Bored With Impeachment Open Thread

I haven’t paid too much attention to the impeachment charade – because once it gets out that none of the witnesses witnessed anything, the whole point is kinda lost.

Not quite sure what end game the Democrats are hoping for out of this – if they do impeach, it goes to a Senate trial and everything comes out. I suspect that is the least desired outcome here. What I think they are trying to do is please their base and then with great fanfare they’ll hold some sort of censure vote after releasing a scathing report.

What is most infuriating to me in this is the way people supposedly on our side are treating it as if its real: as if there was something actually happening, rather than a mere partisan hit job. They do this by pretending the parade of credentialed morons are selfless public servants. They aren’t. They are corrupt hacks allowing themselves to be used in a political attack. They are un-American; downright treasonous. It is not their job to dispute with the President over policy – it is their job to carry out the policy and, if they don’t like it, quit. But the Never Trump and such people are the really disgusting players in here – their phony moralizing and pretending to be above it all disgusts me. What did they really want? They wanted there to be something – anything – that could be hung ’round Trump’s neck.

We have, on the plus side, picked up a new GOP hero in Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY) who absolutely slaughtered the gross and dishonest Adam Schiff (D-Deep State’s A**). We need more like her.

The official word is that Trump is poison in the ‘burbs. Suburban women just hate the guy, so it goes. Never been too sure of that – my Mrs is the archetype suburban mom and while she’s not thrilled with the man, she doesn’t hate him, and she thinks the attacks on him long ago went past absurd. Anyways, the proof they say is in things like the defeat of the Kentucky governor, who lost because he was slaughtered in the ‘burbs. But as I pointed out at the time, all the other GOP State-wide candidates cleaned up in the same areas. So, perhaps it isn’t Trump that is toxic…and now we have a little more evidence that he’s not: Trump is doing pretty well in getting donations from suburban women. As I’ve always said: never look at what people say, look at what they do.

Vice President Pence states we’ll return to the Moon in 2024 – which I really want us to do while Trump is President so that the memorial plaque carries his name on it and we can just laugh and laugh and laugh at the liberal tears over that.

36 thoughts on “Bored With Impeachment Open Thread

  1. Cluster November 16, 2019 / 9:49 am

    What is most infuriating to me in this is the way people supposedly on our side are treating it as if its real: as if there was something actually happening, rather than a mere partisan hit job.

    I think Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan are doing a pretty good job of showing the absurdity of all this. When Stefanik spoke up yesterday, and Schiff reacted with the gavel, Nunes almost laughed and said “you’re really going to gavel the young representative from NY?”

    It’s hard to believe the Democrats are moving forward with this circus and questioning “witnesses’s” who never witnessed anything but it is playing well with their mindless base based on the late show routines. Of course Colbert was never known for his mental muscle.

    There were only 2 questions that mattered yesterday –

    Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) asked Yovanovitch, “Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?”

    Yovanovitch replied, “No.”

    Rep. Stewart asked her, “Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?”

    Yovanovitch reluctantly replies, “No.”

    Every other question after that was pointless. Only her Mom and other progressives care about how she feels. Other adults do not.

    Louie Gohmert said something on Hannity yesterday that perked my ears up. He said the whistle blower was never a whistle blower to begin with but that is what it became after he (and we all know it’s a he) came to Congress to alert Schiff that Trump had asked about Crowdstrike on the phone call. That panicked many deep staters and this gentleman was sent on a mission to alert Schiff. This happened the day after the Mueller report revealed nothing so Schiff reconstructed this call as the next impeachable offense but it is only because the Democrats know that Trump is on a dangerous path that could expose all their criminality. The other thing Gohmert said was that if Trump’s tweet was “witness intimidation” then Schiff is a co conspirator lol. If Schiff hadn’t read the tweet in the hearing, the Ambassador would have never known about it during her testimony. Too funny

    • Amazona November 16, 2019 / 11:21 am

      I saw Gohmert’s comment and thought it interesting that it came after the day I posted nearly the same thing. When you look at the time line it is Vindman to Agent to Schiff, Schiff staff rewrite and construction of scenario to be able to present it as a whistleblower report, bring in IG of IC to provide cover by changing the rules to allow hearsay and then appraise it as “credible”, and then forward it to Congress.

