Archive for the ‘Jim Jordan’ Category

Bill Barr’s opening statement in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee won’t be received well by Democrats. Hopefully, though, we won’t be treated to another stunt like Steve Cohen’s chicken stunt, a stunt so stupid that even CNN criticized him. But I digress.

Early in his opening statement, AG Barr will attack Democrats over “the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal.” The full context of that collision is found in this paragraph, which says “Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal, many of the Democrats on this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions. Judging from the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda today. So let me turn to that first.”

Later, AG Barr states “The President has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right. That is precisely what I have done.”

This hearing will be contentious, filled with lots of fireworks. Because Jerry Nadler isn’t the brightest bulb in the Democrats’ chandelier, it isn’t likely that Democrats will lay a glove on Barr, metaphorically speaking.

It got attention — of course it did. Political stunts in Washington usually do. Videos and photos of Cohen devouring fried chicken ran everywhere, a sign that perhaps the hearing was designed to be more of a farce than a serious inquiry.

The House Judiciary Committee used to be a serious committee. With idiots like Nadler chairing the committee and Cohen acting like a clown, it’s impossible to take these Democrats seriously. That being said, it’s clear that the MSM will do its utmost to prop up these clowns. Here’s the infamous chicken scene:

Republicans, starting with Ranking Member Jim Jordan, former Ranking Member Doug Collins, former Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner and former US Attorney Ken Buck, won’t need propping up. That’s before talking about Louie Gohmert, a former Texas state judge. These are serious people.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Val Demings and Karen Bass are auditioning to be Joe Biden’s running mate. They’ll likely use this opportunity to make their case for the job.

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times. Yeah, that politician is crooked but they’re all crooks. That’s disheartening. What’s worst is that it’s a defeatist attitude. I’m planting a stake in the ground and saying ‘No more!’ If our president is willing to fight against the Swamp, and he’s definitely willing, then it’s time for people of integrity from all political persuasions to join him in saying No More!

There’s nothing more Swamp-like than the upper echelon (singular, not plural) of the FBI. Republicans Jim Jordan and Michael Johnson have put FBI Director Christopher Wray on notice that they intend to interview “a mysterious FBI agent, Joe Pientka” in connection with the perjury trap crafted against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Expect Democrats to attack Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson for impugning the reputation of the FBI. Spare me the dramatics.

Democrats, starting with Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), have launched one defense of the FBI after another. The infamous Schiff Memo was demolished by the Horowitz Report. The Schiff Memo said that “FBI and DOJ officials did not ‘abuse’ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.”

The Horowitz Report determined the exact opposite. In fact, the Horowitz Report went further than that:

The Justice Department inspector general’s report contradicted Schiff’s defense. It listed 17 significant omissions and errors that the FBI made in the Carter Page surveillance warrants, including derogatory information about Steele and at least one of his sources.

Then there’s this:

The key claim in the Nunes memo, that the Steele dossier “formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application”, is backed up by the inspector general’s report. The inspector general also faulted the FBI for failing to tell the surveillance court that Steele told a Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, that he was “desperate” in September 2016 to see Donald Trump lose the election.

Don’t expect Mssrs. Jordan and Johnson to relent. Here’s why:

Pientka was conspicuously removed from the FBI’s website after Fox News contacted the FBI about his extensive role in Crossfire Hurricane Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) matters, a change first noticed by Twitter user Techno Fog, but sources say Pientka remains in a senior role at the agency’s San Francisco field office.

This is what the Democrats’ pushback will look like:

The Horowitz Report utterly demolished the Schiff Memo. I’ve listed some of the specifics. The fact is that Pientka, Wray, Comey, McCabe and Strzok all need to testify. Further, it’s worth noting that field agents wanted to close Crossfire Razor, the name for the operation against Gen. Flynn. Strzok ordered it to stay open.

Here’s a question that hasn’t been posed to Strzok, Comey or Wray: why would field officers who interviewed Gen. Flynn want to shut the operation down but a suit from the 7th Floor overrule the field officers? The Swamp must be drained. The Swamp’s defenders must be defeated ASAP. Keeping gavels in Pelosi’s and Schiff’s hands is protecting the Comey/Strzok/Wray of the FBI Building. That isn’t acceptable.

When former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly tried defending Lt. Col. Vindman, he made a major mistake. That isn’t in dispute. What’s still in question is whether it was a mistake or whether it was intentional.

