November 2, 2019

Why is Adam Schiff — as chair of the Intelligence Committee — running the impeachment inquiry?

The Washington Examiner examines:
While the Judiciary Committee has traditionally handled the impeachment process and has held those hearings in public, [its chair Jerry] Nadler had run afoul of Pelosi over his handling of the investigation and his decision to hold a series of highly partisan public hearings that were criticized by both parties.

Republicans believe Democratic leaders were looking for a way to transfer control to Schiff, who is more closely aligned with Pelosi and runs a committee that traditionally holds hearings behind closed doors....

The whistleblower complaint prompted Pelosi to give Schiff total control over impeachment proceedings that he has so far conducted mostly out of the public’s view.
And didn't the whistleblower consult with Schiff before filing the complaint? Yes. Here is the Washington Post (from October 2):
The intelligence officer whose allegations of presidential wrongdoing have sparked a full-blown impeachment inquiry sought guidance from a Democratic-led congressional committee days before filing his complaint with an inspector general, according to panel aides. The whistleblower’s interaction with an aide for Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, reflects the officer’s sense of urgency in surfacing the allegations that President Trump had pressed the president of Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election in a way that would harm a potential political rival....
Or did it reflect a sense of urgency about moving the impeachment proceedings behind closed doors — away from Nadler and over to Schiff?

Back to the Washington Examiner:
Schiff first told reporters his office had no prior contact with the whistleblower but acknowledged through a spokesman in an Oct. 2 in a New York Times article that “the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community.”
I see ambiguity in that quoted phrase. It can mean: How do I report this so it will fall within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community? Or, more blandly: I have information within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community and want to know how to report it. Who initiated this consultation between the whistleblower and Schiff's office? It could have been Schiff's people, motivated by the desire to get impeachment out of the Judiciary Committee and into the Intelligence Committee.
Democrats have positioned Schiff to act as a special investigator, akin to former special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated alleged Trump-Russia campaign collusion, or Independent Counsel Ken Starr, whose investigation of Bill Clinton led to his impeachment....
But Schiff is and was an anti-Trump partisan. There's no way he's the sort of person who would be chosen as a special counsel like Robert Mueller or Ken Starr. It's an entirely unbelievable characterization. It was better to have things out in the open with Nadler's highly partisan public sessions!
Schiff has since declared he will not seek testimony from the whistleblower, which Republicans believe is aimed at preventing GOP lawmakers from asking the whistleblower about his coordination with the intelligence panel.
Is there some reason why we the people are not entitled to that information? I want to know. Once you go into secrecy mode, you create suspicions about what you are trying to hide.

87 comments:

Big Mike said...

Once you go into secrecy mode, you create very well-founded suspicions about what you are trying to hide.

There, Althouse, I fixed it for you.

Ken B said...

Seriously, where is Farmer? He has been banging on about the intelligence community for ages.

I confess I did not give such conspiracy mongering from my leftist acquaintances enough credibility. I still don’t see a monolithic plan. After all the one colonel was contradicted by 4 intelligence personnel. But read Greenwald. He documents how many intelligence officials are now in the media and providing leaks and “background” — most of it lies.

Skylark said...

It’s best when you are building a house of cards to make sure nobody bumps the table and that there are no stray puffs of wind.

Skylark said...

Also, badgering witnesses and taking witnesses off into private rooms doesn’t play well on TV.

Gahrie said...

which Republicans believe is aimed at preventing GOP lawmakers from asking the whistleblower about his coordination with the intelligence panel.

So the Republicans won't be able to compel his testimony? What happened to the right to confront your accuser?

Michael K said...

This is all show, hoping to lower Trump's approval numbers. Only if Nancy is convinced it has worked will there be a formal House vote.

Schiff drips malice and is a well known liar,

George Grady said...

Schiff has since declared he will not seek testimony from the whistleblower, which Republicans believe is aimed at preventing GOP lawmakers from asking the whistleblower about his coordination with the intelligence panel.

I really don't understand what the Democrats think this gains them. They can only do this because they control the process, and they only control the process so long as this remains in the House. But ultimately, if this is going to go anywhere, if will have to go to the Republican-controlled Senate. So either this never gets to the Senate, in which case Trump is never impeached; or it does get to the Senate, and the Democrats will no longer be able to keep things behind closed doors. Neither case seems good for the Democratic cause.

Bay Area Guy said...

Fat Nadler bolloxed up the House Judiciary Committee hearings so bad, that Nancy-Pants benched his sorry ass, and moved them to secret Schiff and his Lawfare buddies.,

Need that IG Report, Horowitz. Need it now, need it to be damning,

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Doesn't matter if it's opinions, hearsay, and manufactured outrage from CIA democrat operatives. Any string will do to manufacture the Colbert-Pelosi narrative.

