Who does @GOPLeader want to hear from in the #impeachment probe? "We should bring in Adam Schiff and his staff," McCarthy tells @facethenation
Posted on 11/03/2019 9:51:09 AM PST by jazusamo
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Margaret Brennan, the host of "Face the Nation" on CBS, that the very first person he would want to question in the Democrats' bogus impeachment probe would be House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA).
"Well, the very first person I think we should bring is Adam Schiff and his staff. He is the only individual in America–" McCarthy said.
"For a public hearing?" a confused Brennan asked. "You want to question the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee?"
"Yes, I would, because he's the only person who knows who this whistleblower is. He refers to himself as a Ken Starr. Ken Starr testified," McCarthy said.
There are numerous questions McCarthy has for Schiff.
"How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did he talk to the whistleblower about?" McCarthy asked. "Because even when the whistleblower went to the inspector general, he never mentioned that he met with Adam Schiff."
According to the House Minority Leader, the American public should have all the facts about the whistleblower's complaint and the chain of events.
"The public deserves the facts, not something that's leaked," he said. "We're three weeks since the very first hearing inside there, the deposition. We still do not have the transcripts."
McCarthy reminded Brennan of one important tidbit: the House's formal impeachment vote was a way for them to "justify what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on."
Schiff received the whistleblower's complaint a month before turning it over to the full House Intelligence Committee. We know he received his information second and third-hand. He wasn't even on President Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The White House released the full transcript, which showed no quid pro took place. Trump simply asked Zelensky to look into the Bidens' business dealings in Ukraine. After all, Joe Biden's son, Hunter, was being paid $50,000 a month to sit on the board of a Ukrainian gas company despite having no natural energy experience. And Joe was handling international relations with Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.
Who does @GOPLeader want to hear from in the #impeachment probe? "We should bring in Adam Schiff and his staff," McCarthy tells @facethenation
Amen to that. Republicans should pose their questions in public and challenge Schiffty to answer them.
Exactly...Schiff is trying to pull off what DiFi tried to pull off in the Senate with the Justice Kavanaugh hearings, only this is about the presidency.
All is not well with the (non)impeachment rollout.
Yes I agree
Since Russian Collusion ended and all the bad actors were dismissed like Comey Brennan and Clapper it looks like a Schiff is titular Head
McCarthy's questions for Schiff:
<><> "How many times did he meet with the whistleblower?
<><> What did he talk to the whistleblower about?"
<><> Why the whistleblower went to the IG, and never mentioned he met with Adam Schiff."
House Minority Leader McCarthy insisted the American public should have all the facts about the whistleblower's
complaint and the chain of events before and after. "The public deserves the facts, not something that's leaked.
We're three weeks since the very first secret hearing, from the secret deposition. The transcripts are still being kept secret."
Representative Elise Stefanik (R-New York) gives a good general perspective from a centrist, non ideological, politician. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Stefanik is at the center of the impeachment efforts undertaken by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff. <>Ms. Stefanik has had enough of the schemes and games and is publicly calling out Chairman Schiff for his manipulation of the impeachment process. This type of push-back is good, because Pelosi and Schiff’s crew are comfortable with the customary GOP push-back from McCarthy, Jordan, Meadows, Gaetz, Collins, Nunes etc. However, the Lawfare crowd is not prepared to deal with the optics of a more dangerous Stefanik.
REFERENCE Stefanik Speaks at Leadership Stakeout: “Schiff is unfit to Chair the Intelligence Committee”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWQzrZp0_us&feature=youtu.be/
House Democrats are grilling a stream of disgruntled career diplomats in a basement hearing room of the Capitol. The hearings are supposed to be secret, but -- no surprise -- Democrats leak snippets of the testimony daily. They're hoping it will add up to a case for impeaching President Donald Trump. So far, all the testimony actually proves is that these State Department diplomats think they -- not President Trump -- ought to be running the nation's foreign policy. Never mind executive privilege or impeachment. The most pressing constitutional issue at hand is who decides the nation's foreign policy: the president or the permanent bureaucracy.
House Democrats are accusing Trump of offering Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a quid pro quo: dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden in exchange for nearly $400 million in aid. Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky is the subject of the hearings, but these witnesses have no firsthand knowledge of the call.
Instead, they're whimpering about being sidelined by the Trump administration and objecting that top ambassadorial appointments are going to Trump's friends instead of to them. They're seething with disdain for the president. For example, a deputy assistant secretary named George Kent, who testified on Oct. 15, complained he was cut out of important decisions. Boohoo. Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., leaked Kent's testimony, saying "here is a senior state department official responsible for six countries" being ignored, while he watches Trump's appointees "undermining 28 years of U.S. policy."
William Taylor, acting Ukrainian ambassador who testified Tuesday, seethed with indignation that Trump went "outside regular State Department channels." Trump's chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, described what's happening: "A group of mostly career bureaucrats" refuse to accept that "elections have consequences. And foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration."
