The Impeachment circus of President Trump rolled onto Capital Hill yesterday, with ringmaster Adam Schiff ready to preside over the “made-for-TV-performance.
Everything had been meticulously planned in advance, the Biden operative secretly working somewhere within INTEL, perhaps at the urging of the former vice president decides to step forward using the protective status as a whistleblower, citing second and third hand information regarding the infamous July 26th phone call.
Setting into monition the investigation by ringmaster Schiff, however, the whistleblower will not testify, perhaps revealing the dubious relationships between Biden and Schiff.
Meanwhile, Schiff holds a series of secret interviews of potential witnesses, somewhere in a “safe-room” located in the capitol basement. After many weeks of secret testimony by a number of government workers and career diplomats, Schiff is ready to go public and present his case against the President.
At around 10 a.m. ringmaster Schiff makes his opening statement, accusing the President, of bribery and extortion, which is no doubt a serious and impeachable infraction, if it were true, and that’s when the impeachable balloon finally burst, with a resounding “POP,” thanks to Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, who stole the carefully crafted impeachment inquiry, revealing it as nothing more than an ill-conceived sideshow, in short, a HOAX.
Jordan, not one to mince words, used his 5-minutes of allowed time, brilliantly, cutting quickly to the chase by taking the tedious speaking Ukraine Ambassador William Taylor to the task.
Challenging his claims of hearsay, and having no direct knowledge of what actually transpired between President Trump and the Ukrainian President on July 26th.
Ambassador Taylor had previously testified he had a “clear” understanding that the release of aid to Ukraine was linked to a request for investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, and Burisma Holdings.
When it finally came Jordan’s turn to question the career diplomat, he quickly cited the 3-meetings Taylor had with President Zelensky, between the time the aid was delayed and eventually released.
Furthermore, Taylor confirmed to Jordan that “there was no discussion of linkage” during any of those meetings.
“Now, with all due respect, Ambassador, your clear understanding was obviously wrong,” Jordan said, noting that Zelensky also never made any announcement of an investigation prior to Trump releasing the aid on Sept. 11, 2019.
The bemused diplomat, who only moments ago seemed extremely self-assured, began to suddenly fumfer regarding his “clear” understanding testimony.
“As I testified, Mr. Jordan, this came from Ambassador Gordon Sondland,” Taylor said, recalling that Sondland told him that he said to Zelensky, “that while this was not a quid pro quo if Mr. Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate.”
Jordan then pointed to an addendum to Sondland’s closed-door testimony, in which he discussed how Taylor recalled that he mentioned a linkage between the investigation and the release of aid to Ukraine.
The 55-year old Ohio congressman mockingly reads aloud the edited testimony, by Sondland back to Taylor.
“Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.”
Adding incredulously, “We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding,” Jordan said. “And you’re their star witness.”
At which point a meek Taylor smiled, almost agreeing in kind with Jordan.
No doubt House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, will attempt to regroup. That’s why Rep Jordan along with Rep. Devin Nunes should be the only two Republicans tasked with asking questions, the other Republicans on the committee should relinquish their time.
One of President Trump’s least desirable traits is his love of public spats – in many cases needless and self-defeating. He did it again during the impeachment hearing with former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
As I watched the play-by-play action – or lack of action – in the so-called impeachment inquiry, it was obvious that Trump’s team – the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee — were winning for the most part. Although you will not get that view from the east coast media propaganda machine.
In the middle of Yovanovitch’s testimony, Trump had to take to Twitter with a gratuitous tweet blasting the ambassador’s career in the diplomatic service – even as Republicans praised her past service.
The inquiry itself had little to do with the issues for possible impeachment. It was more like a job review for the reassigned ambassador. There was mostly bipartisan praise for her past diplomatic service and on a bipartisan admission that a President can remove, replace or reassign an ambassador at will. As Yovanovitch admitted, President Trump could reassign her without any public expression of purpose.
Instead, it is alleged that Yovanovitch was subjected to an alleged “smear campaign” led by former New York Mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. While the smear campaign was referenced innumerable times throughout the hearing, there was virtually no specifics provided as to what was said or alleged in the so-called smear campaign.
What came across in the hearing – although not in most of the highly distorted post-hearing reporting – was that Yovanovitch was NOT a fact-based witness. She was already out of Ukraine when all the discussions of investigations and any role by the Bidens were taking place.
If her testimony had any relevancy in the current proceedings, it was arguably to Trump’s benefit. In fact, when asked if she had ANY information suggesting ANY criminal activity by Trump, she answered, “no.”