It's for the children.

Skylark said...

"They can only do this because they control the process, and they only control the process so long as this remains in the House.”

Now their take, in the Washington Post, is that if they can’t get 20 Republicans to go public that they have an open mind on impeachment, they don’t want to have a trial in the Senate becuase they don’t want their precious house of cards knocked down.

gilbar said...

runs a committee that traditionally holds hearings behind closed doors....

When you're running a Star Chamber, you HAVE to run it in Secrecy! When you are fabricating imaginary crimes, you Can't be having your victims know what those imaginary crimes Are. That's just common sense!!

The Only reason to be conducting these hearings in public would be IF there was any foundation to the accusations

bagoh20 said...

Because he is the best at and most willing to do what needs done. Blatant lying, leaking and injustice. It's kind of his specialty. He will go down in history a lot like Joseph McCarthy, but with far less evidence behind his charges. Schiffism = McCarthyism, but less defensible and more popular.

Skylark said...

I love how Vindman says he was" appalled at the president’s attempt to subvert foreign policy."

bagoh20 said...

They keep telling us they are getting to the bottom of what Trump told the Ukrainian President. They are pretending Trump didn't immediately release the transcript telling the whole world exactly what they are trying so hard to figure out. Maybe they don't have the internet, or a copy machine, or paper, or a TV, or a radio, or a crime.

Ken B said...

Not call the “whistle blower”? WTF. Proof positive he has nothing and was just a ginned up pretext.

Skylark said...

"But Schiff is and was an anti-Trump partisan. There's no way he's the sort of person who would be chosen as a special counsel like Robert Mueller or Ken Starr. “

Well, that is sort of the point. Look how well Mueller did at destroying Trump, even with Hillary’s “BleachBit and hammers” lawyer running the show “day to day”

gilbar said...

Vindman says he was" appalled at the president’s attempt to subvert foreign policy

Who The HELL, does this Trump guy think he is?
a President of the Unites States has NO BUSINESS attempting to alter foreign policy!
Foreign Policy is the province of our Un-elected Elites!!!

Allow the President to have ANY input into foreign policy, and NEXT THING YOU KNOW...
The "People" (yes! THOSE "people!") will be thinking that THEY should have some input too!
Thank Gaia, that the DEMOCRATIC party is there to keep THAT from happening!!!

Tommy Duncan said...

Secrecy is paramount when your story won't stand scrutiny.

Yancey Ward said...

The simplest explanation is almost always the right one. They are doing behind closed doors because the testimony doesn't come close to adding up to an impeachable offense, and this will become obvious as soon as even a single witness is cross-examined in public. And it isn't even working any longer because the Republicans on the committee have started leaking the actual testimony, themselves after giving Schiff free rein for the first couple of weeks- I mean, they are releasing detailed testimony.

Trump is going to beat the Democrats over the head with this impeachment- one of two things is going happen at some point before next Spring- either the Senate acquits with majority vote, or the House never brings impeachment forward- in either case, Trump is going to proclaim himself exonerated, and that claim will resonate with anyone who isn't a Democrat. This is what is called painting yourself into a corner. I wrote on this blog the day Pelosi first announced the inquiry- it was now a death match. A month later, it is pretty obvious that Trump will never be impeached an removed.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"The person who planted fake evidence shouldn't be the one ruling on the admissibility of fake evidence," Ratcliffe said of Schiff on Friday.

“He is essentially a witness in the trial over which he is presiding,” Ratcliffe continued. “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.”

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01/rep-john-ratcliffe-adam-schiffs-problem-isnt-that-hes-biased-its-that-hes-running-a-corrupt-process/

Bob Boyd said...

Democracy Dies In Darkness...like a dog...like a border wall bollard...like a sawzall battery...like a whimpering terrorist trapped in a tunnel by a dog...that didn't die.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Nadler had run afoul of Pelosi over his handling of the investigation and his decision to hold a series of highly partisan public hearings that were criticized by both parties.

Does anyone know what this is referring to? How could Nadler's history be worse or more partisan than Schiff's?

Everyone remembers Schiff's lies (I've seen the real secret evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia) and leaks.

Is there anyone in Washington who is more hated for his extreme partisanship than Schiff?

Who runs the Foreign Affairs committee? That would have been the natural choice for this investigation. I wonder why not.

iowan2 said...

Go back several steps.

Reporting in the media, from Schiffs committee members revealed to set up. The committee explained to reporters, the WB was frustrated by the slowness of a response from the CIA legal counsel. They were not moving fast enough to get the complaint into the hands of the House Intelligence Committee. Wording alluded to the CIA IG getting the complaint and the Director of the CIA handing it off to the CIA counselors office. Because, the complaint involved no CIA personnel, or CIA operations. The complaint had zero contact with the CIA.

