democrat-my-colleagues-are-tired-bored-and-want-to-move-on-from-impeachment/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191118&utm_content=Final
House Democrat: My Colleagues Are Tired, Bored, and ‘Want to Move On’ from Impeachment
12,062
JOSHUA CAPLAN18 Nov 20193,601
1:57
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures, Democrat Rep. Jeff Van Drew (NJ), who opposes impeachment, revealed some Democrats are privately expressing “concern” about the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
A partial transcript is as follows:
MARIA BARTIROMO: We’re expecting an impeachment vote sometime in December. How will you vote?
REP. JEFF VAN DREW: I would imagine I’ll be voting “no.” Now, I always have a codicil if there’s something new, something we haven’t heard, something that really rises to the level of treason or a high crime, that would be different. But we don’t see that. We see little different variations, hearsay, discussions that somebody heard something that somebody else said. Impeachment, as you know, our founding fathers had vigorous debates over whether they would even allow impeachment in the Constitution. You don’t disenfranchise voters, millions upon millions of voters. Voters choose their leaders in America.
BARTIROMO: Are you hearing from some of your colleagues in some of the states that President Trump won that they may also vote “no?” Are you hearing some concerns amongst your colleagues or are you sort of a lone wolf in all of this?
REP. VAN DREW: I don’t know how other folks will vote, because in all honesty, originally, I thought there were going to be a few more, not that it matters to me if I’m one or I’m 101. I do what I believe is right. There is some discussion among some of them quietly, privately, of concern, certainly. What I’m hearing out in the street is with most people is, they’re kind of tired, they’re kind of worn out, they’re kind of bored, most folks, and they really want to move on. Unless there’s something new and amazing, we know the end game here.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/18/house-democrat-my-colleagues-are-tired-bored-and-want-to-move-on-from-impeachment/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191118&utm_content=Final
House Democrat: My Colleagues Are Tired, Bored, and ‘Want to Move On’ from Impeachment
12,062
JOSHUA CAPLAN18 Nov 20193,601
1:57
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures, Democrat Rep. Jeff Van Drew (NJ), who opposes impeachment, revealed some Democrats are privately expressing “concern” about the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
A partial transcript is as follows:
MARIA BARTIROMO: We’re expecting an impeachment vote sometime in December. How will you vote?
REP. JEFF VAN DREW: I would imagine I’ll be voting “no.” Now, I always have a codicil if there’s something new, something we haven’t heard, something that really rises to the level of treason or a high crime, that would be different. But we don’t see that. We see little different variations, hearsay, discussions that somebody heard something that somebody else said. Impeachment, as you know, our founding fathers had vigorous debates over whether they would even allow impeachment in the Constitution. You don’t disenfranchise voters, millions upon millions of voters. Voters choose their leaders in America.
BARTIROMO: Are you hearing from some of your colleagues in some of the states that President Trump won that they may also vote “no?” Are you hearing some concerns amongst your colleagues or are you sort of a lone wolf in all of this?
REP. VAN DREW: I don’t know how other folks will vote, because in all honesty, originally, I thought there were going to be a few more, not that it matters to me if I’m one or I’m 101. I do what I believe is right. There is some discussion among some of them quietly, privately, of concern, certainly. What I’m hearing out in the street is with most people is, they’re kind of tired, they’re kind of worn out, they’re kind of bored, most folks, and they really want to move on. Unless there’s something new and amazing, we know the end game here.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/18/white-house-official-files-lawsuit-against-politico-for-having-acted-in-concert-with-schiff-to-leak-false-info-to-further-impeachment-inquisition/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191118&utm_content=Final
White House Official Sues Politico: ‘Conspired with Schiff’ to Leak False Info to ‘Further Impeachment Inquisition’
13,347
Congressman Adam Schiff speaks at the California Democratic Party 2019 Fall Endorsing Convention in Long Beach, California on November 16, 2019. (Photo by Mark RALSTON / AFP) (Photo by MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images)MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty
EDWIN MORA18 Nov 2019Washington, D.C.5,296
5:34
House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) “acted in concert” with Politico to leak allegedly false information from the impeachment inquiry as part of a “scheme” to advance the “inquisition” against President Donald Trump, according to an explosive defamation lawsuit filed by a senior Trump White House official on Monday.
White House official Kash Patel, who is a senior counterterrorism official on the National Security Council (NSC), filed the lawsuit in Virginia court in which he says Schiff “weaponized the media” to advance his impeachment agenda.
Patel is a former staffer to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), who later moved to the White House in the NSC to advise the president on national security and intelligence matters.
