California Sen. Kamala Harris has announced that she is withdrawing from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Harris has had to call it quits after failing to capitalize on early enthusiasm for her campaign and watching her poll numbers collapse.
“In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do,” Harris wrote in an email to supporters. “So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret — but also with deep gratitude — that I am suspending my campaign today.”
An aide said Harris informed staff Tuesday she is ending her White House bid.
Harris entered the race in January as a top contender and had a breakout moment in the first debate thanks to a memorable clash with then-frontrunner Joe Biden over his record on desegregation busing.
But she’s struggled to break out in subsequent debates and has seen her poll numbers plunge in recent months. In November, Harris dramatically cut her staff in New Hampshire, the state that holds the first primary in the race for the White House, to focus on Iowa.
The Harris campaign was also hemorrhaging money, spending more than what was coming in, amid tough media coverage about the campaign’s struggles.
She is the first “big name” candidates to drop out of the crowded 2020 primary field, two months before the lead-off Iowa caucuses. Her exit follows the withdrawal of former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, another Democrat who entered the race to great fanfare, but later struggled.
Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, Former VP Joe Biden said of Harris, “I have mixed emotions about it because she is really a solid, solid person. And loaded with talent.”
Many believe that Harris’ decision was made not only because she was no longer a viable candidate for POTUS, but any future political career for her would be in jeopardy, if she remained in the race, and lost big – which seemed likely — in the California primary, her home state.
Governments are always doing something in the dark shadows far away from discerning and prying eyes. Sometimes it is necessary and for the bigger cause. The government is supposed to be in place to serve the people. Often times secrets are necessary to keep one’s hand unexposed. This too, however, can get out of hand.
The CIA and the military started a covert program used to assassinate VC sympathizers during the time of the Vietnam war called The Phoenix Project. This counter-insurgency doctrine has been put into full play by CIA and US Military Intelligence after the negative public reaction American citizens vehemently expressed against the US involvement in the Vietnam war. They looked at the public reaction to the war as an open betrayal and wanted it not to happen again.
Under this new program called the Phoenix Project, a new form of weapon was being developed called microwave weapons. These weapons were being developed as a new form of crowd control but far more effective and nefarious than the typical tear gas. These state of the art neutralizing microwave weapons kill slowly and silently and also can be used to cause emotional changes and emotional distress to a large group of people or can be directed at one individual. These microwaves are transmitted over low-frequency signals and can be done sight unseen. The terms slow kill, silent kill, and soft kill were used to identify microwave frequency attacks on groups or individuals.
The Phoenix Program is similar to the CIA’s MK Ultra program which is a secret crash program used to control the human mind. The MK in MK Ultra is the abbreviation for the german words for mind control. The techniques used in this program came from direct knowledge of how POWs were treated during capture and also from first-hand knowledge of events that took place in Nazi concentration camps. By the end of the Korean War, 70% of the POWs signed confessions, 15% cooperated fully, and 5% refused to do either. One can only assume what happened to the remaining 10%.
Brainwashing and propaganda were chief tools used to condition the minds of prisoners. These techniques were used to cause emotional exhaustion. The captives were made to feel isolated and alone in order to be broken. The Joint Chief of Staff ordered and speared headed the operation to bring 34 Nazi scientists that were utilized in such brainwashing experiments in Germany. These scientists were brought into the country under the top-secret program called Project Paperclip. Nine-thousand Nazi scientist evaded prosecution in Germany for their committed atrocities and was smuggled into the US to help defeat the USSR or Soviet Russian. These men were skilled in the art of breaking the human mind.
Joseph Mengele was a chief Nazi scientist who did experiments on adults and children in Germany. Some of his favorite devices used in his testing was a drug called mescaline, electroshock therapy, starvation, rape, hypnosis, torcher, sensory deprivation, and trauma bonding.
In 1973, General Michael Aquino became the executive officer for the 306th Psychological Operations Battalion. He wrote about how enemy populations can be subdued with the use of low-frequency psychological weapons. The new low-frequency weapons can be used to evoke emotions of fear or to slowly cook someone at the molecular level. These weapons can be used to control a crowd without a shot being fired. The microwaves can be transmitted over radio, television, and communications frequencies (like a cell phone, ipad or any smart device).