(now what are the coup plotters supposed to do? Only WB complaints that originate from the IC are required by law be forwarded to Congress)

Schiff tells the WB to take it to the Intelligence Community IG, via first consulting with his committee. My guess, Schiff informed the IC IG that the complaint was coming and to immediately forward it to him, as the law required. It still didn't work, because they could not cut out the new Director of Intelligence. He had his legal counsel look at it, who had the DoJ look at it, and determined no laws were broken, and the complaint did not fall into the jurisdiction of the Intelligence community. That's when Schiff tweeted out the existence of the WB complaint about a specific Presidential phone call. (something he claims to know nothing about) The Tweet was supposed to set off a months long back and forth with the House claiming President Trump is obstructing justice. Lots of yelling and screaming, lots of basement hearings (the list of witnesses was drawn up before Schiff's first tweet) with leaks containing made up facts.
President Trump ruined their plans. He released the memorandum of the call. Forcing Schiff to adhere to facts.
That's how we got to this point.
It leaves out the part about Schiff and Pelosi hiring people from the from the Itelligence Community based out of the Obama White House, carried over to the Trump White House.

This is not organic. It is completely synthesized by Pelosi, using Schiff, to give her deniability

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Vindman says he was" appalled at the president’s attempt to subvert foreign policy

If true he should be fired immediately. Just to encourage others to stay in their lane.

Josephbleau said...

I admire financial efficiency and economy. Hillary paid good money for her dossier, but the Democrats are getting theirs paid for by the tax payer.

Dave Begley said...

Schiff's big case when he was an AUSA was against an FBI agent who was convicted of spying for Russia.

The first trial was a hung jury after four months, the second trial was reversed and remanded and Miller was convicted in the third trial.

Not sure exactly if Schiff tried the second case, but check out this NYT story language below. What a dope! A lie detector test offered into evidence!

And Schiff sure does like his shill Russian "experts."

"The appeals court, in an opinion by Judge Dorothy Nelson, noted that lie- detector results are generally prohibited as evidence of the truthfulness of the person being questioned, because of doubts about the reliability of the device.

Lie-detector evidence can be admitted for other purposes in limited circumstances, Nelson said. In several cases a jury has been told that a defendant confessed after being told he failed a polygraph. But she said Miller’s jury was told much more damaging information.

Nelson also said Kenyon improperly admitted evidence that Miller had once bribed an FBI informant. In addition, she said testimony by a man presented by the government as an expert on Soviet intelligence and recruiting tactics was improperly used to attack Miller’s character."

Swede said...

Because who else do they have?
Nadler?
No.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Adam Schitt spent 3 years on Maddow saying he had information that would prove Trump colluded with Russia.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Imagine if the media DID THEIR JOB and told the American people how much of a fraud Shcitt is.

Imagine.

iowan2 said...

What happens if Republicans stop participating in this? Stop going to hearings. Respond to Media questions with a copy of the phone call in their pocket and ask the reporter what portion they have questions about. At all costs, stop playing, "what if". Playing gives the questions legitimacy Let the Dems do their worst. Unanimous vote of the Dems on articles of impeachment. Force it to the Senate.

Can't have a fight without an opponent. Dem's non-stop shadow boxing is going to be very tedious for consumers of media.

Yancey Ward said...

There were three people involved in this newest coup from the start- Bill Taylor, an appointed special envoy; Vindman, an NSC official who was attached to the White House at the time of the call; and Eric Ciaramella, and NSC official who worked in the Obama White House and the early Trump White House. All three of them have deep connections to the Democratic Party- all of them.

Vindman was on the call the day it happened. I think there is good circumstantial evidence from Vindman's own testimony that he tried to do a stealth edit of the official report of the call to put in the quid pro quo claim, but was unable to gain access to the report in anything other than a readable-only format. This would explain his weird testimony about the changes he admitted to trying to get put in- changes that were hilarious trivialities that changed nothing of the substance of the report- to me it looks like an excuse offered to explain away an earlier attempt at a stealth edit. At the same time, he relayed his opinion of this call to Ciaramella, a colleague and fellow Democrat, and they probably agreed to have Ciaramella approach Schiff's staff and disclose this. Schiff and his staff realized that Ciaramella couldn't legally disclose this material, so had him file a whistleblower complaint so that Schiff and his staff could legally run with it.