Patel on Monday filed the defamation suit in Virginia state court against Politico, Natasha Bertrand, a reporter for the establishment media outlet, and Robert Allbritton, the publisher and executive chairman of the media organization, all identified as defendants.
Patel accuses the defendants of defaming him by working with Schiff and members of his staff to disseminate false stories about him.
In the lawsuit, Patel alleges:
Defendants intentionally employed a scheme or artifice to defame Kash with the intent to undermine the President’s confidence in Kash and to further Schiff’s impeachment inquisition. Defendants acted in concert with Schiff to accomplish an unlawful purpose through unlawful means, without regard for Kash’s rights and interests.
Defendants abandoned all journalistic integrity and violated their own code of ethics in order to further the conspiracy with Schiff. Defendants did not seek truth; report truth; minimize harm; act independently; and they most certainly were not transparent.
In particular, Patel accuses Bertrand of writing two false stories for Politico claiming the NSC official was feeding Trump negative information about Ukraine and misrepresenting himself as an expert on the Eastern European country to the U.S. president.
Politico, however, refuses “to retract or clarify” the allegedly false stories. Breitbart News reported on the false information publicized about Patel by Politico and the New York Times.
The defamation lawsuit, which only deals with Politico, states:
Between October 14, 2019 and November 8, 2019, Politico and Bertrand colluded, collaborated and conspired with Schiff to defame Kash. Schiff, or members of his staff or aides acting at his direction, leaked to Bertrand the closed-door testimony that [former former senior advisor and European and Russian affairs specialist who served on the NSC Fiona] Hill and [NSC Director of European Affairs Lt. Col. Alexander] Vindman gave in the subfloor of the Capitol Visitor Center. The leaks occurred in real-time. Schiff leaked the testimony to Bertrand because Schiff knew that it would be a violation of House Rules and Committee Rules for Schiff to publish the substance of the testimony himself.
The joint collaborative purpose of the leaks was to publish Hill and Vindman’s false and defamatory statements, including Hill and Vindman’s egregious personal attacks on Kash, so as to further Schiff and Politico’s interests in harming the President and advancing the impeachment inquisition. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Bertrand secretly communicated with Schiff or his staff via encrypted email, including proton-mail, and messaging services, such as Signal.
Patel alleges Politico knew the information it was publishing about him was false. He claims in the suit:
Between October 23, 2019, and November 8, 2019, the Defendants, acting in concert with Schiff, made, published and republished numerous false factual statements of or concerning Kash without privilege of any kind. … On November 8, 2019, Schiff released the transcripts of Hill and Vindman’s closed-door, secret interviews conducted in the Capitol Visitor Center. The transcripts demonstrate that Politico, Bertrand, Schiff, and his staffers misled the public in the First and Second Politico Pieces, and intentionally lied about the substance of Hill and Vindman’s interviews.
Politico, Bertrand, and Allbritton knew that Schiff had a preconceived agenda that he was actively promoting. They knew about Schiff’s extreme bias and hatred of President Trump. Significantly, they also knew that Schiff was a wholly unreliable source because of his penchant to tell lies and to mislead.
Patel vehemently denies the allegations made by Bertrand, noting in the court document:
Defendants’ reporting was categorically and knowingly false. At no time prior to October 30, 2019 had Kash ever communicated with the President on any matters involving Ukraine. Kash never supplied any Ukraine “materials” to the President. Kash is proud of his record as a dedicated national security professional who is entrusted to handle our nation’s most sensitive matters. At no time did Kash stray from his mission to protect the homeland in service to the President and the NSC.
Patel is seeking the sum of about $25,000,000 or more for the defamation he suffered and “presumed damages and actual damages, including, but not limited to, insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering, injury to his reputation, special damages, costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses.”
He is demanding a trial by jury.
The significance of this lawsuit’s filing is that Bertrand’s Politico story on Patel came based off of testimony provided behind closed doors to the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry by Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman. They both alleged, incorrectly, in their testimony that Patel had secret meetings with President Trump on Ukraine matters and provided the president with documents on Ukraine. But as Breitbart News has already reported, while these Democrat impeachment witnesses Hill and Vindman may have testified in Schiff’s private impeachment inquiry to that effect, it was not accurate. Patel has since publicly confirmed he has never spoken with the president about Ukraine.
Politico’s decision to print the false testimony of Hill and Vindman as fact, which Patel’s lawsuit makes clear was in close coordination with Schiff and his team on Capitol Hill, could seriously cost the media outlet. Other media outlets that printed the inaccuracies could also end up on the chopping block as well, but for now Patel is focused on Politico with this lawsuit.