She did, however, indicate that the participation of Hunter Biden on the board of the corrupt Burisma Holdings energy company while his father was Vice President of the United States – with Ukraine as part of his portfolio — was a problem. She agreed with the earlier testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent that it minimally created “an appearance of conflict-of-interest.” Since an appearance of a criminal conflict-of-interest might indicate that a crime has been committed – and the further fact that Hunter Biden was serving on a known corrupt enterprise — an investigation seems a prudent and reasonable response.
Instead, there was repeated … and repeated … praise of her past service. One member of Congress asked how she and her family “felt” about what has happened to her – pumping up the narrative of victimization. They referred to her as being “fired” when, in fact, she was reassigned to a plum position that she requested – a State Department professorship at Georgetown University.
It was obvious that Yovanovitch was on the stand solely to make Trump look bad for removing her and saying unkind things. That is a valid complaint but NOTHING to do with ANYTHING relative to impeachable offenses.
Since the second day of public testimony – like the first day – failed to lay a glove on Trump, why was he motivated to tweet in the middle of the hearing. It struck me a bit like taking out a baseball pitcher after he struck out the first six batters.
Trump’s tweet was ill-timed, inappropriate and probably wrong. By all measures, Yovanovitch had a pretty good career at State. That does not mean that she should not have been replaced. For her part, she was unhappy with the way Trump was dealing with Ukrainian matters. In turn, he had lost confidence in her.
One major fact ignored by Democrats and their friends in the media is that the newly-elected President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, expressed his displeasure with her during the phone conversation with Trump. Zelensky said that Yovanovitch had been “working against him” during his campaign. With both leaders having lost confidence in Yovanovitch, there was little choice but to reassign her.
The major problem seems to be Trump’s going on a public attack on her. It was unnecessary. Yovanovitch was correct when she said that Trump could have simply reassigned her without making a public case of it. He certainly did not have to pile on with his tweet during her testimony. In a situation in which the Democrats were holding a weak hand in making an impeachment case, Trump slipped them a pair of aces.
This is not the first time that Trump had created a needless controversy for himself. He does it often. While he rightfully complains about the coverage he receives from the east coast media cabal, he keeps handing them more material for their bogus narratives.
It is an inexplicable bad habit that – if unchecked – just might cost him the presidency.
So, there ‘tis.
Famed civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz has said that he believes that the Democratic leaders in the House are trying to create crimes out of thin air.
Speaking recently on John Catsimatidis’ radio show, the often controversial Dershowitz said, that all Americans should be “frightened” of the House’s impeachment investigation, accusing Democrats of trying to “create crimes out of nothing.”
Dershowitz issued this dire warning to Catsimatidis’ audience, “Whether you’re from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing.”
He went on to say, “…I spent the afternoon yesterday searching the federal criminal statutes from beginning to end. I couldn’t find the crime.”
The House’s impeachment inquiry was launched in September amid Democratic concerns that Trump leveraged $400 million in military aid to pressure Zelensky to publicly open an investigation on unfounded corruption allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden, a top political rival. The White House has repeatedly blasted the House investigation as a “witch hunt” and decrying Democrats’ efforts as “unhinged” last week after they voted to formalize the inquiry.
“First they made up collusion… I searched the statute books. There’s no crime of collusion… with a foreign country. After that, they said obstruction of Congress,” Dershowitz said. “In a desperate effort to try to find crimes [committed by] President Trump, they’re just making it up. And that means we are all in danger.”
Democrats have countered Republicans claims, saying the president abused his oath of office by seeking to involve foreign nations in U.S. domestic politics after publicizing testimony from several witnesses saying there was a quid pro quo surrounding Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
As the greatest reality show on TV since the first season of “The Apprentice” continues to unfold, yesterday’s live broadcast for the open hearings in the impeachment inquiry were cacophonies of lies, bribery, and sexism.
As to the “lies” and “bribery,” House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy blasted Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff as a “serial liar,” while at the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused President Trump of bribery.
In back-to-back press conferences, Pelosi and McCarthy delivered starkly contrasting accounts of the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry, with both claiming their respective parties were fighting to protect the U.S. Constitution – and both claiming a kind of victory.
“Democrats are showing great patriotism,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said after the day’s hearings, praising Schiff, D-Calif., for his dignity and statesmanship. “This isn’t about politics or anything political, it’s about patriotism, it’s about honoring our oath of office, and upholding the Constitution.” Adding, “This is something we do with a heavy heart. This is very prayerful, because impeachment is a divisive thing in our country.”