In the 1980’s, Michael Aquino was accused to be part of a satanic military child molestation ring. He had close ties with Antoine LaVey who was the head of the Church of Satan. Michael was himself the founder of the Church of Set. This too was a satanic church in itself. The military and government choose to infiltrate such closed groups like the Mormons and The Church of Satan because since they are not open to the public the people are more easily indoctrinated. They then use these groups to push forward an agenda.
We all want freedom. But who defines what real freedom is and to what extent should governments go to maintain sovereignty and independence. But, at what cost?
The sins of the father. How far is too far? Do the ends justify the means.
In my many decades of advising political candidates – and other public figures – how to manage their public images, I have always placed some importance on “looks.” How you message and what you believe are very important, the appearance of a candidate can either reinforce or distract from a good public image.
Senator John McCain did himself no good by campaigning in tan pants and polo shirts. He looked more like an Arizona retiree than the senior senator from that state. On the other hand, President Obama, with his dark suits and sincere ties looked more like a President than McCain. That was quite an accomplishment since every previous President was an old white guy –like McCain. He just did not look presidential.
While I like Congressman Jim Jordan’s politics, I wish he would buy a suit – and wear it. Yes, there are times that shedding the jacket can connect with voters – that is when it is an exception, like passing out cupcakes in a food line or flipping those pork chops at the Iowa State Fair. But not all the time. Not press conferences. Not at hearings.
I am sure it is not accident with Jordan. He thinks he is relating to the common man. To me, he looks like a pocket-protector wearing manager of a used car dealership. And even the average car salesman would have enough sense to put on a suit to appear on the hallowed floor of the United States House of Representatives.
Those with longer memories may recall how President Jimmy Carter would carry his suit bag as he disembarked from Air Force One. There was even a joke going around that someone made Carter strain by actually putting clothes in the bag.
So, what about our current presidential candidates – starting out with our current President?
President Trump wears presidential clothes – and he looks good in them considering that he is a big fellow. But of course, the most obvious attention-grabber is the hair. It has detracted from his presidential persona. Over the years, it has toned down a bit. As President, Trump does not need an odd hair do to attract attention.
Of course, Trump cannot give it up now because it has been part of his signature look for sooooo long—and if he did, Congressman Adam Schiff would see it as an impeachable offense.
There are several candidates who are well suited for the Presidency – and I only mean that in the fashionista sense. Certainly, Joe Biden. He has carried that look for a lifetime. His only appearance problem is his age – and fixing that would require a few more hair transplants and some television makeup.
Newbie candidate Michael Bloomberg is a clone of Biden fashion wise. It is hard to imagine that he would ever take off his suitcoat in public – even to flip chops in Iowa. Maybe that is why he is not going there. He is about as old as Biden and shows it.
Millionaire Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also an old man, but he is going for a much different look than Biden or Bloomberg. He dresses down and makes sure his hair is properly messed. Most times he looks like he had the window open as he was driving down the highway. Rather than a President of the United States, Sanders comes off looking more like a poli-sci professor at New York University. There are times, however, his hair appears more coiffed — combed forward in little flat curls along the edge that make him look more like a senator in ancient Rome.
There is another guy who wants to portray an image apart from what he is. Billionaire Tom Steyer is mostly seen in jeans and plaid shirts in folksy commercials – kind of a western rancher type. He ends all his banal attacks on Trump with a self-satisfied smug smile – a lot like that kid in school who always had the teacher-pleasing answer.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg has the problem that he looks even younger than he is. We still associate experience and wisdom with age – up to a point, of course. Buttigieg looks like he should be running for College homecoming king. (don’t go there.) While he does go coatless a bit too often, there is not much he could wear that would make him look older. He might have overcome the problem if he had become prematurely grey.
I know there are more male candidates, but they are so far down the polling list that it really does not matter what they wear. No one is noticing.
So, what about the women?
With one exception, I give them all a perfect grade in the school of political fashion. While their politics are liberal, the attire of Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard is presidential conservative. While Harris and Klobuchar are matronly stylish – and I mean that as a compliment – Gabbard’s get-ups are a tad sexier. She wears it well.