The timing of the lawsuit’s filing is also important in that both Vindman and Hill will be testifying in public hearings this week as part of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
House Democrats have launched an investigation into whether President Donald Trump made false statements in his written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller as part of his probe into now-debunked allegations of criminal conspiracy between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, according to CNN.
“Did the President lie? Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?” House Judiciary Committee general counsel Douglas Letter asked before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on why lawmakers require access to grand jury material obtained by Mueller.
On Monday, a federal appeals panel is voicing skepticism over the Justice Department’s claim it can defy Congress’ request for secret material from the Mueller report.
Two of the three judges who heard arguments at a hearing seemed prepared to order at least some of the material sought by the House for its impeachment inquiry to be turned over.
The House Judiciary panel is seeking grand jury testimony and other details redacted from the public version of Mueller’s investigation.
Last month, a judge ordered the Justice Department to turn over the redacted material, but the Trump administration appealed.
In the court filings, the Justice Department argued that once the grand jury material is released to the House Judiciary Committee, there is no guarantee that it will remain secret “and the confidentiality of the grand jury information will be lost for all time.”
“In order to reach the decision it did, the Court resolved difficult disputes between co-equal branches of government, including the question of what suffices to initiate the impeachment of a President,” wrote Department of Justice attornies. “The public interest lies in maintaining the status quo until an appellate court has had time to review and resolve these substantial legal question.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/18/house-democrat-my-colleagues-are-tired-bored-and-want-to-move-on-from-impeachment/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191118&utm_content=Final
House Democrat: My Colleagues Are Tired, Bored, and ‘Want to Move On’ from Impeachment
12,062
JOSHUA CAPLAN18 Nov 20193,601
1:57
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures, Democrat Rep. Jeff Van Drew (NJ), who opposes impeachment, revealed some Democrats are privately expressing “concern” about the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
A partial transcript is as follows:
MARIA BARTIROMO: We’re expecting an impeachment vote sometime in December. How will you vote?
REP. JEFF VAN DREW: I would imagine I’ll be voting “no.” Now, I always have a codicil if there’s something new, something we haven’t heard, something that really rises to the level of treason or a high crime, that would be different. But we don’t see that. We see little different variations, hearsay, discussions that somebody heard something that somebody else said. Impeachment, as you know, our founding fathers had vigorous debates over whether they would even allow impeachment in the Constitution. You don’t disenfranchise voters, millions upon millions of voters. Voters choose their leaders in America.
BARTIROMO: Are you hearing from some of your colleagues in some of the states that President Trump won that they may also vote “no?” Are you hearing some concerns amongst your colleagues or are you sort of a lone wolf in all of this?
REP. VAN DREW: I don’t know how other folks will vote, because in all honesty, originally, I thought there were going to be a few more, not that it matters to me if I’m one or I’m 101. I do what I believe is right. There is some discussion among some of them quietly, privately, of concern, certainly. What I’m hearing out in the street is with most people is, they’re kind of tired, they’re kind of worn out, they’re kind of bored, most folks, and they really want to move on. Unless there’s something new and amazing, we know the end game here.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/18/house-democrat-my-colleagues-are-tired-bored-and-want-to-move-on-from-impeachment/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191118&utm_content=Final
House Democrat: My Colleagues Are Tired, Bored, and ‘Want to Move On’ from Impeachment
12,062
JOSHUA CAPLAN18 Nov 20193,601
1:57
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures, Democrat Rep. Jeff Van Drew (NJ), who opposes impeachment, revealed some Democrats are privately expressing “concern” about the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
A partial transcript is as follows:
MARIA BARTIROMO: We’re expecting an impeachment vote sometime in December. How will you vote?
REP. JEFF VAN DREW: I would imagine I’ll be voting “no.” Now, I always have a codicil if there’s something new, something we haven’t heard, something that really rises to the level of treason or a high crime, that would be different. But we don’t see that. We see little different variations, hearsay, discussions that somebody heard something that somebody else said. Impeachment, as you know, our founding fathers had vigorous debates over whether they would even allow impeachment in the Constitution. You don’t disenfranchise voters, millions upon millions of voters. Voters choose their leaders in America.
BARTIROMO: Are you hearing from some of your colleagues in some of the states that President Trump won that they may also vote “no?” Are you hearing some concerns amongst your colleagues or are you sort of a lone wolf in all of this?