Pelosi went on to accuse the president of “bribery,” citing witness testimony from State Department official George Kent and U.S. top diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor.
“Bribery—and that is in the Constitution and attached to impeachment proceedings,” Pelosi said. “The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the election—that’s bribery.”
When asked whether bribery would be included as an article of impeachment, Pelosi replied, “We haven’t even made a decision to impeach. That’s what the inquiry is about. What I’m saying is, [what] the president has admitted to as ‘perfect,’ is bribery.”
Minutes later, McCarthy, R-Calif., took the podium on the other side of the House, claiming it’s Republicans who are “standing up” for the Constitution.
“Are they doing this for political purposes or are they standing for the Constitution?” McCarthy said. “They came to Congress to impeach the president.”
McCarthy went on to blast Schiff, claiming he “has continued to lie to the American public.”
McCarthy outlined several instances where he believed Schiff had lied—including during the congressional Russia probe and when he “on purpose” delivered a parody reading last month of the transcript of Trump’s now-infamous July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which is at the center of the impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd faced heavy backlash for what critics described as a “sexist” attack aimed at Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. Stefanik was one of several Republicans who spoke out against the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump during its first public hearing Wednesday, but Dowd singled her out on Twitter.
“Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing someone because they are a woman or a millennial doesn’t necessarily get you the leaders we need,” the self-proclaimed “proud independent” commentator wrote in the now-deleted tweet.
However, that didn’t stop the avalanche of criticism that Dowd received — including from Stefanik’s colleague, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.
“Elise did a great job laying out the facts. And, not least of all, this comment is reprehensible,” Meadows wrote.
Other critics piled on Dowd for the tweet, many of them labeling the tweet “sexist.”
Dowd later claimed people were “misunderstanding” his tweet and stressed the country needs “more leaders with integrity.”
He eventually offered an apology to the congresswoman.
“Hey @EliseStefanik, I just want to apologize for a tweet that is being misinterpreted,” Dowd wrote. “I didn’t mean to suggest you were elected only because you were a woman or a millennial. I deleted the tweet.”
The drama continues with another day of public testimony, stay tuned!
President Donald Trump has ‘every right’ to withhold aid to Ukraine, or from any country, where he thinks corruption is taking place, Republican Senator Rand Paul said over the weekend.
“Every politician in Washington is trying to manipulate Ukraine to their purposes,” the grassroots right-wing Senator from Kentucky said.
“I think we’ve gotten lost in this whole idea of quid pro quo,” Paul argued during an interview with Chuck Todd on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ over the weekend.
Transcripts from the House Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Trump have revealed that some administration officials think Trump withheld US military aid for Ukraine until the country opened an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who was given a lucrative position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.
Democrats allege this constitutes proof that there was quid pro quo involved in Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
“If you’re not allowed to give aid to people who are corrupt, there are always contingencies on aid,” the Kentucky senator argued.
“Well, if it’s corruption and he believes there to be corruption, he has every right to withhold aid,” Paul said.
“Presidents have withheld aid before for corruption. I think it’s a mistake to say, ‘Oh, he withheld aid until he got what he wanted.’”
Despite his arguments in support of the president, Senator Paul, who will act as a juror in the Senate trial if Trump is impeached by the House, argued that the Trump administration was making a “mistake” in arguing that the president didn’t engage in a quid pro quo.
“Every politician in Washington other than me, virtually, is trying to manipulate Ukraine to their purposes,” he said.
“Menendez tried it, Murphy tried it, Biden tried it, Trump’s tried it — they’re all doing it. They are all trying to manipulate Ukraine to get some kind of investigation, either end an investigation or start an investigation.” he declared.
Senator Paul mentioned that he opposes sending aid to Ukraine entirely.
“I wouldn’t give them the aid because we don’t have the money,” the senator said. “We have to actually borrow the money from China to send it to Ukraine, so I’m against the aid and I think it’s a mistake to do the aid so I wouldn’t have played any of these games.”
When most people think of the earth we think of a solid round sphere that orbits the sun. It’s common to consider that there is molten rock under the surface as we witness the spewing of lava from volcanos on dry land as well as underwater. It seems however that the earth is synonymous with the human brain in the sense that we know less than five percent of what’s in our oceans and seas and we only use less than ten percent of our brains’ mental capacity. Truly there is much more exploration and studying need. So, what do we really know about the earth?