      I’ve got four conspirators in on this, not counting Schiff’s staff—-Vindman, Agent, Schiff and IG.

      The Republicans have done a good job pointing out the multiple hearsay chain but not that the origin of the gossip chain was not even a real statement by the president but an attribution of what the original hearer thought he “really meant”. Usually in a gossip chain the closer you get to the original source the clearer the statement is. In this case, the closer you get to the president the less there is, till you get to him and find….nothing. So here the real source is not the president, but whoever ran to the Agent with a story, and it is looking like that is Vindman. This may start to unravel if Vindman testifies. And I want to know why no one is looking at or talking about the IG. Without him, the report would never have gotten to Congress, at least not through the whistleblower route. But that is what they needed, to try to provide cover for the Agent and his source, Vindman. The whistleblower scam was necessary to keep from exposing the Agent, who had been pretty effective in his embedded position within the government, and exposing him would probably lead to other subversives in the CIA as well.

      What they needed was a path to an impeachment charade, without having a thread that, when pulled, would lead back to a whole cast of subversive actors.

      Speaking of the CIA—if this is an example of a CIA operation, it looks like they are really bad at it.

    • Amazona November 16, 2019 / 11:34 am

      Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) asked Yovanovitch, “Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes“?

      Hmmm. Interesting change of direction here. It seems to have slipped past the vultures, but it might be an opening salvo into going back to Mark Levin’s analysis, which he based on examination of the contemporaneous writings of Monroe or Madison (I forget which) which he says makes it clear that the reference to bribery in the criteria for impeachment refers to the president TAKING bribes, not OFFERING bribes. That certainly makes a lot more sense, and I wonder if this is setting up a takedown of the Dem argument about bribery being an impeachable offense according to the Constitution if they can convince a few sheeple that Trump tried to bribe Ukraine.

      I also love the grab bag of accusations—–“bribery and extortion”. They are two very different things. Bribery is “I will pay you to do this”. Extortion is “If you don’t do this I will hurt you in some way”. One is a promise, one is a threat. No one can find a promise, or a threat, in what the president said—-at least not without a crystal ball colored with raging Trump hatred, which the Left seems to think means they can simply assert that they can discern hidden, coded, unspoken meanings behind the bland and nonthreatening facade of the real statements.

  2. Cluster November 16, 2019 / 10:34 am

    I thought it was precious how Democrats gave Yavonivitch a standing ovation as she left the hearing. If only they would have stood up for Ambassador Stevens.

    • Amazona November 16, 2019 / 11:24 am

      What’s not for a Dem to love? Being really bad at her job, getting fired for being really bad at her job, whining about being fired because it really just meant some big bully was picking on her, going on a national stage with her victimhood—she’s like a poster girl for the ideal Democrat woman.

      • Cluster November 16, 2019 / 11:55 am

        LOL. Only in Democrat world is a job performance critique labeled as an “attack”

        And you did nail it in that post yesterday which I just read this morning.

  3. Retired Spook November 16, 2019 / 1:38 pm

    Here’s another aspect of this whole Ukraine fiasco that is not going to go away, as much as the Democrats and their allies in the media have tried to kill it.

    State officials told me privately they wanted Ukraine prosecutors to back off AntAC because they feared the investigation was simply retribution for the group’s high-profile efforts to force anti-corruption reforms inside Ukraine, some of which took authorities and prestige from the Prosecutor General’s Office.

    But it was an unusual intervention, the officials acknowledged. “We’re not normally in the business of telling a country’s police force who they can and can’t pursue, unless it involves an American citizen we think is wrongly accused,” one official said.

    In the end, no action was taken against AntAC and it remains thriving today. Nonetheless, the anecdote is taking on new significance.

    First, it conflicts with the State Department’s official statement last week after Lutsenko first mentioned the do-not-prosecute list. The embassy responded that the claim was a fabrication and a sign that corruption is alive and well inside Ukraine.