REP. VAN DREW: I don’t know how other folks will vote, because in all honesty, originally, I thought there were going to be a few more, not that it matters to me if I’m one or I’m 101. I do what I believe is right. There is some discussion among some of them quietly, privately, of concern, certainly. What I’m hearing out in the street is with most people is, they’re kind of tired, they’re kind of worn out, they’re kind of bored, most folks, and they really want to move on. Unless there’s something new and amazing, we know the end game here.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/18/white-house-official-files-lawsuit-against-politico-for-having-acted-in-concert-with-schiff-to-leak-false-info-to-further-impeachment-inquisition/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191118&utm_content=Final
White House Official Sues Politico: ‘Conspired with Schiff’ to Leak False Info to ‘Further Impeachment Inquisition’
13,347
Congressman Adam Schiff speaks at the California Democratic Party 2019 Fall Endorsing Convention in Long Beach, California on November 16, 2019. (Photo by Mark RALSTON / AFP) (Photo by MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images)MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty
EDWIN MORA18 Nov 2019Washington, D.C.5,296
5:34
House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) “acted in concert” with Politico to leak allegedly false information from the impeachment inquiry as part of a “scheme” to advance the “inquisition” against President Donald Trump, according to an explosive defamation lawsuit filed by a senior Trump White House official on Monday.
White House official Kash Patel, who is a senior counterterrorism official on the National Security Council (NSC), filed the lawsuit in Virginia court in which he says Schiff “weaponized the media” to advance his impeachment agenda.
Patel is a former staffer to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), who later moved to the White House in the NSC to advise the president on national security and intelligence matters.
Patel on Monday filed the defamation suit in Virginia state court against Politico, Natasha Bertrand, a reporter for the establishment media outlet, and Robert Allbritton, the publisher and executive chairman of the media organization, all identified as defendants.
Patel accuses the defendants of defaming him by working with Schiff and members of his staff to disseminate false stories about him.
In the lawsuit, Patel alleges:
Defendants intentionally employed a scheme or artifice to defame Kash with the intent to undermine the President’s confidence in Kash and to further Schiff’s impeachment inquisition. Defendants acted in concert with Schiff to accomplish an unlawful purpose through unlawful means, without regard for Kash’s rights and interests.
Defendants abandoned all journalistic integrity and violated their own code of ethics in order to further the conspiracy with Schiff. Defendants did not seek truth; report truth; minimize harm; act independently; and they most certainly were not transparent.
In particular, Patel accuses Bertrand of writing two false stories for Politico claiming the NSC official was feeding Trump negative information about Ukraine and misrepresenting himself as an expert on the Eastern European country to the U.S. president.
Politico, however, refuses “to retract or clarify” the allegedly false stories. Breitbart News reported on the false information publicized about Patel by Politico and the New York Times.
The defamation lawsuit, which only deals with Politico, states:
Between October 14, 2019 and November 8, 2019, Politico and Bertrand colluded, collaborated and conspired with Schiff to defame Kash. Schiff, or members of his staff or aides acting at his direction, leaked to Bertrand the closed-door testimony that [former former senior advisor and European and Russian affairs specialist who served on the NSC Fiona] Hill and [NSC Director of European Affairs Lt. Col. Alexander] Vindman gave in the subfloor of the Capitol Visitor Center. The leaks occurred in real-time. Schiff leaked the testimony to Bertrand because Schiff knew that it would be a violation of House Rules and Committee Rules for Schiff to publish the substance of the testimony himself.
The joint collaborative purpose of the leaks was to publish Hill and Vindman’s false and defamatory statements, including Hill and Vindman’s egregious personal attacks on Kash, so as to further Schiff and Politico’s interests in harming the President and advancing the impeachment inquisition. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Bertrand secretly communicated with Schiff or his staff via encrypted email, including proton-mail, and messaging services, such as Signal.
Patel alleges Politico knew the information it was publishing about him was false. He claims in the suit:
Between October 23, 2019, and November 8, 2019, the Defendants, acting in concert with Schiff, made, published and republished numerous false factual statements of or concerning Kash without privilege of any kind. … On November 8, 2019, Schiff released the transcripts of Hill and Vindman’s closed-door, secret interviews conducted in the Capitol Visitor Center. The transcripts demonstrate that Politico, Bertrand, Schiff, and his staffers misled the public in the First and Second Politico Pieces, and intentionally lied about the substance of Hill and Vindman’s interviews.
Politico, Bertrand, and Allbritton knew that Schiff had a preconceived agenda that he was actively promoting. They knew about Schiff’s extreme bias and hatred of President Trump. Significantly, they also knew that Schiff was a wholly unreliable source because of his penchant to tell lies and to mislead.
Patel vehemently denies the allegations made by Bertrand, noting in the court document:
Defendants’ reporting was categorically and knowingly false. At no time prior to October 30, 2019 had Kash ever communicated with the President on any matters involving Ukraine. Kash never supplied any Ukraine “materials” to the President. Kash is proud of his record as a dedicated national security professional who is entrusted to handle our nation’s most sensitive matters. At no time did Kash stray from his mission to protect the homeland in service to the President and the NSC.
