"Trump's guilty! He's guilty! I see it!"
Posted on 11/08/2019 7:27:11 AM PST by Red Badger
Inside Adam Schiff’s star chamber located on Capitol Hill where he has been conducting the bogus impeachment inquiry, things turned into a total disaster for the House Intel Chairman. According to new reports, Schiff was utterly humiliated when he was made to watch as his two key witnesses totally fall apart while on the stand. You don’t want to miss what the mainstream media is refusing to report.
Reports from insiders who are privy to Schiff’s impeachment hearings are telling quite a different tale than the cherry-picked mainstream news reports. In fact, it’s turned into a total disaster for the Democrats who are now trying to steer the main focus away from the president soliciting a “quid pro quo” from Ukraine.
You may recall Adam Schiff, who is acting as the chief prosecutor, claimed President Donald Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in lieu of launching an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden’s involvement in Burisma. Schiff claimed Trump was looking to aid his re-election campaign in a “quid pro quo.”
It’s become apparent now that those colluding with Schiff prior to the “whistleblower” ever filing the complaint include two of his key witnesses.
“It’s becoming obvious based on testimony that this entire operation was orchestrated by Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman. But because they didn’t want their names on the anti-Trump complaint, they pawned it off on one of Brennan’s anti-Trump operatives,” tweeted Federalist reporter Sean Davis.
It's becoming obvious based on testimony that this entire operation was orchestrated by Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman. But because they didn't want their names on the anti-Trump complaint, they pawned it off on one of Brennan's anti-Trump operatives. https://t.co/lFb7JzeOcP
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 6, 2019
As we previously reported, this entire Ukraine scheme was pre-planned going back at least to the Democrats’ winning back the House in 2018. This so-called whistleblower didn’t come forward on his own. He was “picked” to be the whistleblower by the same witnesses Schiff claims are “patriots.”
Making matters worse for Schiff, these same State Department “star witnesses” were a total disaster on the stand. Bill Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.
“[Y]ou’ve never spoken to Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani?” Taylor was asked.
“No, no,” he replied.
“Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?”
“No,” Taylor said.
“And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?” Taylor was asked.
“I have not,” he said.
“You had no communications with the president of the United States?”
“Correct,” Taylor said.
When asked who exactly he had spoken to about the brouhaha, Taylor confirmed that his only contacts about the matter were with John Bolton, the former national security adviser who was fired by Trump, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, and Tim Morrison. Both Hill and Vindman are the deep state rats identified as colluding with the so-called whistleblower prior to filing his complaint.
Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge.
“And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. “But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?”
“That’s correct,” Taylor admitted.
Zeldin noted that the only reference to Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden in Taylor’s opening statement stemmed from that convoluted game of telephone. The New York lawmaker hammered Taylor for relying on third-hand information about the state of mind of an elected official to whom he had never spoken.
“So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?” Zeldin asked.
“I have not talked to the president,” Taylor said. “I have no other information from what the president was thinking.”
Under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn’t aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.
“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”
“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.”
“And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked.
“That is correct,” Taylor responded.
Then there’s Schiff’s other “star witness,” former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who Trump fired after he found out she was a leaker and a real Trump-hater. Democrats claimed that in Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, he had “clearly” delivered a quid pro quo — Javelin anti-tank missiles for Ukraine in exchange for investigating how the Russia collusion narrative began and dirt on Joe Biden.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) pressed Yovanovitch on whether the Javelins were ever being held from Ukraine.
“Ambassador, there’s been, and Chairman Schiff kind of alluded to this, and when we start talking about Javelins and foreign aid, for the record, I want to make sure that we’re clear. The foreign aid that was has been reported as being held up, it doesn’t relate to Javelins, does it?” he asked Yovanovitch.
“No. At least I’m not aware that it does,” said Yovanovitch.
For those of us who have been following this impeachment inquiry closely, the picture that is emerging is one of career State Department officials, who are virulently anti-Trump, who are ticked off we have a president who has his own ideas about American foreign policy.
These witnesses actually admit they think Trump was “interfering” in foreign policy.
The president of the United States sets our foreign policy. He is the Commander in Chief, and they all serve at his pleasure. These Never Trumpers like Lt. Col. Vindman, Bill Taylor, Fiona Hill, and Marie Yovanovitch are all on the record having tantrums over Trump “meddling” in their Ukraine policies.
So, they were all ripe for the Democrats to use in this latest coup attempt. We predict when Schiff holds open hearings next week, it will become apparent pretty quickly they are a bunch of whiners who have zero evidence Trump did nothing except the job Americans elected him to do. We don’t need their hyper-partisan commentary on Trump’s phone call anyway. We can all read it for ourselves.
Ukraine begged the kenyan for Javelins. He gave them garbage instead. Old Humvees with flat tires, disabled anti-mortar radar, blankets, etc.
Sure, a total disaster. This type of reporting assumes that Leftists like Shiff actually care about results or truth.
The purpose of this so-called “Impeachment” charade is not to discover relevant facts from witnesses or even to impeach President Trump. This is all being done to flood the Mainstream Media with endless stories of how corrupt the Trump administration is during the run-up to the 2020 election. You can be certain that no matter how much a witness fails to support these ridiculous allegations, the Democrat party’s Mainstream Media errand-boys will report only what they are told to and spin it exactly as instructed.
This impeachment probe has been a stellar success for the Democrats and is accomplishing exactly what they want it to.
Well, a little help pleeeease. If the testimony was secret, why is it revealed apparently verbatim now?
The Dems leak only cherry picked quotes, taken out of context and totally frame them as ‘bombshells’ for maximum political damage................
Trump made a huge............HUGE mistake by not removing Obama favoring Ambassadors(and others) upon taking office. You can’t fire 20-30 ambassadors in one fell swoop, but over a period of six months or so there should have been a clean sweep. Ms. BokanoBitch, should have been one of the first to go.
It is to stem the hemorrhaging of Dem voters for Trump .................
The Clintons fired ALL 55 DOJ LAYERS AT THE SAME TIME UPON TAKING CONTROL OF THE DOJ.
Some were even in the middle of Court trials!....................
A Monkey Trial circus prosecuting no crimes is of course falling apart. It’s a set-up.
For there to be justice, treason tribunals must be held. The guilty must be executed. Then we get back to business as usual, that is MAGA.
The naivety is that Shiffty will let any of this testimony become public next week.
I think he received very, very bad advice, probably from someone who is now his enemy. Remember the guy was not a politician, he knew the Swamp was in DC, but maybe not how deeply they hated him, nor how much THEY hated the USA.
I could think of more unpleasant things for shiftless to watch.
So its a soap opera...
Tune in again tomorrow when you will hear Adam say “Bring me more whistleblowers!”
He should see the inside of a jail cell
That’s the problem. How would he have known who to fire?
Tillitson didn’t have that knowledge.
Clinton fired all of the US attorneys. Trump hasn’t. Nor has he cleaned out other agencies wholesale.
That would take a bit if in depth work, but, I would say this:
As to the Ambassadors it would be easy: If it was a political appointment, made my Obama, they are automatically gone.
If they are a career State Dept. appointment then it is a bit tougher, but he could have looked at: Their resume, who appointed them and who they have made campaign contributions to. Their are people inside these agencies who could have provided deep background, not directly to Trump, but to his advisors.
Then there is this: When in doubt, fire them anyway.
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.