Vindman was rightly disturbed by Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, Kelly suggested: Having seen something “questionable,” Vindman properly notified his superiors, Kelly said.

In his testimony, Lt. Col. Vindman said that his first call was to a lawyer. His first call should have been to Tim Morrison. This actually happened during Jim Jordan’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

During Jordan’s cross-examination, Lt. Col. Vindman said that he first called a lawyer named John Eisenberg. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he attempted to contact “Tim Morrison, the former top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council.”

Jordan followed up, saying “Not only didn’t you go to your boss. You said you tried but you didn’t go to your boss, you went straight to the lawyer and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss? Lt. Col. Vindman replied “No, he didn’t tell me until — what ended up unfolding is I had the conversation with the attorney, I did my coordination. I did my core function, which is coordination. I spoke with the appropriate people in the interagency and then I circled back around to Mr. Eisenberg told me not to talk with anyone else.”

Congressman Jordan then read from the transcript. He asked Lt. Col. Vindman “Why didn’t you go to your direct report, Mr. Morrison? This is page 102. Because Mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. Then I asked you ‘Did Mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around Mr. Morrison?’ And you said “Actually, he did say that, that you shouldn’t talk to any other people. Is that right?'”

That’s a pretty major difference. At the time of the call, Tim Morrison was the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council. According to this article, “Moments after President Trump ended his phone call with Ukraine’s president on July 25, an unsettled national security aide rushed to the office of White House lawyer John Eisenberg.”

I’m betting that Gen. Kelly doesn’t think that the military trains its officers to go around the military’s chain of command. That wouldn’t make sense. In that light, Gen. Kelly’s previous comment sounds more like a generic defense of Lt. Col. Vindman than a full-throated defense of Lt. Col. Vindman. It also sounds a bit like sour grapes.

The truth is that Lt. Col. Vindman isn’t the hero that the MSM consistently portrays him as. Lt. Col. Vindman is a military veteran who earned a Purple Heart. For that, I salute him. For his work at the NSC, I thank him but I don’t think of him as a hero.

Back during the House’s impeachment inquiry, the conventional wisdom was that President Trump had to beef up his communications team. Rather than hiring a bunch of consultants to help with that, President Trump beefed up his legal team, hiring people like Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray and Ken Starr. President Trump wasn’t finished, though. Later, he “announced eight House Republicans will join his legal defense team.”

Joining the team were Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, Doug Collins, Lee Zeldin, Mike Johnson, Debbie Lesko and Mark Meadows. These aren’t the only reinforcements, though. Since the trial started, senators like Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy and Tom Cotton have played a more prominent role in defending President Trump against the House Democrats’ impeachment accusations.

This morning, for instance, Sen. Cotton was interviewed by FNC’s Sandra Smith:

Sen. Cotton is right. If Democrats had compelling evidence, they’d present it and “let it speak for itself.” They don’t have compelling evidence, which is why they’ve repeated the same things over and over again.

Since beefing up their legal team, these attorneys have applied a full-court press. Dershowitz has appeared on ABC’s This Week, CNN’s State of the Union and on FNC’s Hannity and Ingraham Angle shows. Robert Ray has been on multiple shows, as has Elise Stefanik, Doug Collins, John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton. They’ve taken turns highlighting Adam Schiff’s dishonest statements. When Trump’s legal team makes their presentation, expect them to include many of Schiff’s dishonesties in that presentation.

If witnesses are called, expect Hunter Biden to be called. If he’s called, here’s why:


Talk about opening a door of opportunity for Republicans. BTW, this is what a confident, polished attorney looks like:

President Trump’s legal team and communications team are fitting together perfectly. They’re confident and well-prepared for each contingency. That’s what a team of professionals looks like.

This morning, Sen. Schumer made a major mistake during his press conference. He said that “any Senate impeachment trial should be ‘focused on the facts that the House presented, not on conspiracy theories.'” Then he renewed his request for 4 new witnesses that didn’t testify.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to square those statements. At this point, they’re contradictory at best. How do you focus solely on the facts that House Democrats presented, then insist on calling 4 witnesses that House Democrats didn’t call?

It’s apparent that Sen. Schumer hasn’t figured it out that this is hurting Democrats. The longer Pelosi hangs onto the articles of impeachment, the more this looks like a partisan operation. The longer Sen. Schumer insists on calling witnesses that the House didn’t fight for, the weaker the prosecution’s case looks. And the Democrats’ case already looked weak.