Patel is seeking the sum of about $25,000,000 or more for the defamation he suffered and “presumed damages and actual damages, including, but not limited to, insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering, injury to his reputation, special damages, costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses.”
He is demanding a trial by jury.
The significance of this lawsuit’s filing is that Bertrand’s Politico story on Patel came based off of testimony provided behind closed doors to the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry by Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman. They both alleged, incorrectly, in their testimony that Patel had secret meetings with President Trump on Ukraine matters and provided the president with documents on Ukraine. But as Breitbart News has already reported, while these Democrat impeachment witnesses Hill and Vindman may have testified in Schiff’s private impeachment inquiry to that effect, it was not accurate. Patel has since publicly confirmed he has never spoken with the president about Ukraine.
Politico’s decision to print the false testimony of Hill and Vindman as fact, which Patel’s lawsuit makes clear was in close coordination with Schiff and his team on Capitol Hill, could seriously cost the media outlet. Other media outlets that printed the inaccuracies could also end up on the chopping block as well, but for now Patel is focused on Politico with this lawsuit.
The timing of the lawsuit’s filing is also important in that both Vindman and Hill will be testifying in public hearings this week as part of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Sat 16 Nov 2019, 2:07 pm
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/conservative-news/watch-the-democratic-case-for-impeachment-collapses-in-real-time.htm
WATCH: The Democratic case for impeachment collapses in real time
November 15, 2019
The Democratic case for impeachment has always seemed fragile – but today’s public hearing exposed what Schiff’s private hearings had been keeping secret.
Rep. Mark Meadows put it best – they’re not serious.
The moment when it all came crashing down came after Rep. Chris Steward, a Republican, asked former ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovich if she had any knowledge of an impeachable offense committed by Trump.
Here’s the moment:
Ads by Revcontent
Gran Stuns Doctors: Removes Her Wrinkles with This £4 Tip
Fit Mum Daily
Journey Through The Ages In This Strategy Game
Forge Of Empires
A Trip To Barbados For 2. On Us.
Inspired Villages
Mark Meadows
@RepMarkMeadows
The Democrats second day impeachment witness, Ambassador Yovanovitch, has no information on any of the relevant questions.
They have no case. This is not serious.
Embedded video
41.2K
7:23 PM - Nov 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
24.2K people are talking about this
Meadows is right – the Democrats have exactly nothing. This is the best they could come up with for the first two days of hearings?sinuations, lies, ‘parodies’ and bluster, it’s become clear that impeachment, like the Mueller Report, is nothing but a politically motivated witch hunt.
They have nothing
The pundits at MSNBC will do their best to breathe life into the bloated remains of impeachment, and Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi will use every dishonest trick in the book to try to take out Trump.
But it’s over.
WATCH: The Democratic case for impeachment collapses in real time
November 15, 2019
The Democratic case for impeachment has always seemed fragile – but today’s public hearing exposed what Schiff’s private hearings had been keeping secret.
Rep. Mark Meadows put it best – they’re not serious.
The moment when it all came crashing down came after Rep. Chris Steward, a Republican, asked former ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovich if she had any knowledge of an impeachable offense committed by Trump.
Here’s the moment:
Ads by Revcontent
Gran Stuns Doctors: Removes Her Wrinkles with This £4 Tip
Fit Mum Daily
Journey Through The Ages In This Strategy Game
Forge Of Empires
A Trip To Barbados For 2. On Us.
Inspired Villages
Mark Meadows
@RepMarkMeadows
The Democrats second day impeachment witness, Ambassador Yovanovitch, has no information on any of the relevant questions.
They have no case. This is not serious.
Embedded video
41.2K
7:23 PM - Nov 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
24.2K people are talking about this
Meadows is right – the Democrats have exactly nothing. This is the best they could come up with for the first two days of hearings?sinuations, lies, ‘parodies’ and bluster, it’s become clear that impeachment, like the Mueller Report, is nothing but a politically motivated witch hunt.
They have nothing
The pundits at MSNBC will do their best to breathe life into the bloated remains of impeachment, and Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi will use every dishonest trick in the book to try to take out Trump.
But it’s over.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Re: BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Sat 16 Nov 2019, 2:06 pm
BACKFIRE: Democrat Impeachment Hearing Accidentally Makes Case for Hunter Biden Investigation
hunter-biden-abc-interview2ABC News
HARIS ALIC13 Nov 20193,591
3:03
The impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump backfired on congressional Democrats Wednesday, when a star witness inadvertently made the case that Hunter Biden’s wheeling and dealing in Ukraine should be investigated.
Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on the opening day of the inquiry, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent admitted that U.S. officials had been urging the Ukrainian government for some time to explain why an investigation into Burisma Holdings, the eastern European oil and gas company that employed Hunter Biden on its board of directors, was shut down
“We’ve continued to press Ukrainian officials to answer for why allege corrupt prosecutors had closed [the] case,” Kent said. “We have until now got an unsatisfactory answer.”
Kent, who has claimed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani engineered the firing of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine through a “campaign of slander,” is considered a key witness for congressional Democrats as they seek to prove the president’s conduct rises to the level of impeachment.
On Wednesday, however, Kent inadvertently strengthened the argument that Republicans and the president, himself, have made that Hunter Biden’s conduct in Ukraine should be probed given his father’s role overseeing policy in the region and the allegations of corruption lodged against Burisma and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky.
It was on the latter front that Kent’s testimony proved particularly revealing. The state department official admitted he and his colleagues believed Zlochevsky “had stolen money” and the Ukrainian prosecutor charged with investigating him shut down the case after taking a bribe. When asked if he was in favor of the Ukrainian government reopening the probe into Bruisma and Zlochevsky, Kent asserted he would “love” to see such an action so it could become clear who was bribed and to what extent.
Kent also asserted that Burisma had a “mixed business reputation” and Hunter Biden’s decision to join its board of directors had led him to raise concerns with former Vice President Joe Biden’s office in 2015.
“In a briefing call with…the office of the Vice President…I raised my concern that Hunter Biden’s status as a [Burisma] board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent testified.
At the center of controversy is how and why Hunter Biden secured the appointment, which at times paid more than $83,000 a month. As Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News, detailed in his book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Hunter Biden had no prior experience with either the energy industry or Ukraine before joining Burisma in April 2014.
Adding to concerns is the fact that at the time Hunter Biden joined Burisma, the company was seen as actively courting western leaders to prevent further scrutiny of its business practices. The same month Hunter Biden was tapped for the group’s board, the government of Great Britain froze accounts belonging to Zlochevsky under suspicion of money laundering.
Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian minister of natural resources, would later be accused of corruption for using his office to approve oil and gas licenses to companies under his control. A Ukrainian official with strong ties to Zlochevsky admitted in October the only reason that Hunter Biden secured the appointment was to “protect” the company from foreign scrutiny.
MORE
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/11/13/backfire-democrat-impeachment-hearing-accidentally-makes-case-for-hunter-biden-investigation/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191113&utm_content=Final
hunter-biden-abc-interview2ABC News
HARIS ALIC13 Nov 20193,591
3:03
The impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump backfired on congressional Democrats Wednesday, when a star witness inadvertently made the case that Hunter Biden’s wheeling and dealing in Ukraine should be investigated.
Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on the opening day of the inquiry, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent admitted that U.S. officials had been urging the Ukrainian government for some time to explain why an investigation into Burisma Holdings, the eastern European oil and gas company that employed Hunter Biden on its board of directors, was shut down
“We’ve continued to press Ukrainian officials to answer for why allege corrupt prosecutors had closed [the] case,” Kent said. “We have until now got an unsatisfactory answer.”
Kent, who has claimed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani engineered the firing of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine through a “campaign of slander,” is considered a key witness for congressional Democrats as they seek to prove the president’s conduct rises to the level of impeachment.
On Wednesday, however, Kent inadvertently strengthened the argument that Republicans and the president, himself, have made that Hunter Biden’s conduct in Ukraine should be probed given his father’s role overseeing policy in the region and the allegations of corruption lodged against Burisma and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky.
It was on the latter front that Kent’s testimony proved particularly revealing. The state department official admitted he and his colleagues believed Zlochevsky “had stolen money” and the Ukrainian prosecutor charged with investigating him shut down the case after taking a bribe. When asked if he was in favor of the Ukrainian government reopening the probe into Bruisma and Zlochevsky, Kent asserted he would “love” to see such an action so it could become clear who was bribed and to what extent.
Kent also asserted that Burisma had a “mixed business reputation” and Hunter Biden’s decision to join its board of directors had led him to raise concerns with former Vice President Joe Biden’s office in 2015.
“In a briefing call with…the office of the Vice President…I raised my concern that Hunter Biden’s status as a [Burisma] board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent testified.
At the center of controversy is how and why Hunter Biden secured the appointment, which at times paid more than $83,000 a month. As Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News, detailed in his book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Hunter Biden had no prior experience with either the energy industry or Ukraine before joining Burisma in April 2014.
Adding to concerns is the fact that at the time Hunter Biden joined Burisma, the company was seen as actively courting western leaders to prevent further scrutiny of its business practices. The same month Hunter Biden was tapped for the group’s board, the government of Great Britain froze accounts belonging to Zlochevsky under suspicion of money laundering.
Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian minister of natural resources, would later be accused of corruption for using his office to approve oil and gas licenses to companies under his control. A Ukrainian official with strong ties to Zlochevsky admitted in October the only reason that Hunter Biden secured the appointment was to “protect” the company from foreign scrutiny.
MORE
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/11/13/backfire-democrat-impeachment-hearing-accidentally-makes-case-for-hunter-biden-investigation/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191113&utm_content=Final
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
BREAKING No Impeachment for President Donald Trump
Admin Thu 14 Nov 2019, 12:53 am
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/13/live-wire-william-taylor-george-kent-testify-in-first-public-impeachment-hearing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191113&utm_content=Final
***LIVE UPDATES*** William Taylor, George Kent Testify in First Public Impeachment Hearing
609
Career Foreign Service officer George Kent, left, and the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine William Taylor, center, return from a break as they testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2019, during the first public impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump's efforts to …AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
JOSHUA CAPLAN13 Nov 201917,164
23:15
The House Intelligence Committee is holding its inaugural public hearing of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on Wednesday.
Congressional investigators will hear testimony from Acting Ambassador William Taylor, Chargé d’affairs at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, and George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the State Department.
**Follow live updates on this event from Breitbart News. All times in eastern.**
6:25 P.M. — Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) to Fox News when asked if he watched today’s hearing: “I wasn’t glued to the TV today. I was actually doing some important work on behalf of the people of America.”
6:24 P.M. — Michigan voters have no time for impeachment:
Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022)
:heavy_check_mark:
@TrumpWarRoom
Michigan voters know exactly what the impeachment #WitchHunt is about:
“The Democrats are really just trying to overturn the results from 2016 and I think it’s going to fail miserably.”
Embedded video
1,377
11:19 PM - Nov 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
631 people are talking about this
6:09 P.M. — Andrew Weissmann, who served as one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top prosecutors, claims President Trump made a “huge mistake” talking to the media about impeachment and denying having a telephone call with an aide to Sondland.
“He now can’t rebut it,” said Weissmann, now an MSNBC analyst.
“He has now said I don’t remember that phone call. So you’re going to have Sondland testifying to it. You’re going to have a staffer testifying to it,” he added. “If [Presideent Trump] doesn’t like their testimony, he’s going to have to say, ‘Oh, now I remember that I didn’t say that.’”
6:00 P.M. — The Department of Defense inspector general’s office has declined to investigate the department’s delay in providing military aid to Ukraine, according to NBC News.
5:55 P.M. — 2020 White House contender Andrew Yang (D) and his supporters ignored the topic of impeachment at a campaign event hosted by Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor Sam Altman.
Ryan Maclunkey :upside_down:
:heavy_check_mark:
@RMac18
Just got out of an Andrew Yang event at Sam Altman’s house with about 40 people. He spoke for 35ish mins to a crowd of donors that in many ways represent Yang’s natural base. Lots of talk on the tech industry and nothing on impeachment.
View image on Twitter
69
10:51 PM - Nov 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
22 people are talking about this
5:54 P.M. — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-KY) reveals he didn’t watch today’s hearing:
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
:heavy_check_mark:
@SherylNYT
Ran into @senatemajldr McConnell; asked him about the impeachment hearings. “I didn’t watch. They’re in the House, I’m in the Senate,” he told me, adding, “I have other things to do.”
10
10:52 PM - Nov 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Sheryl Gay Stolberg's other Tweets
5:40 P.M. —
Jonathan Swan
:heavy_check_mark:
@jonathanvswan
Sources close to Senate Republican leadership say they don’t know what Richard Burr is talking about. Timetable hasn’t been set and McConnell has not been inclined towards a 6-8 week trial. https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/1194376838992269317 …
Jeff Zeleny
:heavy_check_mark:
@jeffzeleny
Impeachment scheduling alert: Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr says trial will last for "6 to 8 weeks." It will run for 6 days a week, from 12:30 to 6:30 p.m., a big chunk of time for senators also running for president hoping to be in IA, NH or anywhere but DC in Dec/Jan/Feb.
378
10:38 PM - Nov 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
234 people are talking about this
5:31 P.M. — Even pro-impeachment Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) was unimpressed with today’s hearing:
READ MORE https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/13/live-wire-william-taylor-george-kent-testify-in-first-public-impeachment-hearing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191113&utm_content=Final
***LIVE UPDATES*** William Taylor, George Kent Testify in First Public Impeachment Hearing
609
Career Foreign Service officer George Kent, left, and the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine William Taylor, center, return from a break as they testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2019, during the first public impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump's efforts to …AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
JOSHUA CAPLAN13 Nov 201917,164
23:15
The House Intelligence Committee is holding its inaugural public hearing of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on Wednesday.