While all of this was happening, you have Bill Taylor seemingly asserting to everyone appointed by Trump that there was a quid pro quo, and each time he gets rebuffed for this opinion. Taylor wasn't on the call, but probably was informed of it by Ciaramella and/or Vindman soon after the phone call. Taylor even went so far as to create an electronic record by texting about it, but was again rebuffed for the assertion. He was trying a little too hard, and I think his colleagues probably realized it at some point since he seems to have been quietly shoved aside as untrustworthy. I think Taylor was so desperate that he lied in his testimony about his contacts with Morrison and Sondland, both of which basically called Taylor a liar without explicitly doing so.

So, in the end, you have Vindman, Ciaramella, and Taylor relaying the conversations they had with each other about their belief that there was a quid pro quo. The papers and the media endlessly report and rereport these various conversations as if it is all supporting evidence that there was a quid pro quo. However, it is all just circular argument, and it is especially obvious when the transcript of the call is right there in the public domain. That, I think, was the thing the Democrats hadn't expected, nor had they properly analyzed the consequences of that release when Pelosi stepped off the impeachment cliff back in early October.

Yancey Ward said...

And one last note, the Democrats are already trying to get off the Ukraine hoax by claiming they are investigating avenues for impeachment. This is also related to Schiff's backing off having the whistleblower testify- they already know the Ukraine hoax isn't going to work, so the testimony isn't actually needed any longer.

I don't know how Pelosi extricates herself from this- she either has to actually impeach Trump, or, at some point, she is going to be forced to publicly announce the impeachment isn't going to happen, and retreat to, maybe, a House censure resolution. However, the latter will only have any real political benefit if she can get some bipartisan support, which, at this point, I doubt she could get.

narciso said...

thats why they had the process wired from vindman, with hill as backup, I suspected her as the leaker, her tours in Russia, overlap with not only ambassador taylor, but other officials who were in kiev, during the tymochenko period, when burisma was acquiring sections of naftogaz,

Bob Boyd said...

Pelosi was saying yesterday that they might impeach Trump for something else not related to the Ukraine, but she didn't say what.
She's hoping they'll dig that something up in the process of these Ukraine hearings. But they've been hoping they'd dig something up all during the 2016 campaign, the Mueller's investigation and on and on. Trump is frigging Boy Scout, I tell you. He's as pure as the wind driven snow. Surprising, I admit, but at this point, undeniable.

Skylark said...

"If true he should be fired immediately. Just to encourage others to stay in their lane.”

Hence the need for his fake “whistleblower” status. How do you blow the whistle on POTUS carrying out his constitutional responsibilities?

wild chicken said...

Reading the Plot Against the President, by Lee Smith, I gotta wonder, if the IC wanted to take Trump out that badly, why didn't they just....take him out?

I thought they were supposed to be good at that sort of thing.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

This is all theatre. About a POTUS phone call to Ukraine. It’s ridiculous.

stevew said...

I will not be surprised if this farce of Pelosi's and Schiff's trundles along well into 2020 election season. There is no political benefit to concluding this so-called investigation any time sooner. Perhaps Schiff turns it over to Nadler who then calls only witnesses friendly to the accusers. Big public show designed to undermine whatever support Trump has.

If the polling on the issue of impeachment continue to fall and Trump's numbers are stable or rise, then there will likely be a very non-public closing of the investigation.

rehajm said...

Who initiated this consultation between the whistleblower and Schiff's office?

I’d back up a bit- which lawfare office produced the strategy? They are the ones with the dog eared copies of All the President’s Men with the tabs and highlighted sections who said go out and find something we can use and one our political allies to bounce it off of.

Sebastian said...

"Is there some reason why we the people are not entitled to that information?"

Is there some reason you think the Dems care whether we the people are entitled to anything?

"I want to know."

Well, too bad. What you want is not relevant. They figure they got you, someone who hated Hill but voted for her anyway, and who goes by feelz and abortion.

"Once you go into secrecy mode, you create suspicions about what you are trying to hide."

"create suspicions"? Like, we don't know what's going on? Like, we suspect this thing may not be on the up and up? Like, it may be some nefarious second coup attempt?

iowan2 said...

Nadler was not pushed aside. See my earlier post. This was always destined to be done under the secrecy of he Intel committee. This plan was born the day after the Mueller hearing. Simple outline, directed by the desired outcome. How to use the human assets under their control in the Intel community to launch an investigation? You fill in the blanks and you'll see how all the requirements needed are checked off.

No way could anything be structured to trigger another special counsel. Time prevented that thought.

Hearings in the Judiciary committee are fine, but how to get the right information into the hands of the right witnesses? How to get Vindman to testify? What predicate can Nadler use?
State dept witnesses? Again, what predicate?

No, had to be a Whistle Blower complaint, originated from the Intel Community. Law mandates such a complaint, marked "credible and urgent" shall be forwarded to congresses oversight committees of Intel.

There are dozens of moving parts in this scam. Too many to be answered by coincidence.

GatorNavy said...