The only thing that’ll hurt the Democrats’ efforts more is what’s inevitable. Picture Pelosi sitting in her office thinking of the nightmare of choosing between Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff to be the lead prosecutor. Then think of that nightmare happening on national TV. Then think of it happening for the next 2-3 weeks right before the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary.

On the other hand, think of how positive Republicans are, knowing that Doug Collins, Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe have been named impeachment managers for the trial. The thought of Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler making unsubstantiated accusations based on hearsay and presumptions, then watching Mssrs. Collins, Jordan and Ratcliffe present exculpatory evidence that’ll exonerate President Trump is something Republicans should look forward to. Anytime that the face of the Republican Party is Collins, Jordan and Ratcliffe, it’s a good day. Anytime that Nadler and Schiff are the faces of the Democrat Party, it’s a fantastic day for the GOP.

In the first half of this interview, Trey Gowdy dismantles Speaker Pelosi’s impeachment arguments and Sen. Schumer’s trial arguments:

Jessica Tarlov is a Fox News contributor and quite the Democrat spinmeister. In this Fox News op-ed, she spins quite the tall tale. She starts by saying “Imagine you are accused of a crime and ordered to stand trial – and you happily learn that your defense attorney is the jury foreman, and a majority of the jurors are your close friends and undying supporters. Ridiculous? Well, that’s exactly the situation President Trump will face when he goes on trial in the Senate following his impeachment Wednesday by the House of Representatives.”

Ms. Tarlov is a smooth spinmeister. Notice how she insinuated that President Trump had committed a crime. She didn’t actually say that. She just said “Imagine you are accused of a crime.” It’s clear at that point that she’s talking about President Trump even though President Trump hasn’t been accused of committing a crime. In fact, he’s the first president impeached without committing a crime.

Later, she writes this:

Impeaching a president is a solemn event. This is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., came to work Wednesday in a black dress, the traditional outfit for a funeral, and gave House members who momentarily cheered when the first article of impeachment was adopted the look of a very, very disappointed mother.

In Pelosi’s attempt to make this impeachment look like a solemn event, the people who actually run the party, aka AOC + 3, decided to celebrate:

Later in the article, Tarlov wrote this:

What happens now? Will McConnell and Graham try to change the oath? Perhaps they’d like it to say: “I will do whatever Donald Trump tells me to do at all times, never questioning his orders. I will never convict him of anything, because he can do whatever he wants.”

The flaw with Ms. Tarlov’s thinking is that Democrats haven’t presented any proof that President Trump committed a crime. House Democrats passed a pair of crime-less articles of impeachment because they couldn’t find a crime. Here’s a thought — standing with a man wrongly accused is what people with character do.

But while the framers anticipated a rogue president who would put himself above the law, they never imagined the possibility that rogue senators would disregard their duty and pledge blind loyalty to support the president, no matter what he did. This effectively puts the president above the law and above the Constitution.

Again, Ms. Tarlov’s presumption is that President Trump has committed a crime. Democrats think that despite the fact that there isn’t any proof that happened. I’ve watched the hearings. I’ve seen people discredit the accusations made by Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland:

Ms. Tarlov, where’s the proof that President Trump committed a crime? Is it invisible? Or is it that it just doesn’t exist?

One thing that isn’t in question is whether House Democrats, starting with Chairman Schiff, (D-Calif.), rigged the rules to ensure an unfair impeachment process. Something that Chairman Schiff repeatedly made clear was that the CIA snitch’s identity would remain cloaked in anonymity. That’s foolishness. Eric Ciaramella’s identity will become known at some point.

Much bandwidth has been used to talk about the Sixth Amendment and whether its protections extend to impeachment hearings and trials. The simple answer is this: they do if the House and Senate write those protections into their impeachment rules. Ditto with federal rules of evidence. There’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits these considerations from getting written into the House or Senate rules.

There are, however, partisan reasons why Democrats wouldn’t write the federal rules of evidence into their rules. Ditto with omitting Sixth Amendment protections from their rules. The simple explanation is that Democrats didn’t insist on applying the federal rules of evidence into their hearings because those rules would utterly gut their case. Without hearsay testimony, the Democrats’ storyline collapses immediately. Remember this hearsay:

If that doesn’t qualify as hearsay, nothing does. WOW! Then there’s Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland:

Rep. Mike Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?
Ambassador Sondland: Yes.
Rep. Mike Turner: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?
Ambassador Sondland: Other than my own presumption.
Rep. Mike Turner: Which is nothing.