For centuries dating as far back as can be recalled, there have been theories of entrances that lead to inner earth. We all heard the story of the Devil being under the surface of the earth residing in hell supposedly. Some of us may have heard of an ancient reptilian humanoid species that live in some of the porous caverns of the earth. There are also great writings like Dante’s Inferno that spoke of entering lower levels of the earth beneath the surface. So, could the Hollow Earth Theory be fact, not fiction?
Brooks A. Agnew is a writer and a scientist who supports this hollow earth theory. One of his best works is Alienated Nation. His uncle, Sir James Ross, was also a Hollow Earther. He was responsible for the discovery of Ross’s Gull. Hence the name Ross. It was a rare seabird that Sir James discovered on his travels. As far back as 1629, Edmund Halley hypothesized of a sequential series of crust theory having to do with the makeup of the earths’ layers. That was just one of his many ideas that were considered crackpot at the time. But, he is the guy that predicted that comet that comes around every 75 years I believe. We call it Halley’s Comet. Named after Edmund Halley of course. So, his theory proved true after all. He also spoke of the hollow earth.
Marshall Gardner patented in 1965 the Hollow Earth theory. He spent a lot of his time and money researching and going on expeditions to bring proof and document information supporting this theory. Unfortunately, Marshall Gardner died of pneumonia while searching through subterranean terrain. During Brooks’ research, he often met people who are called channelers. These channelers were said to be able to communicate with otherworldly beings telepathically.
Admiral Byrd is another very polarizing character. He is famous for flying over the north pole back in 1926. I find his story very interesting because he writes of his airships compasses losing their bearings due to being so true north. He also writes about seeing plush green lands where there were wild animals. Some of which he never has seen before and others like the woolly mammoth that were thought to be extinct. Admiral Byrd said that his ship was tractor beamed in by an intelligent people living in the inner earth and one of the grand entrances is the north pole. This information was in the journals of Admiral Byrd and later presented by his son. Most people don’t know but it is illegal to fly over the north pole currently. Why do you think that is?
There is scientific data supporting the hollow earth theory. There have been seismic tests done to retrieve data on the shape and formation of the earth. Dr. Wysessions at Washington University states that “We concluded after 600,000 seismograms that deep in the earth mantel there is revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the arctic ocean. Also, strange anomalies having to do with sea creatures seem to be popping up lately. Oceanographers do tests every five years on certain rays which are a form of fish, like the manta ray for instance. Usually, normal would be seeing 50 or so sea creatures one would consider anomalies. Well, in 2008 while testing they found 1500 strange sea creatures. Some say this is happening because of underwater conduits leading to inner earth seas.
Agnew is planning an expedition to and above the arctic circle. They are hoping to come in contact with some intelligent life and document the rendezvous and make the footage available to the public. Agnew believes that if there is space in the middle of the earth than there must be life there as well. Could there be an entire civilization living beneath our feet accompanied by once thought to be extinct animals like dinosaurs, etc? Seek and you shall find.
The Republicans have produced their list of the witnesses that they would like call during the soon to be public hearings of the impeachment inquiry. While there may have been some surprising names on the list – including Joe and Hunter Biden, what should come as no surprise, is that Adam “Shifty” Schiff is rejecting most of the names on the list.
The GOP witness list, obtained by Fox News included Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president Joe Biden, and the anonymous intelligence community whistleblower whose complaint about a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky triggered the impeachment inquiry.
Schiff immediately rejected the idea of the whistleblower testifying during the public impeachment inquiry hearings, saying that his or her testimony was “redundant and unnecessary.”
In a letter to Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., Schiff said, “The committee … will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” ” … The whistleblower has a right under laws championed by this committee to remain anonymous and to be protected from harm.”
The letter continued, “The impeachment inquiry, moreover, has gathered an ever-growing body of evidence — from witnesses and documents, including the president’s own words in his July 25 call record — that not only confirms but far exceeds the initial information in the whistleblower’s complaint … ”
Schiff concluded his letter, “In light of the president’s threats, the individual’s appearance before us would only place their personal safety at grave risk.”
Earlier in his letter, Schiff had warned Nunes that the impeachment inquiry and the House Intelligence Committee “will not serve as vehicles” for what he called “sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit.”
Republicans also planned to call the younger Biden’s former long-time business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the board of Burisma. Republicans claim Archer can help the public to understand “the nature and extent of Ukraine’s pervasive corruption information that bears directly on President Trump’s longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country.”
Archer and the Bidens will likely also be rejected as witnesses by Schiff.