    But Kent’s letter unequivocally shows the embassy did press Ukrainian prosecutors to back off what normally would be considered an internal law enforcement matter inside a sovereign country. And more than a half-dozen U.S. and Ukrainian sources confirmed to me the AntAC case wasn’t the only one in which American officials exerted pressure on Ukrainian investigators in 2016.(emphasis – mine)

    Earlier this week John Solomon, on Hannity, I think, said members of Yovanovich’s own staff members have confirmed that she told Lutsenko who NOT to prosecute. I’m more than a little surprised that this wasn’t brought up by Republicans during her testimony.

    • Retired Spook November 16, 2019 / 1:46 pm

      Well, I guess spoke too soon. (about Yovanovich not being asked about the do-not-prosecute list)

      During Friday’s Democrat-led impeachment inquiry hearing, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath that she did not give former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko a “do not prosecute list” in 2017. Yovanovitch also doubled-down on left-wing disinformation saying that Lutsenko “acknowledged that the list never existed” in April.

      “I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a “Do Not Prosecute” list was a fabrication,” Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee. “Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I did not tell Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute.”

      “That is such a lie,” Glenn Beck said on Friday’s show. “She should be held for perjury.”

      During a three-part BlazeTV exposé on the Democrats’ corruption in Ukraine, Glenn debunked what he called “the most misleading fabrication I’ve ever seen by the mainstream media.”

      Earlier this year, award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon reported Lutsenko’s claim that then-Ambassador Yovanovitch gave him a list of “people whom we should not prosecute” during a meeting in 2016. Shortly after Solomon’s article was released, several news sources, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, reported that Lutsenko retracted his statement.

      But Glenn’s research revealed that the mainstream media got their erroneous information from a Ukrainian news site called Unian, which misleadingly headlined a story “Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko admits U.S. ambassador didn’t give him a do not prosecute list,” based on a misinterpretation of what Lutsenko told another Ukrainian publication, TheBabel.

      When Lutsenko said Yovanovitch “gave” him a list, he did not mean she actually handed him anything in writing, but verbally conveyed the names of people he shouldn’t prosecute.

      “They never mentioned the fact that it was verbally dictated and he wrote the list down himself — are you kidding me?” Glenn exclaimed. “This is how the media is fact-checking and debunking. They are playing with our republic and Ukraine’s republic. They are planting dynamite all around everything that we hold dear. How do they sleep at night? Everyone that reads their stories actually thinks that there was a retraction of one of the most damning parts of this entire case.”

      • Cluster November 16, 2019 / 2:40 pm

        And here is another complete LIE by Yavanovitch:

        In her opening statement before a House impeachment hearing on Friday, Yovanovitch said, “although I have met former vice president Joe Biden several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.”

        However, the new rising star Stefanik made her admit that she LIED:

        “The first time you personally became aware of Burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings, and this was in the form of practice questions and answers,” Stefanik told the former ambassador. “This was your deposition. And you testified in this particular practice Q & A with the Obama State Department, it wasn’t just generally about Burisma and corruption. It was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Is that correct?”

        Yovanovitch answered, “Yes. It is.”

        They are all frauds and liars

      • Retired Spook November 16, 2019 / 2:51 pm

        The question is, who can file a criminal referral for perjury by a witness testifying before Congress? Can a member of the minority party file a referral, or would that be up to the party running the hearing? Roger Stone was just convicted of lying to Congress and will likely spend many years in prison for it.

      • Amazona November 16, 2019 / 8:56 pm

        John Kerry lied to Congress and Dems wanted him to be president

  4. Retired Spook November 16, 2019 / 3:02 pm

    Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell and the GOP-controlled Senate are confirming Trump’s nominees to the federal bench at a record pace.

    This is 50 percent more circuit court judge confirmations than either Obama or Clinton achieved in their first terms. And Trump’s record is only for the first three years. There is still a year to go.

    The number of judges confirmed is made even more impressive by the President’s emphasis on appointing younger judges. As President Trump asserted: “The average age of my newly appointed Circuit Court judges is less than 50. … that is 10 years younger than President Obama’s nominees.”

    This means the Trump-McConnell team is transforming the judiciary from liberal to conservative for at least a generation – and possibly even longer. The prime requisite for these new judges as President Trump explained is that they must “truly love our Constitution.”

    • Cluster November 16, 2019 / 3:45 pm

      Proving once again that Trump is the greatest conservative President this country has ever had and to think that I had second thoughts about him in the primaries makes me question my gut instincts … lol. My sister and brother in law were 100% for him from the very beginning.