Once again for all the slows who visit this blog and are totalitarian leftists. “Ya want more Trump”! “This is how ya get more Trump”!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...allegations that President Trump had pressed the president of Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election in a way that would harm a potential political rival....

Of course, this is a flat_out lie. Trump did not press the president of Ukraine to intervene in the election. He pressed the president of Ukraine to investigate corruption relating to a Ukrainian company, and a former Vice-president's role in getting a former prosecutor fired.

This could, of course, influence the 2020 election, in much the same way that the investigation of Trump could have influenced the 2016 election. That does not, in and of itself, make the investigation illegal.

Curious George said...

A lot of people, but especially Adam Schiff, need to be up against a wall when this is finally over.

Amadeus 48 said...

These shenanigans are the wheel on which the Democrats are going to be broken.

I don’t think Pelosi is very good at what she does.

Shouting Thomas said...

Surprised nobody has mentioned this.

The Deep State, as it is called, is the intelligence agencies.

Rogue elements of those agencies, in conspiracy with Hillary Clinton and the DNC, hatched the Russia collusion hoax.

So, Shiff’s Intelligence Committee is working for the same people who’ve been trying to stage a coup against Trump from the day he took office.

This is Russia collusion hoax #2.

James Graham said...

Parody of Schiff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4ONTvw_dac

Skylark said...

“I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”. - Nancy Pelosi March 6

Where is the overwhelming bipartisan consensus on a “high crime”?

If Pelosi loses half the districts that went for Trump and now are Democrat, she is no longer speaker. It looks like they struck at the king while drunk on Kool Aide, and now they are facing the prospect of a greatly empowered Trump.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Why is Adam Schiff tasked with wasting time investigating a quid non-pro quo with the Ukraine when Adam Schiff has "significant evidence" that Trump colluded with the Russians?

Why not just have Adam Schiff present his "significant evidence" of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during a formal impeachment?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

the whistle-blower is CIA deep state democratic.

Howard (not that Howard) said...

I'm sure I'm missing something, but the whole allegation hinges on the (prompted but didn't happen) Ukrainian investigation finding what Joe did in getting the prosecutor fired was improper. So if, as he says, he did nothing wrong, then wouldn't the investigation actually help Biden?

Bottom line, Trump didn't ask Ukraine to lie or dig up dirt. He asked them to find the truth. Who cares if he applied pressure towards that goal?

Bruce Hayden said...

One way to solve at least part of this is to indict the WB (presumably Eric Ciaramella) for violating the Espionage Act, etc, for talking to Schifty’s staff before filing his WB complaint with the ICIG. Pull his security clearance as well as the staff who talked to him. Don’t need to probably even fire him, as loss of their security clearances should be sufficient punishment. At the point that he was coordinating with the majority HSCI staff, he was not authorized to communicate the contents of the phone call to Congress. It was only when he had filed the WB complaint with the ICIG, and it had mistakenly (because this was not an IC matter, but rather involved foreign relations) been designated as Urgent, that he was legally allowed to talk to Congress in general, and the HSCI in particular.

Then, I would have U.S. Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman court marshaled. Likely not going to happen. The Army is currently defending him as essentially a WB himself. But he essentially testified against the President on a policy matter, and not about lawbreaking. He was, essentially, substituting his policy preferences for dealing with his native Ukraine for those of his Commander in Chief. He wasn’t elected to make those decisions. It wasn’t in his job description. Closer to the case of Gen McArthur testifying to Congress against Truman than anything approaching whistleblowing. At a minimum, he needs to be thrown out of the NSC and the WH. Reposted someplace more interesting, such as Fort Greely near Fairbanks. Normally, he would probably be too senior for a posting there, but he very likely is fluent in Russian, which would be an asset there.

The point is that they were both deep state operatives, and examples need to be made, in order to reduce this anti constitutional behavior in the future. We had the still unindicted Brennan on TV a couple days ago extolling the virtues of this sort of lawless behavior. Contrary to what he said, they aren’t heroes, but rather traitors, to our Constitutional republic.

Kevin said...

Once you go into secrecy mode, you create suspicions about what you are trying to hide.

I’m so old I remember when Democrats thought democracy dies in darkness.

narciso said...

the so called whistleblower is a Russian area expert but he leans Arabist, no wonder brennan snapped him

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Narayanan said...

Recuse by President candidate Senators was brought up.

Can D's maneuver R's into recuse President support Senators?

Enough to give 2/3 in "Senate jury pool" to D's

narciso said...

vindman, set general flynns trip to Moscow, according to sources, so that halper could set up the tie with lokhova, a year later,

Beasts of England said...

’The point is that they were both deep state operatives, and examples need to be made, in order to reduce this anti constitutional behavior in the future.’

