The Impeachment attempt has a close correlation with our thread on the Mueller Investigation/SpyGate: The origin of SpyGate in the Ukraine...The Server...Sources for the Steele Dossier...Alexandra Chalupa...all part of Trump's telecom with Zelensky. The latter is what Giuliani has been focusing upon in the Ukraine because Trump could not trust his own FBI/DOJ (until Barr came on the scene). However, Giuliani also came into possession of Biden info. Giuliani is a major focus in the Impeachment hearings; his name comes up in everyone's testimony. And why do you think the Dems chose this Ukraine Biden issue to make a stand? It's to obscure & keep the origins of SpyGate in Ukraine from being understood by the general public. The Dems want everyone to think Ukraine is all about Biden when Ukraine played a pivotal role in SpyGate.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,766,555 Views |
49427 Replies |
Last: 6 hrs ago by Houston Lee
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/06/curiouser-and-curiouser/
Long read from Sundance. Barr is scheduled to meet with Lindsey Graham about the IG report, & former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has been spotted at the Capitol. Rohrabacher had a 3 hour private interview with Assange a while back where Assange claimed the Russians didn't hack the DNC computers. Coincidence?
Honestly my gut feeling is that they made a political miscalculation, a huge one. They thought the American people give a rat's patootie about Biden and his being targeted by Trump.Quote:
And why do you think the Dems chose this Ukraine Biden issue to make a stand? It's to obscure & keep the origins of SpyGate in Ukraine from being understood by the general public. The Dems want everyone to think Ukraine is all about Biden when Ukraine played a pivotal role in SpyGate.
OTOH, if it sunk both Trump and Biden, still worth the price.
Note that Biden isn't mentioned in many of the talking points these days, just "Trump's political rival."
Just when things can't get crazier, that's exactly what happens.
Who is John Galt?
2026
2026
This may be a stretch, but Yovanovitch' actions and statements remind me a little bit of Lois Lerner.aggiehawg said:I also have to wonder if Schiff's hiring of former NSC employees was the first step. And by that I mean having his staffers with existing friendships to encourage an open line of communication with scuttlebutt and rumors floating around the White House. In essence requesting their buddies to violate the law and leak to them.Quote:
Isn't this essentially the same methodology the FBI was using during their investigation into the Trump campaign for FISA warrants?
Leak a story to the press and then use that story as 3rd party corroboration to the court, so that essentially the thing you are trying to corroborate becomes evidence for itself?
And then Schiff leaks to the press. They print it and Schiff calls for an investigation.
(Side note: While Marie Yovanovitch was still reading her opening statement (hyperbole but not by much) the statement was already in the press. Violation of Schiff's own rules since he and only he has authority to say anything publicly about the substance in these closed hearings. Yovanovitch's attorney got tied up in knots directing her not to answer questions about whether she leaked it or whether she knew if her lawyer leaked it. In one of those, "Oh s***!" moments lawyers have on occasion. I chuckled.)
Lerner knew she was guilty, but had her ass covered by the Obama administration, not unlike the Dems wanting to hail Yovanovitch as the greatest Ambassador since Joe Kennedy.
LOL. You mean the Hitler-lover Joe Kennedy? He was recalled from the Court of St. James, too.Quote:
Lerner knew she was guilty, but had her ass covered by the Obama administration, not unlike the Dems wanting to hail Yovanovitch as the greatest Ambassador since Joe Kennedy.
So to recap:
Quote:
"You have asked whether HPSCI or the other committees involved in the impeachment inquiry may validly compel executive branch witnesses to appear at such depositions," the department wrote in a letter to White House counsel Pat Cipollone. "The HPSCI impeachment inquiry seeks information concerning presidential communications, internal executive branch deliberations, and diplomatic communications arising in connection with U.S. foreign relations with Ukraine.
"As a result, the depositions seek testimony from executive branch employees concerning matters potentially protected by executive privilege. Consistent with our prior advice, we conclude that the congressional committees participating in the impeachment investigation authorized by the resolution may not validly require executive branch witnesses to appear without the assistance of agency counsel in connection with such depositions."
House Democrats "could address this separation of powers problem by allowing agency counsel to assist the employee during the deposition. Should the committee not do so, however, a subpoena purporting to require a witness to appear without such assistance would be invalid and not subject to civil or criminal enforcement," Steven Engel, assistant attorney general with the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, stated in the letter.
DOJ is telling the White House that Schiff's subpoenas are invalid. But Schiff is taking the position that failure to show up pursuant to an invalid subpoena is "obstruction of Congress."
The Epoch Times has a good discussion here.
First thing I thought of, but didn't word it as well as you.
"In check" is a good term, but for me "anticipation" is now on the clock!
"In check" is a good term, but for me "anticipation" is now on the clock!
The second pic, left to right, looks like he sees Pelosi as "Mom". He's got his arm around her, and ready for the party to get going.RyanAg08 said:texsn95 said:A whole lotta punchable faces in that one.Secolobo said:
Looks like it came from proctology textbook.
I don't remember Alex Soros looking like that, but maybe I'm thinking of a another sheltered Soros child.
And doesn't he look a little young to be George's son? His dad is 88 frickin' years old.
Anything is possible. If I remember correctly two of John Tyler's grandsons are STILL around and he was born in 1790 and President from 1841 to 1845.
You are correct. He had children very late in life, and one of his sons did the same.EKUAg said:
Anything is possible. If I remember correctly two of John Tyler's grandsons are STILL around and he was born in 1790 and President from 1841 to 1845.
The living grandchildren were born in 1924 and 1928.
On a tangent, and talking about Hitler admirers, I wonder if Joe Kennedy got along with Prince Edward?