  5. Cluster November 16, 2019 / 4:34 pm

    I like Bill Maher for one reason … he’s honest.

    Bill Maher On Avoiding Second Civil War: ‘We Are Going To Have To Learn To Live With Each Other Or There Will Be Blood’

    Maher is not quite, but real close to being a WOKE progressive but at least he is honest and tell’s you exactly who he is (unlike many), so I disagree with him on most things but he is right about Islam and this statement is eerily true as well. At this point, conservatives and progressives can’t even agree on the same reality. All of their political issues are contrived and now they are manufacturing crimes; speech, thought, and otherwise. It doesn’t end well if they keep it up.

  6. Amazona November 16, 2019 / 9:20 pm

    Brennan hasn’t just been drinking the Leftist Kool-Aid, he’s been injecting it into his veins. He’s got the patter down pat, so to speak. You know how the Left tries to frame every conservative opinion as being based on either hate or fear?

    Brennan tweets this about Trump: …hate & fear of our foreign service officers …

    Yeah, he both hated and feared neurotic, whiny and inept Yovanovitch. Or, she was just another minor irritation left over from the Obama years.

    I think one thing that is becoming more and more obvious as this farce stumbles on is that it is time, past time, to clear out ALL of those annoying irritations left over from the Obama years. In business, when you take over a company it makes sense to hold over some of the key players from the prior management. In politics, evidently this is a bad idea.

    I think the first step would be to strip all those security clearances. Do it on December 30 effective as of January 1. Have a list of those who no longer have security clearances. If it is impossible to fire Vindman, then demote him and put him on a desk, answering phones. Then when the bad actors are cut off from their access, start weeding out everyone who has violated the rules regarding chain of command, security of communications, confidentiality of government documents and every other violation that has become so commonplace. Clear the decks. This might involve polygraphs and other means of determining guilty parties.

  7. Amazona November 16, 2019 / 11:17 pm

    Best line so far is from Greg Gutfeld:

    “This isn’t a hearing, it’s a seance.”

    I DID laugh out loud.

    • Cluster November 18, 2019 / 11:56 am

      Hilarious. It is a seance with everyone just hoping something will appear.

  8. Amazona November 17, 2019 / 12:42 pm

    I’ve come to see Vindman as the original villain here, and the recently released transcript of Morrison’s testimony seems to confirm that:

    Morrison said he considers Vindman to be unreliable and told lawmakers that he questions his judgment. Vindman, who listened to the call, strongly disagrees with Trump’s Ukraine policy and is widely believed to have leaked the readout of the call to the whistleblower, whom most presume to be CIA officer Eric Ciaramella.

    Morrison was asked why he chose to exclude Vindman from his conversations with the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor. Morrison replied, “I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman’s judgment…Among the discussions I had with Dr. [Fiona] Hill in the transition was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex’s judgment.

    Did Mr. Vindman — did he talk too much?

    A: I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what.

    While we are talking about bad judgment, why was someone whose judgment had been questioned as far back as the transition even on the phone call?

    • Amazona November 17, 2019 / 12:59 pm

      So we have someone (Vindman) with a security clearance even after his judgment has been questioned by his boss and others who is still allowed to listen in on a presidential phone call to another head of state.

      And the person we speculate was the recipient of Vindman’s report on this conversation had already been fired for leaking to the press but still had a security clearance.

      Ciaramella was fired from the National Security Council in 2017 when he was caught leaking confidential information to the media.

      Question: How is it possible that Ciaramella was able to keep his security clearance and therefore go back to his old job at the CIA? Especially considering that he was fired for violating pretty much the only rule you have to follow to have a security clearance?

      My guess is that the answer is, once again, the Trump Exception. Federal employees can violate black-letter law without consequence, as long as they’re breaking the law to undermine President Trump. You have to have a security clearance to serve sloppy joes to people in the CIA cafeteria. You cannot work at Langley in any capacity without some sort of security clearance. Yet Ciaramella kept his clearance and was not prosecuted after he broke the law.

      From the little information available on Ciaramella he was still with the CIA after this happened.