I hope they both enjoy their government-paid vacations in Kansas.

narciso said...

a more grandular look,


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/01/doj-files-surreply-response-to-flynn-brady-motion-with-a-valuable-little-nugget-of-a-mistake/

Tom said...

Should the DOJ be looking at Shiff for witness tampering?

wildswan said...

"Yancey Ward said:
:... , in the end, you have Vindman, Ciaramella, and Taylor relaying the conversations they had with each other about their belief that there was a quid pro quo. The papers and the media endlessly report and rereport these various conversations as if it is all supporting evidence that there was a quid pro quo. However, it is all just circular argument, and it is especially obvious when the transcript of the call is right there in the public domain."

Riffing on that great summary:

Ciaramella (CIA) was the original whistleblower and Vindman (National Security Council) actually listened to the call and talked to Ciaramella. Vindman says and Ciarmella repeated that the call meant there was a quid pro quo relating to holding back military aid to the Ukraine. Hence the impeachment inquiry. Yet, already despite the secrecy, we know that all agree that the Ukraine did not know that US military aid was being held back and that later the US military aid was released without the Ukraine initiating investigations. No quid, no quo.

No quid, no quo. Then why impeachment? Because of the Deep State.

We know right now that there is a Deep State and that the Deep State initiated this impeachment because the former acting head of the CIA, John McLaughlin, has so stated. "Thank God for the Deep State," he said. So the Deep State exists. It has been acknowledged by a high ranking member. And why should we be thankful for it? Because it "unleashed" the impeachment. "... it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something ..., which was the trigger that then unleashed [the impeachment]", said McLaughlin. No quid, no quo but the Deep State thought there was; or they said to each other that someone else told someone else that someone thought it and then everyone talked about it.

No quid, no quo
Just the shadow
Of Deep State Pro.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/01/former_acting_cia_director_john_mclaughlin_on_impeachment_thank_god_for_the_deep_state.html

narciso said...

what else do they tell us that is a lie,


https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/01/hunter-biden-resignation-bhr-board/

Bruce Hayden said...

“And one last note, the Democrats are already trying to get off the Ukraine hoax by claiming they are investigating avenues for impeachment. This is also related to Schiff's backing off having the whistleblower testify- they already know the Ukraine hoax isn't going to work, so the testimony isn't actually needed any longer.”

Doesn’t really matter. The big reason that they had their impeachment vote was to take it, along with the Nixon precedent, to court in order to overcome Trump’s assertion of Executive Privilege almost immediately after the Mueller investigation was shut down by AG Barr. They desperately want the mountain of information and evidence that Mueller. His team had millions of pages of documents, hundreds of transcripts from FBI interviews, and even more cases of bank accounts, telephone records, emails, etc acquired through the use of National Security letters (which should have been illegal for a criminal investigation, which is why it was structured as a hybrid National Security/criminal investigation, which, of course, violated DOJ rules). But worse - thanks to the involvement of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division (esp Peter Strzok), there is a high likelihood that they had significant information gained through the Title I FISA warrants issued for at least Carter Page (the third extension of his FISA warrant was specifically for Mueller’s benefit). We are talking interception of electronic communications two steps from at least Carter Page, at any time during the year pendency of those warrants, and possibly before that, which very likely swept in Trump, much of Trump’s campaign staff, and even into his White House. I think that there may also be quite a bit of the illegally acquired Title VII information from the abuses detected by Adm Rogers and reported to the FISC.

You would think that it would take many months, if not a couple years for Schifty’s staff to dig through that huge mountain of information and evidence (along with the grand jury testimony that they have already got a go ahead for from an Obama judge). But that ignores that these people don’t play by the rules. Many believe that Schifty and his staff have had the juicy parts probably at least since the Dems took over the House. Maybe much longer. Their problem is that their possession of that information is, so far, illegal. What they need is legal provenance for their having it. And, they have found another Obama judge to very likely authorize it.

What should scare people here is that this seems to have been a big part of the plan all along. The Dem majority in the House can probably be attributed to three things. First, the Russian collusion hoax was heavily pushed by the MSM for the two years between elections. Secondly, massive piles of dark money was spent on the election by Dem billionaires like Soros. For example, in many cases, Dem challengers were able to run more than twice the number of ads as their Republican opponents could. And, finally, there was rampant, unprecedented, cheating. Soros, in particular, had spent many millions over the previous four years buying state secretaries of states and top county election officials (as was done here in Maricopa county). I doubt if any one of these three could have given the House to the Dems, but all three were extremely successful together.