Mark Levin has been talking about this. Schiff is deliberately subpoenaing people he knows cannot testify to "add to the obstruction charges." This is nothing but a stunt that threatens our very Republic. And the "impeachment inquiry," "quid pro quo," and "whistleblowers" are nothing more legitimate.
Schiff is an unethical piece of *****
Schiff is an unethical piece of *****
That doesn't hold water. This impeachment bs IS the obstruction. It's the obstruction of the Durham investigation.Ellis Wyatt said:
Mark Levin has been talking about this. Schiff is deliberately subpoenaing people he knows cannot testify to "add to the obstruction charges." This is nothing but a stunt that threatens our very Republic. And the "impeachment inquiry," "quid pro quo," and "whistleblowers" are nothing more legitimate.
Schiff is an unethical piece of *****
No, I don't care what CNN or MSNBC said this time
Ad Lunam
Ad Lunam
It doesn't hold water to people with brains, but that doesn't include liberals. It's no different than Trump's tweeting being obstruction of the Mueller sham.
Schiff is also saying now there is a "checklist" or "questionnaire" to establish the relevance of witnesses. And I'm sure he'll be the arbiter of relevance so its just another way to suppress Republican participation and reduce the chances that his witnesses are used against him (i.e. the whistleblower Ciaramella will be deemed a non-relevant witness)
He's doing it do they can grand stand, with media coverage, to clueless fools in the public about the no-shows while ignoring executive privilege powers the president retains even for a sketchy impeachment inquiry and other rights that other individuals may possess to legally challenge their requirement to appear. They want the issue, but I am pretty sure they don't want actual on topic testimony from some persons that might publicly damage their case if Republicans are allowed to cross examine.
It's purely about generating headlines for the sycophantic media.
It's purely about generating headlines for the sycophantic media.
TexAgs91 said:That doesn't hold water. This impeachment bs IS the obstruction. It's the obstruction of the Durham investigation.Ellis Wyatt said:
Mark Levin has been talking about this. Schiff is deliberately subpoenaing people he knows cannot testify to "add to the obstruction charges." This is nothing but a stunt that threatens our very Republic. And the "impeachment inquiry," "quid pro quo," and "whistleblowers" are nothing more legitimate.
Schiff is an unethical piece of *****
Exactly! So long as Schiff stays busy doing "the business of Congress in Washington DC", he can't be arrested or detained. So the bobble-headed pencil neck is safe...so are his committee members.
But charges of treason or bribery are not subject to arrest/indictment exclusions, so maybe Q was right...he is a traitor.
Pretty clear all these "open hearings" are going to be are Dems getting their "gotcha moments" in public while Reps are squelched, the media will run with the headlines to reinforce the Dems points, and the Dems will claim full transparency in the process.
The Cocaine Mitch led Senate needs an "in kind" response to this sham when/if they get articles.
The Cocaine Mitch led Senate needs an "in kind" response to this sham when/if they get articles.
Problem now for Schiff is that he is going to have to deal with some people that know how to use the media. I can see any of the people being rumored to being placed on his committee to utilize the media access to show how partisan the proceedings are being conducted.
Has Material Witness Schiff subpoenaed himself or his staff yet?
If Burr had a pair he'd release it now and tell Warner to pound sand.
Warner always looks constipated.
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Burr is worthless and he is Warner's buddy.
aggiehawg said:
If Burr had a pair he'd release it now and tell Warner to pound sand.
Hawg, why do I get the feeling that the GOPe Senators have to undergo Vasectomies to serve on these committees?
Either that, or all of their testosterone is purged from their system by some weird dialysis process.
Of course, Chuck Grassley probably told them to piss up a rope.
With Burr (and swallwell, too) I think it has more to do with being compromised by corruption. That committee is not trusted by any other Republican in the House or Senate for a reason.
Haha. It's probably Burr's idea. It's not known as the most corrupt committee in congress for nothing.aggiehawg said:
If Burr had a pair he'd release it now and tell Warner to pound sand.
Of course, we can all hear Adam Schiff saying: "Hold my beer."
Not when I'm done with it.
Hunter's actions may have been a FCPA violation if he sought to influence regulatory or legal actions by US officials in certain ways. He definitely should have not been involved with persons he knew personally or with his father that could help him influence regulatory or legal actions against the corporation and had another board member or officer handle that duty. This of course presumes Burisma does business with or in the USA. If it was exclusively a foreign business then our law may not apply to him and the only issue would be law in Ukraine.
Then again, FCPA requires US persons to follow and comply with foreign anti-corruption law also, if so recall.
Then again, FCPA requires US persons to follow and comply with foreign anti-corruption law also, if so recall.
Indeed it does, even if those laws are largely ignored in Ukraine.MouthBQ98 said:
Hunter's actions may have been a FCPA violation if he sought to influence regulatory or legal actions by US officials in certain ways. He definitely should have not been involved with persons he knew personally or with his father that could help him influence regulatory or legal actions against the corporation and had another board member or officer handle that duty. This of course presumes Burisma does business with or in the USA. If it was exclusively a foreign business then our law may not apply to him and the only issue would be law in Ukraine.
Then again, FCPA requires US persons to follow and comply with foreign anti-corruption law also, if so recall.
But here is where I think Hunter gets into trouble. Our DOE is quite involved with fostering and aiding the development of Ukrainian O&G reserves to lessen their and other parts of Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas. To that end, there were some price controls (still high prices but less than they would have been) that the U.S. provided monetary aid to compensate for the difference.
So not only the State Department but Department of Energy were and are heavily involved. Follow that money.
Featured Stories
See All