Now I know that will be viewed as a sexist comment by the political correctness crowd, but I do not find anything sexy about the men’s choice in attire. Maybe some yoga pants would do the trick. (God, I hope I can get that image out of my mind.)
While these women switch from dresses, business suits and pants suit, they avoid the image-killing pants suits worn by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. But then, the former First Lady was never a clothes horse.
Of course, the exception in the current field of lady candidates is Elizabeth Warren. Though she is among the multi-millionaire candidates, it is obvious she selects attire to project her “I’m just a humble schoolteacher from Oklahoma” image. It is a wonder where she has found so many of those long frumpy sweaters. Even Goodwill could not meet Warren’s demand. Every time I see Warren, I cannot help but think of the bag lady character played by comedian Ruth Buzzi.
I did not forget Marianne Williamson, the love candidate, it is just that she is so forgettable. Whatever she wears, she looks like one of those women peddling aromas on the shopping channels. Maybe she does.
I did not look at these styles as a fashion expert — obviously. I cannot tell an Armani suit from an Army flak jacket. I just look at the candidates in terms of the public image they project – or try to project – with a bit of humor that is so lacking in our current political discourse. And you can bet that there will be folks out there who will not appreciate the humor. You can identify them because they are wearing t-shirts emblazoned with political obscenities.
So, there ‘tis.
During his presidential campaign – and ever since his inauguration – President Trump has constantly called on the other members of NATO to increase their financial contribution. At the time Trump took office, only three of the 29 NATO nations were meeting their agreed-to funding of two percent of Gross Domestic Product. As with the UN, the United States was the only nation carrying a disproportionate percentage of the alliance budget.
In typical fashion, Trump was pretty rough on our NATO allies. He treated them like the deadbeats they were.
That got our pin-stripped pants folks in the international relations community all a twitter – so to speak. They accused Trump of violating diplomatic norms – bullying our friends. They accused Trump of trying to destroy NATO as a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The complainers broke down into two camps – those who simply hate Trump and those know-it-alls in the diplomatic community who had been calling on the other members of NATO to increase their contribution – but did nothing about it. Consequently, it never happened. Doing nothing, after all, is the diplomatic norm in their world.
So, what is the situation today?
Weeeeell, the number of nations meeting their commitment has increased from three to eight – and most of the other nations have increased their contributions. In a recent press conference, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reported an increase in NATO income of $130 billion since 2016 (the year Trump became President) – and said that there still needs to be more improvement in member nations meeting their quotas.
Stoltenberg said that increases in member contributions were necessary because of more dangerous international conditions, terrorism, and new military technologies. But … he said that such increases should NOT be because Trump called for them. They had nothing to do with the guy who had been bullying and threatening them, according to the Secretary General.
Now let’s get this picture straight. For decades, the American diplomatic establishment has been trying to get our NATO allies in meeting their financial obligations without any success – even as international conditions became more dangerous, terrorism resulted in a Caliphate off the shore of Europe and military technologies improved immensely. NATO could keep pace with those past events thanks to the misguided generosity of one nation – America.
Democrats and their media allies have been quick to take up the narrative set forth by Stoltenberg. If you start with the argument that nothing Trump does will have good results, it is easy to assume his pressures on NATO had nothing to do with the improvements in funding. But that is preposterous.
In an odd analysis, former General Mark Hertling – a consistent Trump critic – derisively said that the NATO leaders only playing up to Trump so that he would not grouse so much about the funding shortfalls – another example of who Trump Derangement Syndrome addles the left-wing brain. Of course, there were placating Trump. That is called a victory – something Hertling should understand.
The only thing that changed in terms of NATO funding between now and then has been the election of Trump and the public shaming (bullying, if you prefer) he bestowed on our allies. And as far as that nonsense about helping Putin, Trump actually strengthened NATO, added to the membership rolls and sent military aide to Ukraine – a nation eager to join NATO and avoid being Putin’s next conquest.
Though lost in the fog of impeachment – intentionally, to be sure – the increased funding of NATO is a “yuge” victory for Trump, the United States, and the free world. Mark up one more for The Lipper.
So, there ‘tis.
