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.
Tom Shillue does a hilarious impersonation of Schiff on Greg Gutfeld’s show. He’s got the whole look down perfectly, especially the bug eyes.
State Department - the privileged loser kids of earlier 'elites' who got their spoiled brat offsprings into Yale by buying buildings for the University...and pulling strings.
The loser kids want jobs in State so foreigners will butter them up in exchange for them giving away OUR tax dollars to the best butt kissers.
It's a disgrace.
Trump should fire all the phonies with their puffed up delusions of grandeur and fake gravitas...
I love his Schiff routines! Hilarious!
I can’t argue one point you made.
Your assessment is brilliant. It should be repeated often. My compliments.
Not only will they refuse to report it, they will conceal the existence of any available documentation of the testimony. President Trump should summarize it and tweet it out, so at least the public becomes aware that there IS a "there" there!
They will dismiss any opposing testimony as debunked ‘conspiracy theories’ spread by FOX news........................
Why can’t you fire 20-30 in one fell swoop? Seriously, what work does an ambassador actually do? I’m sure that all of those guys and gals could go and we’d just put a note on the door, check back later..... all they ever want is money anyway. There could remain staff to handle issues with our citizens out of the country.
If Obama did that the media would use terms such as: "Decisive leadership", Needs to have his own team", "Clearing out the dead wood", "Fulfilling a campaign promise for fundamental change", etc. etc.
For Trump: "Devastating decision", "Trump foreign policy in disarray", "State Department in shock", "Foreign relations may never recover" etc. etc.
I'm not sure they even need to be told anymore.
Right wing talking points.
Agree - further, I think the plan also includes an unconstitutional censure vote, accompanied by NOT sending the case to the Senate, where real witnesses can be called, and the coup plot would be exposed.
The will censure and suspend the active impeachment investigation.
“You can’t fire 20-30 ambassadors in one fell swoop,”
I don’t see why not. Most of them are just figureheads — cushy-job paybacks to people who support(ed) a POTUS. Diplomatic experience might help, but isn’t necessary.
...a stellar success for the Democrats and is accomplishing exactly what they want it to.
_________________________________
So, they want to see Biden implode and become short of cash, while POTUS’ popularity climbs? They are pleased that over 70% of Americans see this as political, have lost trust in the MSM and no Republicans are supporting the impeachment inquiry attempt?
I knew the progs had a massive death wish, given their virulent anti-white, anti-male, anti-increased birth rate, but this is some sort of political suicide record.
bookmark
If you fire 20-30 ambassadors, all you have left are their career and leftist State Dept. subordinates in charge until you eventually get new appointments through the Senate.
Besides, most ambassadors are career not political appointments. According to this 2014 article, it was, of course, Obambi who politicized ambassador appointments:
“The AFSA, which keeps track of appointments, says in his second term so far, Obama has named a record number of political appointees, more than half, as compared to other recent presidents, who tend to name donors and friends to about one-third of the ambassadorial posts.”
- https://www.npr.org/2014/02/12/275897092/more-ambassador-posts-are-going-to-political-appointees
Yes, he did. As very president does.
2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneysAll but three of the requested resignations were accepted.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaOn March 10, 2017, Jeff Sessions, who was appointed United States Attorney General by President Donald Trump, requested the resignations of 46 United States Attorneys.[1] Some resignations were declined by Sessions or Trump.[1][2] Media outlets described Sessions' move as abrupt and unexpected but not unprecedented. It is typical that when a new president enters office, that many sitting U.S. Attorneys depart on their own initiative before their term in office has concluded, or they are asked to resign. The other 47 U.S. Attorney posts were either already vacant by the end of Obama's administration or the incumbent U.S. Attorney had resigned at the beginning of Trump's administration.
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.