The State Department insurrection spans embassies across the globe. On Aug. 8, Chuck Park, a 10-year foreign service officer stationed in Mexico, penned a vitriolic public resignation for The Washington Post, condemning Trump for carrying out "mass deportations," failing "dreamers" and pursuing a "toxic agenda around the world." He publicly accused the president of "naked cruelty."
Two weeks later, Bethany Milton, a pro-immigration advocate and state department official stationed in Rwanda, announced her resignation in The New York Times, scathingly labeling Trump's foreign policy "small-minded chauvinism." Good riddance to Milton and Park. Resigning is what diplomats should do when they are fundamentally at odds with the administration's foreign policy approach. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for bureaucrats intent on sabotaging the president. No one elected them.
Predictably, the foreign policy establishment disagrees. William J. Burns, who capped his career as deputy secretary of state for President Barack Obama, argues that State Department careerists should be in charge, not the president and his appointees.
But these career diplomats favor globalism, open borders and huge American handouts to multinational organizations and third-world nations. The public elected Trump to implement the opposite -- an America First agenda. Trump must wrest control to achieve that.
Fifty years ago, Henry Kissinger understood that the diplomatic bureaucracy was biased against President Richard Nixon's foreign policy goals. As national security adviser, Kissinger pulled control of diplomacy into the White House, inciting resentment and pushback from the State Department. Again, in 2003, Newt Gingrich warned that State Department bureaucrats were engaging in "a deliberate and systematic effort" to undermine President George W. Bush. It's happening again. The bureaucrats are slithering up to Capitol Hill to complain about President Trump. History reminds us what's actually going on here.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a "fact sheet" about Trump's alleged impeachable offense. It provides no damning evidence, just speculation. On Tuesday, Taylor told the hearing that another diplomat, Gordon Sondland, had informed him there was a price for military aid. But Sondland denies that, insisting the president made it clear there was no quid pro quo. Too bad for the impeachment-hungry Dems and their sympathetic allies from the State Department. Disagreeing with the foreign-policy elites is not an impeachable offense. In fact, millions of Americans are cheering Trump on.
Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Tex., told The Federalist on Friday (November 1, 2019) that Schiff’s problem isn’t mere partisan political bias, it’s that Schiff has a conflict of interest given his secret interactions with the anti-Trump whistleblower before his false complaint against Trump was even submitted:
It’s more than just bias—it’s an actual legal conflict of interest. Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an impeachment inquiry to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions or the actions of his staff. He is essentially a witness in the trial over which he is presiding. He has a conflict of interest because his testimony is relevant to the origins of the impeachment process that he is simultaneously conducting, directing and managing.
If Dems could harshly question Jeff Sessions then how come Schiff is untouchable? They questioned Jeff on all non-recused factors and it went on for hours.
Let’s Keep This FReepathon Moving and Wrap It Up Early, Folks!
"Confused" my little brown eye.
Questioned, he needs to meet his baker.
Punchable Clown Face ALERT!
Hey Kevin, the whistleblower's name is
Eric Ciaramella.
And everybody knows it. Get busy and do your job. The rats don't want Eric to testify. And he shouldn't 'cause he knows nothing.
DipSchiff doesn't need to be "questioned". HE NEEDS TO BE INDICTED FOR TREASON.
Members of Congress engaging in an orchestrated COUP D'ETAT on the American people's president deserve HARD FEDERAL PRISON TIME or even EXECUTION BY FIRING SQUAD OR HANGING ON THE CAPITOL GROUNDS.
DipSchiff has torn our Constitution apart. ANY impeachment inquiry is the JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, NOT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. I believe DipSchiff has broken the law here, A CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER AIMED AT TOTAL SECRECY OF HIS LAWBREAKING AS A FACT WITNESS PRESIDING OVER AN INQUIRY.
AG BARR, WHERE ARE YOU? DIPSCHIFF'S COUP D'ETAT is A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE IN ADVANCE OF DURHAM'S DAMNING REPORT ON OBAMA'S AND THE DEEP STATE MEDIA'S ORCHESTRATED TREASON AGAINST TRUMP AHEAD OF AND DURING THE 2016 ELECTION! RELEASE THE DAMN REPORT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!
Notice the Deep State media has NOT released the name of the so-called "whistleblower" who is REALLY a Russian/Ukrainian SPY.. This is VERY telling. PROVES THAT THE MEDIA IS PART OF THE COUP D'ETAT AGAINST TRUMP!!!!
WHISTLEBLOWER ERIC CIARAMELLA, FOREIGN AGENT PRETENDING TO BE A PATRIOT
For the most part, Republicans prefer to complain, “Those big nasty democrats keep pushing us around.” Gutless Old Party
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