Congressional investigators will hear testimony from Acting Ambassador William Taylor, Chargé d’affairs at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, and George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the State Department.
**Follow live updates on this event from Breitbart News. All times in eastern.**
6:25 P.M. — Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) to Fox News when asked if he watched today’s hearing: “I wasn’t glued to the TV today. I was actually doing some important work on behalf of the people of America.”
6:24 P.M. — Michigan voters have no time for impeachment:
Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022)
:heavy_check_mark:
@TrumpWarRoom
Michigan voters know exactly what the impeachment #WitchHunt is about:
“The Democrats are really just trying to overturn the results from 2016 and I think it’s going to fail miserably.”
Embedded video
1,377
11:19 PM - Nov 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
631 people are talking about this
6:09 P.M. — Andrew Weissmann, who served as one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top prosecutors, claims President Trump made a “huge mistake” talking to the media about impeachment and denying having a telephone call with an aide to Sondland.
“He now can’t rebut it,” said Weissmann, now an MSNBC analyst.
“He has now said I don’t remember that phone call. So you’re going to have Sondland testifying to it. You’re going to have a staffer testifying to it,” he added. “If [Presideent Trump] doesn’t like their testimony, he’s going to have to say, ‘Oh, now I remember that I didn’t say that.’”
6:00 P.M. — The Department of Defense inspector general’s office has declined to investigate the department’s delay in providing military aid to Ukraine, according to NBC News.
5:55 P.M. — 2020 White House contender Andrew Yang (D) and his supporters ignored the topic of impeachment at a campaign event hosted by Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor Sam Altman.
Ryan Maclunkey :upside_down:
:heavy_check_mark:
@RMac18
Just got out of an Andrew Yang event at Sam Altman’s house with about 40 people. He spoke for 35ish mins to a crowd of donors that in many ways represent Yang’s natural base. Lots of talk on the tech industry and nothing on impeachment.
View image on Twitter
69
10:51 PM - Nov 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
22 people are talking about this
5:54 P.M. — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-KY) reveals he didn’t watch today’s hearing:
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
:heavy_check_mark:
@SherylNYT
Ran into @senatemajldr McConnell; asked him about the impeachment hearings. “I didn’t watch. They’re in the House, I’m in the Senate,” he told me, adding, “I have other things to do.”
10
10:52 PM - Nov 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Sheryl Gay Stolberg's other Tweets
5:40 P.M. —
Jonathan Swan
:heavy_check_mark:
@jonathanvswan
Sources close to Senate Republican leadership say they don’t know what Richard Burr is talking about. Timetable hasn’t been set and McConnell has not been inclined towards a 6-8 week trial. https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/1194376838992269317 …
Jeff Zeleny
:heavy_check_mark:
@jeffzeleny
Impeachment scheduling alert: Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr says trial will last for "6 to 8 weeks." It will run for 6 days a week, from 12:30 to 6:30 p.m., a big chunk of time for senators also running for president hoping to be in IA, NH or anywhere but DC in Dec/Jan/Feb.
378
10:38 PM - Nov 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
234 people are talking about this
5:31 P.M. — Even pro-impeachment Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) was unimpressed with today’s hearing:
READ MORE https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/13/live-wire-william-taylor-george-kent-testify-in-first-public-impeachment-hearing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191113&utm_content=Final
Last edited by Admin on Wed 05 Feb 2020, 11:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 84006
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 79
Location : Wales UK -
Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Similar topics» DONALD TRUMP THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF USA?
» Confirmed: Donald Trump Says He Will Take $1 Salary as President
» President Donald Trump -Russia
» PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP 2016
» PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP 2017
» Confirmed: Donald Trump Says He Will Take $1 Salary as President
» President Donald Trump -Russia
» PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP 2016
» PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP 2017
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» 16second clip WHY we needed WhiteHouse Change
» Amir Tsarfati BEHOLD ISRAEL
» israelAM
» WORTHY NEWS
» BIBLE STUDY on VERSE
» PULSE OF ISRAEL
» ISRAEL BREAKING NEWS
» AISH
» KEITH NOTES FROM NANJING
» Pres.Donald Trump will take the WHITEHOUSE
» Israel 365 News
» ZAKA Tel Aviv
» PROPHESY NEWS WATCH
» JIHAD WATCH
» ISRAFAN
» NUGGET Today's Devotional
» Chip Brogden CHURCH WITHOUT WALLS
» melaniephillips@substack.com
» Barry Segal @ VFI News