By not excluding hearsay testimony, each testifier was able to provide a juicy-sounding soundbite to the Agenda Media, which then dutifully splashed that “bombshell” across their website all day. The Agenda Media didn’t care that the soundbite got ripped to shreds on cross-examination. They had their juicy-sounding headline, their click-bait.

Democrats understood that, in these impeachment hearings, hearsay was their friend. Democrats understood that because their case was exceptionally weak. Had Democrats been interested in fairness, they wouldn’t have put the nation through this. That wasn’t their mission. The Democrats’ mission was to utterly demolish the president they’ve hated since he was elected.

That’s why Democrats approved the rules they approved.

Democrats understood that the CIA snitch would get ripped to pieces the minute his identity was confirmed, too. Without hearsay testimony, which got started with the CIA snitch, the Democrats don’t have anything. They have nice-sounding testimony from people with impressive resumes but they don’t have the evidence they’d need to win a high-profile case like this.

Democrats wanted this impeachment so badly that they’d do anything for it. In the final summation, that sums things up best. Democrats wanted this so bad that they ignored the needs of the country.

How sick is that?

If I got $100 each time a CNN, NBC or MSNBC said “bombshell testimony”, I’d have nice-sized nest egg to live off of. If I got another $100 each time Adam Schiff or one of the pundits insisted that proof was overwhelming, I’d be a multi-millionaire. The thing is that we didn’t witness any bombshell testimony. I’m still waiting for the first bit of verified proof of an impeachable offense that wasn’t demolished on cross-examination.

Last week, the nation heard lots of testimony that corroborated the MSM’s storyline. We didn’t hear verified proof that President Trump committed an impeachable offense. Initially, Gordon Sondland used his opening statement to say “as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

Later in his opening statement, Sondland said this:

In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.

Notice that Sondland said “In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe…” Mike Turner noticed them. When it was his time to question Sondland, he utterly demolished Sondland’s testimony:

When Jim Jordan cross-examined Bill Taylor, this was the memorable moment from that exchange:

These were moments when the storyline was exploded. The thing they had in common is that they happened during cross-examination. Whether Sondland or Taylor are Deep State guys or not, they were billed as star witnesses by Chairman Schiff, Schiff’s Democrats and/or the MSM. When Taylor and Sondland were finished, their credibility was gone. That’s the truth.

The storyline didn’t withstand scrutiny. What proof did Marie Yovanovitch provide? What proof did Fiona Hill provide? David Holmes? David Hale? George Kent? Lt. Col. Vindman? They didn’t provide verifiable testimony that President Trump had committed an impeachable offense. In fact, the thing that Ms. Yovanovitch will be remembered for is admitting that she wasn’t the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine at the time of the Trump-Zelenskiy call because she’d gotten fired from that position in April.

The MSM hasn’t refuted the Republicans’ cross-examinations. That’s interesting because Republicans have refuted the MSM’s storyline and the testifiers’ opening statements. Call me crazy but that’s proof that Democrats have a weak case. If this was presented in a criminal court, Democrats wouldn’t have had a lengthy trial because most of their ‘witnesses’ didn’t witness anything. That’s why I’ve consistently called them testifiers.

The American people saw that. That’s why independents don’t support impeachment anymore. The ‘horserace’ polls show support for impeachment but diving into those polls show shrinking support amongst independents. For all intents and purposes, impeachment is dead.

Good riddance.

It’s time to step away from last week’s impeachment hearings to examine something significant. It’s apparent that Adam Schiff’s Democrats specialize in partisanship. It’s apparent because the supposed high crimes and misdemeanors President Trump was accused of committing kept changing.

In her article, Mollie Hemingway wrote “Before we get to the politics and how they were played by Republicans and Democrats, it should be noted that President Donald Trump has not been credibly accused of committing any crime, much less a high crime or misdemeanor. It’s almost shocking that Trump, of all people, keeps managing to do well on this score. Yet, as with the Russia collusion hoax, in which he was accused of being a traitor to his country, the lack of evidence for the charges against him is his ultimate saving grace.”