But one thing to keep in mind is that they essentially blew their wad, getting control of the House last year. They might end up losing the Presidency next year because because they gave away so many of their tricks and cheats last year. For example, you can be sure that the Repubs will be doing their own ballot harvesting in Orange County. And, unless they manage to find an armory full of smoking guns In all the Mueller information and evidence, I think it likely that we will back to a Repub House and President, and thus single party control if they can hold the Senate.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ No quid, no quo. Then why impeachment? Because of the Deep State.”

The purpose of the Dem House majority elected in 2018 was an impeachment inquiry, and the purpose of that is to legally transfer the mountain of Mueller investigation material to the Congressional Dems, who can use it publicly to discredit Trump, and beat him in 2020. Before the Congressional Dems legally get ahold of it, it is almost entirely within the DoJ, which is tokenly, at least, under Trump’s control. Trump and his AG can’t really touch Congressional Dems who leak the material, but can jail any DOJ employee who is caught doing so.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The media also report Vindman, Taylor and CIA-Chummy as listening in on the actual call.

I'd like to know more about that.

readering said...

Lot of wishful thinking here, only some of it dripping with malice.

Skylark said...

I’m so old I remember when Democrats didn’t trust every word out of the CIA.

Original Mike said...

"Their problem is that their possession of that information is, so far, illegal."

When has this stopped them before? The counter to your thesis is said information would have been leaked.

StephenFearby said...

LTC (R) Jim Hickman's take on Vindman (extracted from useful twitter link previously posted by Narcisco):

'I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in Grafenwoher, GE. He worked w/the Russian Embassy & I was assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), w/in USAREUR (US Army Europe). He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, & I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.

The following account of LTC Vindman's words & actions are completely accurate to the best of my recollection & have been corroborated by others. We interacted on several different occasions throughout the planning cycle, but it was during the actual execution of the exercise, that we had an issue relevant to his recent testimony. As stated earlier, Atlas Vision 12 was conducted at JMTC in the VBS2 (Virtual Battle Simulations 2) Classrooms for Simulation. Vindman, who was a Major at the time, was sitting in one of the classrooms talking to the US & Russian Soldiers, as well as the young Officers & GS Employees about America, Russia, & Obama.

He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable. He would speak .w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed. One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American's falsely thinking they're exceptional, when he said, "He [Obama] is working on that now." And he said it w/a snide 'I know a secret' look on his face. I honestly don't know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say. Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama's plan, etc...I'd had enough.

I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside. At that point, I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I'll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself. The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you...he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!'

https://twitter.com/Jim_Hickman13/status/1190077860725370883

Gospace said...

Bruce Haydn, and anyone else who this may apply to:

Court martialed


rcocean said...

We - or at least "we" who are paying attention - know the whole impeachment Ukrainian "Scandal" is crap. The "whistle blower" is a Democrat partisan who was fired by the White HOuse in 2017 for leaking. He had his IG report written up by Democrat Lawyers after talking to Schiff. Lt Col. Vineyard is also a Democrat and paid Soros operative, who met with Schiff in August and is the one who supposedly told the whistleblower about the call. Taylor is another never-trumper who's been coordinating his talking points with Schiff.

The whole thing is being kept secret, with strategic "leaks" because if it was out in the open everyone would see what a fraud it is. The whole thing is a conspiracy by Schiff and his friends. The WaPo and NTY are in on it. Playing up all the bad news for Trump, burying everything that helps him.

rcocean said...

The D's and MSM - but i repeat myself - are now playing the "How dare you criticize a war hero!" game. THey did the same with Comey. Remember when Trump fired Comey. Big Jim was paragon of virtue, a life-long Republican - THE HEAD OF THE FBI -he'd never lie and was SCANDALIZED by the devious Mr. Trump. An upright citizen, protecting the NATION. We now know the Comey is a liar and a leaker and a Democrat, just as Trump said. And also that Trump was "wiretapped" - just like Trump said.

The whole thing is Bogus, and should be mocked and derided, but Trump has zero in the MSM and in DC. God I hate those fucking Republican Senate clowns.

narciso said...

interesting when I checked his linked in, it mentioned his education, but not his tours of service, or even his postings in kyev and Moscow, isn't that curious,

Seeing Red said...

The vile Progs will make sure they win changing the voting rules and suing in court.

Skylark said...

"Lot of wishful thinking here, only some of it dripping with malice.”

Are you even in America? Do you even know what is going on here outside of what you see on CNN and read in the Washington Post? Do you remember the Clinton impeachment. Even though he was clearly guilty of a felony, support for impeachment never exceeded 42% and dropped to 30% after it was done. Next election Republicans lost their majority.

So I would be careful about fooling myself about “wishful thinking."

Skylark said...

"he purpose of the Dem House majority elected in 2018 was an impeachment inquiry, “

That’s not what voters were told by Democrats. See my Nancy Pelosi quote above.

Skylark said...

"What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.”