The list of witnesses also includes Nellie Ohr, a researcher at the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-infamous anti-Trump dossier; Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American consultant for the Democratic National Committee who allegedly met with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. to discuss incriminating information about Trump campaign officials; ex-National Security Council official Tim Morrison; former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker; and high-ranking State Department official David Hale.
The impeachment inquisition, to the dismay of dysfunctional Democrats and in particular ringleader Adam Schiff, is taking on a life of its own that is threatening to unravel the tightly knit and well-orchestrated witch hunt.
Within recent days the motive behind the impeachment inquiry is beginning to see the light-of-day, and what we’re discovering is a coup d’etat, long in the making by an unscrupulous band of conspirators, out to frame the President.
This latest revelation concerns a shadowy figure, who first burst on the national impeachment scene last week by the name of Marie Yovanovitch, however, Yovanovitch is well known among career diplomats.
The closely cropped redhead was the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who was fired by President Trump, and is now somehow considered a key witness by House Democrats’ eager to use whatever meaningless tidbit by Yovanovitch to bolster their impeachment inquiry, regardless of the fact that she was terminated in May of 2019, several months before the infamous July phone call.
The ouster of Yovanovitch by President Trump has infuriated career State Department diplomats, who apparently view their tenure has a lifelong occupations within the deep state, rather as a temporary position, that serves at the pleasure of the President, thus her abrupt firing may be the cause for Yovanovitch’s testifying under oath, and perhaps harboring a personal grudge against the President.
This may be the reason why Yovanovitch either willfully lied or mistakenly testified under oath, that she did not respond to a personal email sent by a Democratic congressional staffer concerning a “quite delicate” and “time-sensitive” matter, just two days after the whistleblower complaint, that kick-started the inquiry.
Congressman Lee Zeldin from New York had asked the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, about the personal email she received on August 14th from Democratic staffer Laura Carey, and whether she responded to Carey’s email.
Yovanovitch responded “under oath” she never replied to the email, when in fact she did.
The career diplomat described Carey’s initial email.
“I alerted the State Department, because I’m still an employee, and so, matters are generally handled through the State Department.”
Adding that the email came “from the Foreign Affairs Committee,” and “they wanted me to come in and talk about it, I guess, the circumstances of my departure” as Ukraine ambassador months earlier.
Yovanovitch continued: “So, she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And, she emailed me again and said, you know, ‘Who should I be in touch with?”
However, State Department procedure forbids congressional staff to reach out to a current State Department employee at their personal email address for official business, which once again raises questions to how Schiff’s witch hunt probe is breaking all the rules.
Moreover, while it’s possible that Yovanovitch may not have recalled responding to a quick inquiry, a lengthy email exchange is certainly another matter.
Carey’s initial email stating to Yovanovitch, “I’m writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat — in particular, I’m hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring,” Carey then wrote to Yovanovitch. “I’d appreciate the chance to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and thus, we want to make sure we get them right.”
Carey continued: “Could you let me know if you have any time this week or next to connect? Happy to come to a place of your choosing, or if easier to speak by phone at either of the numbers below. I’m also around this weekend if meeting up over coffee works.”
Yovanovitch responds the next day (August 15th), “Thanks for reaching out — and congratulations on your new job. I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly.”
The two corresponded by personal email again on the 19th Which suggests to any reasonable individual that the former U.S. Ambassador lied under oath, perhaps thinking that no one would investigate her personal email correspondence.
Zeldin told Fox News on Thursday it was “greatly concerning” that Yovanovitch may have testified incorrectly that she did not personally respond to Carey’s email.
Adding, “I would highly suspect that this Democratic staffer’s work was connected in some way to the whistleblower’s effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade,” Zeldin said. “We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff’s team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint even though Schiff had lied to the public originally claiming that there was no contact. Additionally, while the contents of the email from this staffer to Ambassador Yovanovitch clearly state what the conversation would be regarding, Yovanovitch, when I asked her specifically what the staffer was looking to speak about, did not provide these details.”
Zeldin added: “I specifically asked her whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department. It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn’t answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”
One of the reasons that this current phase of impeachment folly is called an “inquiry” is that it is the normal responsibility of the House Judiciary Committee to hold a REAL impeachment hearing – one that will lead to Articles of Impeachment, or not.
What is going on in the House today is nothing more than a long public relations stunt with Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff as the current ringmaster. There was no reason that Democrats could not have simply voted to launch an impeachment HEARING – as has been the normal course in the past. They could have had all the same witnesses – even some behind closed doors. The only difference is that the rights of the accused – in this case the President of the United States – would have been preserved.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to bypass the normal impeachment process in order to gin up a political lynching. (Yes, I called it that in the colloquial sense of the word.) She assigned six committees to “inquire” as to whether Trump committed any offenses worthy of an impeachment HEARING.