She continued with this:

What the charge is keeps changing, of course. The whistleblower initially suggested a campaign finance violation arising from a call Trump had with the president of Ukraine. That morphed into a quid pro quo for military aid to Ukraine, then extortion, then bribery, then obstruction of justice, then back to a quid pro quo, but this time only a quid pro quo for a White House meeting. The lack of certainty among even Trump’s critics certainly worked in his favor.

Let’s get this straight. Each of these charges is laughable. They’re laughable to the extent that extortion and bribery were suggested by focus groups commissioned by the DCCC, the Democrats’ campaign committee commissioned with losing the Democrats’ House majority in 2020. (That wasn’t what they were hired to do. That’s what will happen. It’s like the old Shakey’s Pizza saying — ‘We’re a non-profit. It wasn’t planned that way. That’s just how things worked out.’)

Seriously, though, Democrats kept switching from one ridiculous accusation to the next. They didn’t have proof for their accusations. Democrats simply relied on the MSM to sell the charges. That’s what happens when muscles atrophy. They relied more on the media, less on legitimate, well-researched arguments. The Democrats’ eutrophication was best displayed by Ms. Pelosi’s choice between Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to spearhead the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee. Schiff is terrible but he’s significantly better than Nadler.

To impeach a president, you need evidence of a major offense that everyone looks at, then says ‘Yep, that’s an impeachable offense.’ The Democrats don’t have that. It’s like the football team with 3 QBs. That team really doesn’t have any. When you have 3-5 impeachable offense theories, you’re really not in the ballpark. You might not even be in the parking lot outside the ballpark.

Meanwhile, Republicans on the Impeachment Committee took apart the Democrats’ ridiculous accusations with ease. Jim Jordan demolished Bill Taylor. Mike Taylor demolished Gordon Sondland. Elise Stefanik took apart Ambassador Yovanovitch:


John Ratcliffe demolished Lt. Col. Vindman:

The MSM won’t admit that they’re propping up House Democrats but that’s what’s happening. Republicans don’t need propping up because they’re taking the Democrats’ testifiers apart with precision and discipline. It helps that the facts are on the Republicans’ side. It helps that the Democrats’ testifiers have relied on weasel-word testimony.

After watching the Democrats’ testifiers the past 2 weeks, something disturbing is emerging. Think of it as ‘the Democrats’ dark vision’. Of the people who testified, just 1 spoke directly with President Trump. The list of testifiers who’ve never met President Trump were Lt. Col. Vindman, Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes, Laura Cooper, Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, Jennifer Williams, Tim Morrison, David Hale and Kurt Volker.

What’s interesting is that Bill Taylor met 3 times with President Zelenskiy after the infamous July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy. Despite those conversations, Taylor apparently thought that communications with Sondland were needed to get a clear understanding of the lethal military aid that was the topic of discussion.

Amb. Sondland, the only witness to talk directly with both Presidents, admitted this during cross-examination:

It isn’t a stretch to think that the Democrats’ strategy is to deploy a splashy headline that implies (but doesn’t prove) the Democrats’ accusation du jour. Each day, the Democrats’ star witness du jour made a splashy accusation that the MSM immediately turned into a provocative headline. Do we want to live in a nation where a person can be accused of something without rock-solid proof? Isn’t it disgusting that an innocent person could get thrown out of office based on hearsay? Do we really want to throw out the votes of 63,000,000 people just because we don’t like a president?

What I’ve described to you is the Democrats’ vision. If I told Chairman Schiff, the chairman of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee, that President Trump would be impeached and convicted if Schiff admitted that he’d killed Jeffrey Epstein, he’d admit to that virtually immediately. That’s because Democrats haven’t paid attention to truth or first-hand evidence.

What Democrats did was corroborate a fictional storyline. That isn’t proof. A skilled writer can create a compelling storyline in minutes. In this instance, throw in some Swamp creatures who don’t like their world getting turned upside-down and you’ve got a corroborated corrupt storyline. Throw in a Lt. Col. with connections to a CIA snitch and you have a nefarious-sounding situation:

You still don’t have first-hand proof but it sounds juicy. The Democrats’ dark vision is to disenfranchise the votes of 63,000,000 people because their candidate didn’t win. The Democrats’ dark vision is to disenfranchise the votes of 63,000,000 people because they’re sore losers. That’s the portrait of people who couldn’t define patriot if their life depended on it.