I think Pelosi is wrong about what works in Michigan works in San Fransisco. Otherwise they would be supporting Trump there. San Fransisco wouldn’t give a rat’s ass to keep auto making in the United States. Opposes lower gas prices, etc, etc, etc.

Drago said...

readering: "Lot of wishful thinking here, only some of it dripping with malice."

LOLOLOL

Yes.

A russian collusion hoaxer, fake dossier hoaxer, kavanaugh gang rape hoaxer and now Ukraine hoaxer wrote that.

Just now. Without irony.

Well, what else would you expect from a Corbyn-ite pro-islamic supremacist poster?

h said...

THanks to commenters. Especially to Iowan2 who makes an excellent summary of why and how the Whistleblower became the whistleblower (at 11:17) and his later post speculating on how it might work if the Republicans refused to participate except to turn the questions back on journalists. And especially to the always reliable Yancey Ward explaining the people involved and their histories.

One more contribution is Andrew McCarthy (House Impeachment Inquiry some observations at National Review) who notes: "Democrats should have passed this resolution at the beginning of the inquiry. They did not do that because ...they hoped to move public opinion in their favor with selective leaks to friendly media of their closed-door proceedings — a strategy that, sadly, has worked."

Huh said...

Irony: Defined as having Adam Schiff being the head of the house INTELLIGENCE committee.
>
So now Democrats are going to investigate Trump because of a whistle blower, who knew nothing firsthand about a phone call, has raised concerns about something he is refusing to testify about so that Schiff, who will run the investigation, can prevent himself from testifying about his role in the whistle blower complaint process. Meanwhile, the investigation is concerning a quid pro quo allegation where the Ukrainians knew nothing about the aid that was being withheld, but that was released during the prescribed window without the Ukrainians ever launching the requested probe into a company that had hired the vice president's son to protect them from ever being investigated for corruption. Additionally, Trump is being investigated for obstruction of justice for trying to hide the transcript of the phone call that was released the day after it was identified and for not complying with demands that had no legal basis.
>
If that is not confusing enough, some are now claiming that Pence should be investigated as well so that both Trump and Pence will both be impeached which will leave Pelosi as President. Should this fantasy happen, we are informed that Pelosi's first act would be to appoint Hillary Clinton as her vice president and her second act would be to resign the presidency. Obviously this has nothing to do with reversing the election of 2016.

SDN said...

"Reading the Plot Against the President, by Lee Smith, I gotta wonder, if the IC wanted to take Trump out that badly, why didn't they just....take him out?"

Because if they did, the civil war would kick off tomorrow.

The ONLY reason for cloaking the political process of impeachment in the trappings of a trial is to keep the people who were just disenfranchised from saying "Screw this rigged ballot box" and reaching for the cartridge box.

Tom said...

Why hasn't Lindsey Graham subpoenaed the so-called "whistleblower" (i.e., non-whistleblower) to testify publicly before his committee?

The Opinionated Bastard said...

The strategy is pretty simple. The house will impeach in 2020, the Senate will void and the R’s and D’s will beat each other over the head with those facts for a year. Why vote for T when an incoming D Senate Will just remove him?

Bruce Hayden said...

“The strategy is pretty simple. The house will impeach in 2020, the Senate will void and the R’s and D’s will beat each other over the head with those facts for a year. Why vote for T when an incoming D Senate Will just remove him?”

Maybe not. Under current Senate rules, it appears that the House (meaning Schifty and Wadler) still have a lot of control in the Senate in impeachment trials. They would essentially run the prosecution side, and can likely have their Lawfare attorneys actually try the case.

See: Suggested Amendments to Senate Rules for a Fair Impeachment Trial .

agimarc said...

Appears it is going to be a two-part game. The 3-4 committees "investigating" are going to write reports based on testimony they collude to write. All the while they are selectively leaking the contents of that secret testimony to a very friendly and supportive media so as to shape public opinion in support of impeachment. After they are finished, the whole mess will be dumped on Nadler who will be shocked, simply shocked at the enormity of Trump's perfidy and push the impeachment vote. Easy peasy. Cheers -

BTW: doing it this way should also allow them to get their hot little hands on Trump's tax returns, something they will play with for the next 4 years.

The Opinionated Bastard said...

It’s not that hard to figure out what’s in Trump’s tax returns:

He’s not as rich as he’s claimed he is. (Nor is every mans penis as large as he says it is either, in the history of the world)
He didn’t pay very much or even zero in taxes because he lost so much money building casinos that he has enough losses for decades.

The Opinionated Bastard said...

Interesting about the Senate rules. But either way, it’s a partisan shitshow everyone in America will hate and won’t be able to make heads or tails of.

Remember in West Wing when CJ purposely throws something into the House so she can have an unfair process?