    • Amazona November 17, 2019 / 1:02 pm

      This is how you get rid of moles in the real world:

      Full disclosure: I own a Rodentator. It’s pretty cool. That long handle pumps a propane/oxygen mixture deep into the hole, which is then sparked.

      As for the typical YouTube continuation of one video clip after another, well, out of my control

    • M. Noonan November 17, 2019 / 5:57 pm

      He seems a creep promoted way above his ability.

      • Amazona November 17, 2019 / 7:34 pm

        Not just ability but integrity. There are probably a lot officers of his rank or even above who are not smarter than he is, but who respect the nation and the military and honor their code of conduct and the law.

        He intentionally violated the trust implied by giving him a security clearance, and he did it to aid the effort to undermine the president, impede his ability to do his job and damage him as much as possible. He became part of the subversive Resistance, and for an officer to do that is unpardonable. Of the four conspirators I listed, I hold him to a higher standard of accountability precisely because of his service and his rank.

        A side note: I really like and respect Liz Cheney and hope she runs for, and wins, the office of Senator from Wyoming next year, as Mike Enzi is not running for reelection. I thought I saw some preparation for that in her recent moves toward national recognition. So I was very sorry to see her rush to the defense of Vindman when his name first came up. I thought it rash, overwrought and poorly thought out. and I hope she can overcome it.

      • Amazona November 17, 2019 / 8:48 pm

        Here’s an analysis of Vindman that addresses his arrogance and involvement with the Deep State more than his actual ability. The article does not question his “patriotism”. I do, as it seems to depend solely on his personal perception of how the government should be run, more than on what the Constitution says about how it should be run.

  9. Cluster November 18, 2019 / 12:05 pm

    I would love to see Trump go to Congress, testify, shut this charade down and show Adam Schiff what a real man is. Doesn’t Schiff remind you of the pajama boy used in Obama Care ads? Why are liberal men so … well not actually men?

  10. Amazona November 18, 2019 / 12:26 pm

    Real Clear Politics did the job journalists used to do, and published some very interesting information on Eric Ciaramella.

    Some key excerpts: emphasis mine

    Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

    “He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

    Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.

    Federal records show that Biden’s office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

    Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.

    Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in 2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama’s “point man” for Ukraine. A Yale graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been assigned to the NSC by Brennan.

    He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC, eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.
    “He was moved over to the front office” to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he “saw everything, read everything.”

    The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign policies.“My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies

    Ciaramella allegedly argued that “President Putin suggested that President Trump fire Comey,” the report said. “In the days after Comey’s firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to investigate ‘Russia collusion.’

    Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC — both whom were also Obama holdovers — to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.

    During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.

    No wonder the Dems are now panicking and desperate to hide Ciaramella and keep him from testifying. When it comes out in a public trial and testimony that this is not his first effort to undermine the president but that his claim that Trump fired Comey at the direction of Putin was a major component in the establishment of the “investigation of Russian collusion” and that he worked closely with Biden in Ukraine and strongly opposed the president’s policies there his eventual “whistleblower” report will be shown as just another effort to sabotage the president.

    But I don’t think Schiff cares about what happens to Ciaramella. What is dangerous for Schiff is the revelation that he hired a good friend and NSC colleague of Ciaramella, showing the linkage of Ciaramella’s latest effort to damage the president with Schiff’s office in a way we have not yet had explained to us. This is proof that Schiff KNEW of Ciaramella’s bias, agenda and former activities and signed on to help promote the next Ciaramella effort. So much for the implied statement that an objective “whistleblower” just happened to approach Schiff’s “staff” for advice on this issue.

    Ciaramella was fired from his job at the NSC for anti-Trump leaking, and then Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella’s “closest allies” at the NSC—certainly strongly implicated as sharing his politics and agenda—and hired one. This explains the conduit between Ciaramella and Schiff, further amplified by the fact that this former Ciaramella colleague is now intimately involved in the House hearings, “…handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses…”

    Can you imagine the freakout in Dem conferences? Schiff, a pathological liar, seems to think he can just lie his way out of anything by telling more lies, and he seems obsessed with getting an impeachment vote no matter what, apparently convinced he will be able to head off revelations about Ciaramella’s history or involvement through his “closest NCS colleagues” with Schiff and his staff. On the other hand, Nancy can see the reef the Dem ship is heading for under full sail. Added to the upcoming information on various crimes committed by various top Dems and leaders of the Deep State will inevitably be the Senate trial (if the House votes to impeach) or the Senate hearing (if it doesn’t) on the origins and inherent dishonesty and corruption of the impeachment effort.