Being the greatest military power in the world is what apparently most world powers strive to be. This is especially true when considering the United States of America. I guess the motto is win or go home. This country has been doing quite a bit of winning. Most of these wins go unnoticed by the general public. This is because a lot of victories are won covertly. Of course, transparency is not exactly what I would expect from a government. A team can’t let an opposing team get a hold of its playbook. Some of the decisions made by government and military officials are above the pay grade of the average individual. The government can’t expose all. Take it from an Army veteran. But, to what extent should a nation go to be and remain at the top of the pile?
Our government and military have come under fire for its involvement with Nazi war criminals. These men were recruited by the United States under the top-secret program called Operation Paperclip. There were a total of 1600 scientists and engineers that were covertly brought over to the United States via Operation Paperclip to help the U.S. win the arms race. These Nazi scientists were responsible for and carried out some of the most horrific and heinous war crimes in history. Eugenics was one of the tools used to get rid of unwanted groups of people. Most people feel that eugenics started in Germany. This is not true. Eugenics actually started in America and was spearheaded by Margaret Sanger. She was also the progenitor of Planned Parenthood.
Granted, the U.S. was desperately working on keeping a few steps ahead of the now-debunked Soviet Union. Anything to stay ahead of a rival nuclear power. But, at what cost? Instead of the U.S. making sure that these Nazi war criminals were prosecuted for their atrocious and inhumane attack on humanity, they were suited to be recruited. That’s right. The very same scientist that worked to exterminate an entire ethnic group (Jews) were given asylum in the United States of America.
In the spring of 1945, the U.S. Navy “received in custody” the inventor of the Hs 293 missile. His name was Herbert A. Wagner. Wagner was an Austrian that worked in the field of aerodynamics. The Hs 293 missile is also known as the Henschel Hs 293 glide bomb. Werner Von Braun created the United States V2 Rocket. Werner was the leading aerospace engineer in Nazi Germany.
After WWII, Schreiber testified in the Nuremberg Trials against Herman Goering. He also worked for the CIA and therefore shielded from being prosecuted for is medical atrocities that he himself committed. Is this how justice works? It didn’t work for John Gotti but it did work for Sammy “The Bull” Gravano. During the reign of the Nazi’s, he introduced lethal phenol injections to effectively exterminate so-called trouble makers. Schreiber conducted savage experiments. One such experiment included cutting open the legs of women imprisoned at Ravensbrueck and purposely infecting them with gangrene. Afterwhich, they were given bone transplants. This would usually end in a slow and agonizing death. Walter later reemigrated to Argentina.
Our government and military have been dealing in black ops or clandestine operations all across the world. These programs go on without the knowledge outside of the knowledge of the general public. Was the fear of the Bear so extreme that the U.S. is justified in its acts? Are there no holds barred when protecting a nation’s sovereignty? These are definitely some points that we may need to evaluate further when thinking of the future of America.
In order to create a press release issue that would give her a few minutes of face time in front of the camera, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Trump to be a witness.
Kneejerk reaction has been that Trump would never even consider such a proposal. It is unprecedented and arguably risky. Pelosi even suggested that Trump could respond to questions in writing. This invitation my have been more palpable if House Democrats had not just opened yet ANOTHER investigation – this time arguing that Trump had lied – perjured himself – in one of his written responses in the investigation by Special Counsel Mueller.
In that case, Trump said he did not recall any conversation with former advisor Roger Stone regarding Wikileaks. Since Trump said he could not recall, it is extremely unlikely that a perjury charge could be pursued in a court-of-law – but, of course, such concocted “crimes” can be played out in a non-judicial impeachment process.
Still, I told friends not to be too convinced that the invitation would be rejected. After all, this is Donald Trump. He loves a good fight – maybe too much so.
Whether he was sincere or not, Trump has indicated an interest in testifying on his own behalf. He has not revealed if that would be in person or in writing. Obviously, the latter would be less risky, but a personal appearance would be a YUGE media show – and we know how he loves a YUGE media show.
If Trump decided he wanted to testify in person and he asked my advice – which he never has – I would tell him to NOT testify under oath –explaining that he knows any misstatement or lack of recollection would be elevated to a republic-destroying statement and be included in the Democrat’s hypothetical Articles of Impeachment.
He could point out that every Democrat on that committee has been lying with impunity. But since they are not under oath and actually have immunity from the laws of slander and libel (so much for no man is above the law), there is no reason why he should testify under oath.