You will notice I did not say “crime.” That is because impeachment – as currently defined — does not require a crime even though the Constitution says that impeachment must be founded on “treason, bribery HIGH CRIMES and misdemeanors.” That sounds like serious stuff.
Pelosi and Co. understand that the Constitution be damned, the only requirement for impeachment is getting a majority of one political party to pass Articles of Impeachment. Consequently, she has undertaken the most political and unnecessary impeachment process in the history of the nation. She has weaponized impeachment.
Of course, such Articles must be filled with language suggesting abuse of power, obstruction of justice and other dubious accusations that can be made to sound like crimes. In fact, the Democrats have all those talking heads on television saying flat-out that Trump is guilty of this crime or that crime. Of course, that is only their opinion – or at least their politically-based claim.
Once the Democrats finish their repetitious “inquiry” – rolling it into a quasi-public phase — they will transfer the impeachment business over to the Judiciary Committee to conduct the “hearing” that will most likely lead to a highly partisan vote on Articles of Impeachment.
In the meantime, we will have the impeachment ball lateraled to Jerry Nadler, the diminutive chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a stridently partisan New York Democrat, who makes Schiff look like the champion of bipartisanship.
Nadler craves the center stage over impeachment. He was among the earliest voices demanding impeachment – a full-fledged member of the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement. We got a preview of Nadler when he was undertaking his own investigation of the Trump administration – saying that HIS investigation was essentially an impeachment hearing.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi squelched that idea as being a bit premature. Instead, she concocted the impeachment “inquiry” concept as a precursor to a legitimate hearing. It was only a temporary setback for Nadler since the impeachment process would eventually have to come to his Committee.
Anyone who holds any hope that Nadler will conduct a fair and nonpartisan hearing does not know the guy. He has already accused Trump of every crime in the book. He even claims that Trump criminally colluded with Russian even though Special Counsel Robert Mueller made it VERY clear that he had not – nor had anyone associated with the Trump campaign.
Nadler insists that the Mueller Report accused Trump of at least 10 counts of obstruction of justice – even though he left that decision to the higher-ups at the Department of Justice – and they declared that NONE of the examples of POSSIBLE obstruction rose to the level of a crime. End of subject.
Some Democrats – apparently including Pelosi – want to limit the charges in any Articles of Impeachment to abuse of power associated with the allegations that Trump attempted to enter into an inappropriate quid pro quo with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Others – including Nadler – want to include every conceivable charge – even those discredited in the Mueller Report.
If we were dealing with a court-of-law, all the charges leveled against Trump would not likely survive the first Motion to Dismiss. But this is not a court-of-law. Impeachment is a political process, and Nadler is the consummate political creature. His only interest is to create enough cover for the Democrat majority to impeach Trump.
If you think the Schiff inquiry was marred by political acrimony and shenanigans, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
So, there ‘tis.
The amount of so-called ‘asylum seekers’ pouring into the United States is set to be slashed by at least 40 percent in 2020 compared this year, where 30,000 migrants were settled throughout the country.
President Trump has authorized a cap on the ‘refugee resettlement program’ for the Fiscal Year of 2020, the Associated Press reports. The cap would permit no more than 18,000 ‘refugees’ to be resettled in the interior of the country in 2020. Once realized, this would represent an 80 percent reduction in the inflow of refugees compared to what was seen under President Obama.
Furthermore, it is conceivable that the number of so-called refugees allowed to stay in the country in 2020 could be even less than 18,000.
In the Fiscal Year of 2019 (October 1st, 2018 to September 30th, 2019), 30,000 refugees were resettled across the interior of the United States.
Of the 30,000 that were resettled, over 12,900 came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 4,900 arrived from Burma, more than 4,400 made their way from Ukraine, and close to 1,200 came from Afghanistan.
Although the majority of the resettled refugees are Christian (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, etc.), those who came from Afghanistan are Muslim.
Over fifty percent of the resettled refugees were distributed across 12 states. While Texas absorbed the most with 2,500 refugees, the states of California, New York, Washington, Arizona, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, North Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky each took more than 1,000 refugees.
Official White House immigration numbers have revealed that from 2008 to 2018, the United States has permanently resettled over 1.7 million foreign nationals through its different humanitarian programs.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers close to $9 billion every five years.