    • Amazona November 18, 2019 / 12:40 pm

      All this leads us to the next obvious question: Is there any question about whether Vindman already knew of Ciaramella’s prior anti-Trump efforts?

      If it can be proved that Vindman knew, and this was why he went to Ciaramella with his personal interpretation of what the president REALLY MEANT when he talked about investigating corruption in Ukraine, this whole thing moves very rapidly from a cascade of ostensibly innocent and unrelated concerns about presidential behavior well into conspiracy to unseat the president territory.

      And it involves the U.S. military (Vindman) and the CIA (Ciaramella) and the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (Atkinson) and the House of Representatives (Schiff) with the rest of the House pulled along in the slipstream of this subversive and possibly treasonous effort.

      I have avoided the word “treason” because it is tossed around so freely and refers to things that clearly do not fall under that definition, but a coordinated effort to unseat a president might very well qualify.

      If not “treason” then certainly “sedition”.
      Treason definition is – the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance
      sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or the constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense.

    • Retired Spook November 18, 2019 / 12:41 pm

      Just about the time you figure you have the web dissected and figured out, it gets a whole new bunch of tangles. Gonna make a helluva movie some day.

      • Amazona November 18, 2019 / 2:17 pm

        One of the things that keeps rattling around in my head is that all the players had to know all of this stuff. When Atkinson went along with the plan, changing the rules to allow Ciamarella’s report to be considered, and then took the additional step of certifying it as “credible” when he tried to cover his behind by commenting that there was a hint of bias associated with the reporter, there is no way he was unaware of Ciamarella’s former activities or associations. If he didn’t know, he had no business being highly placed in the “Intelligence commnunity”.

        I would say that a former effort to damage the president, which seems to have led to the Mueller investigation, would have been a disqualifier for having any further efforts accepted as valid. I would say that a former relationship with Joe Biden, and a history of objecting to the president’s Ukrainian policies, would raise major red flags when Ciarmarella then came up with a whole new report, especially after the Putin claim and after being fired from the NSC for leaking anti-Trump statements to the press—and having it first sent to Schiff should have shut the whole thing down immediately as far as the IG was concerned.

        How many people knew Ciamaralla was behind the Putin claim? How many people knew he had been fired from the NSC for leaking? How many people knew of his connections to Biden? How many people knew his closest colleagues at the NSC were recruited by Schiff, or that one of them had been hired? How many knew that when he took his report to Schiff’s staff it really went to his old NSC anti-Trump buddy? How many people knew that this same Ciamarella buddy is actively participating in the hearing, feeding questions to the Dem interrogator?

        I simply do not believe that in the buzz-buzz world of Washington gossip these relationships passed unnoticed. Yet they were allowed to progress to the hair-on-fire hysteria and mockery of the judicial process we are seeing today. No wonder there is such panic at having Ciaramella’s identity formally exposed, much less putting him on the stand. Pulling that thread will undoubtedly lead to unraveling all sorts of related wrongdoing coverups.

        It’s time for the Republicans to echo the oft-repeated mantra of the Left about Nixon—-“it wasn’t the crime that took him down, but the coverup”. I’d start using that word A LOT, repeatedly, and tying it in to the Schiff relationship with Ciaramella to start with.

      • Amazona November 18, 2019 / 2:18 pm

        Gonna make a helluva movie some day.

        More like a 12-hour miniseries, given the complexity and the necessary length to cover it all.