Most observers speculate that Trump will not testify – and I suspect they are correct. But what a show it would be.
So, there ‘tis.
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.
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.
Despite reports that smugglers are punching holes in sections of Donald Trump’s newly built border wall, the president says his wall can still cut it when it comes to border security.
The president has shrugged off concerns that smugglers may be able to cut through portions of the U.S.-Mexico border wall with ease, as a new report had suggested. Asked by reporters outside the White House to comment on the matter, Trump conceded that although the border wall was powerful, “you can cut through anything. But, we have a lot of people watching,” Trump qualified. “Cutting is one thing, but it’s easily fixed. One of the reasons we did it the way we did, it’s very easily fixed.”
Trump’s comments came after reports in the Washington Post revealed that in recent months, smugglers had managed to breach sections of the border wall by “sawing through steel and concrete,” creating gaps wide enough to smuggle people and drugs through them.
U.S. border agents told the Post that the smugglers have been using reciprocating saws to cut through steel and concrete. The saws could cut through beams, regardless of their material, in just a few minutes, they said.
When smugglers have breached a section of the wall, a welding crew would be dispatched to fix the opening, the Post added. In other cases, smugglers would return a cut piece to its position, using putty to make it look like it was fixed. This way they could keep smuggling humans and drugs through these openings, according to the Post’s report.
Electronic sensors aimed at detecting vibrations from saws have been installed in some areas, but not all, the report said. Alternatively, smugglers have used makeshift ladders to climb one side of the wall and hang ropes to scale down the other side.
An administration official responded to the Washington Post’s reporting, saying that such instances were still relatively rare and the new fencing had “significantly increased security and deterrence” along the San Diego and El Centro sections of the U.S.-Mexico border.
No official comment on the WashPo article has been released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency.
After a cadre of House Republicans stormed a closed-door deposition in a secure area and managed to disrupt the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry for hours, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan kept the pressure on Democrats by pushing for more transparency — including public testimony from the whistleblower at the center of the probe. In an initial letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff Jordan — joined by House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes and Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Michael McCaul — called for the whistleblower to come out of hiding, so that his or her “sources and credibility” can be “fully assessed.” The committee chairs noted that Schiff had previously promised that the whistleblower would provide “unfiltered” testimony “very soon” concerning an Aug. 12 complaint.
But, the Republicans charged, Schiff abruptly “reversed course” after reports of the whistleblower’s potential political bias emerged, along with evidence that Democratic congressional committee staff had spoken to the whistleblower before the complaint was filed.
The Republicans asserted that evidence has since emerged that “contradicts” the claims in the whistleblower’s initial complaint, including that the Ukrainian president has said he felt no “pressure” during a July call with President Trump to investigate 2020 Dem front-runner Joe Biden, his son Hunter and Biden business interests in Ukraine, and the erroneous claim that Trump had asked Ukrainians to hand over a server. These and similar revelations of inconstancies have prompted Jordan and fellow Republicans to demand more information on the person’s sources.
The lawmakers further demanded testimony from any sources the whistleblower relied upon to draft the complaint, which contained only secondhand information.
House Republicans Storm the Inquiry
House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., claimed that Schiff “fled with the testifying witness” when roughly 50 Republicans, including several not on one of those three committees, went “face-to-face and demand access to ongoing impeachment proceedings.”
Some Republicans asked to be arrested by Capitol police officers, Fox News has learned, hoping that it would help them make their case that Democrats are abusing the impeachment process.
Republicans said they took the dramatic step to storm the deposition because Democrats’ impeachment inquiry hasn’t been transparent, even as Democrats selectively leak some testimony and evidence to the press. The inquiry is being led by three committees made up of both Democrats and Republicans, but members of Congress not on those committees do not have access to any of the sensitive documents or interviews relating to the probe. Republicans also do not have co-equal power to subpoena witnesses or pursue evidence in the probe.
The standoff unfolded Wednesday morning after lawmakers held a news conference in which they accused House Democrats of lack of transparency. The Republicans specifically decried that the deposition was happening behind closed doors and said Americans should be able to read the transcripts of any interviews being conducted as part of impeachment.
Democrats have promised to release the transcripts when it won’t affect their investigation.