      • Amazona November 18, 2019 / 2:28 pm

        Don’t forget the Page/Strzok references to “Charlie”in the same context as talking about “the CIA guy”. Their emails show some confusion about several people name Eric, and the theory is that to keep Eric Ciaramarella separate from the several other “Erics” they called him “Charlie” because of the pronunciation of his last name—“CHAR-a-mella”

      • Amazona November 18, 2019 / 2:36 pm

        Next Grassley and Johnson provide the exact text messages they wanted Barr to look into. The text from Peter Strzok says “Do we want Joe to go with Evania instead of Charlie for a variety of reasons?” –

        On the beginning of the next page of their memo Grassley and Johnson share some more texts from Strzok and Page referring to “the CI guy” again in the White House –

  11. Amazona November 18, 2019 / 3:39 pm

    The legendary (in UFOlogy, at least) John E.L. Tenney offered me these thoughts on the subject today. It’s a favorite theme he repeats in many of his lectures.

    “Hyper-advanced, possibly, millennia-old extraterrestrials traverse the inky infinitude of space to find us. Should they explain to us the mysteries of the universe as they understand them? Should they engage with us to help forward our technology and knowledge?

    Ask yourself this question:

    When was the last time you flew across the globe to visit a far distant land in order to explain algebra to a cat? You haven’t and wouldn’t because what good would it actually do…for you or the cat?“

    This led me to the question “When was the last time you tried to explain morality, fairness, the rule of law or the Constitution to a Liberal? You’ve quit trying, because what would it actually accomplish–for you or the Lib?”

  12. Amazona November 18, 2019 / 3:56 pm

    Emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by conservative group Citizens United show that Jeff Goldstein, a senior policy analyst for Eurasia at George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, kept CIA officer Eric Ciaramella and former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, Victoria Nuland, regularly informed on Ukraine policy.

    These emails were obtained in 2018 by Citizens United as part of an investigation into Victoria Nuland. But, lo and behold, it turns out the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, was also included in the communications loop between Soros’ organization and the State Department.
    The emails informed Ciaramella and a handful of other Obama administration foreign policy officials about Soros’s whereabouts, the contents of Soros’s private meetings about Ukraine and a future meeting the billionaire activist was holding with the prime minister of Ukraine.

    A primary recipient of the Open Society emails along with Ciaramella was then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who played a central role in the anti-Trump dossier affair. Nuland, with whom Ciaramella worked closely, received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to her direct role in facilitating the dossier within the Obama administration.

    The emails spotlight Soros’s access to national security officials under the Obama administration on the matter of Ukraine.

    Summary of the article: The remarkable thing is that these people are all connected. They all know each other. It’s almost incestuous. Many of the people involved in the Russia hoax are now involved in the Ukraine hoax. And all of them seem to have a direct line to George Soros.

    • Retired Spook November 18, 2019 / 4:07 pm

      Many of the people involved in the Russia hoax are now involved in the Ukraine hoax. And all of them seem to have a direct line to George Soros.

      This was the conclusion Glenn Beck came to in the third installment of his Ukraine chalkboard presentation. And the relationship between Soros and the State Department isn’t “almost” incestuous — it IS incestuous, as well as illegal.

  13. Amazona November 18, 2019 / 4:32 pm

    The slush fund is reportedly run by former Secretary of State John Kerry, John Kerry Jr., another Kerry family member and Hunter Biden, Michael Coudrey reported.

    “Leaked documents from the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s office indicate complex money transfers from foreign sources into the control of a ‘slush fund’ owned and operated by Devon Archer, John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr, and Hunter Biden,” he said.

    Hmm. Son of Vice President, son of Secretary of State, stepson of Secretary of State, school friend of all three sons, PLUS Secretary of State himself. And we think Joe Biden wanted the investigation stopped because the prosecutor was corrupt?

    The web just keeps getting wider and wider. And to think, we probably would not have heard of any of this if the cabal had not decided to use the conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president to try to get rid of him. They opened up this can of whoop-ass and it is spraying back all over them, going all the way back to the old Biden/Kerry tag team where the Vice President and the Secretary of State used their positions (all together now—-ABUSE OF POWER !!!) to set up international rackets to funnel money to their kids and maybe even themselves.

    • Cluster November 19, 2019 / 4:36 pm

      You know damn well Biden and Kerry profited. As did the Clinton’s thru Clinton Global Initiative. They all personally made millions of dollars from foreign countries and compromised their integrity and the US in the process but now we’re suppose to believe Trump is afraid of Biden and begging Ukraine to investigate him?? These people are scum and I pray that their dirty efforts turn around on them and they end up destroying their own lives.

Comments are closed.