Archive for the ‘Jim Jordan’ Category

Jonathan Allen’s article is either proof of his stupidity or his corruption. After 5 days of hearings and 5 days of biased headlines, it’s difficult not to chalk it up to outright corruption. For the foreseeable future, the MSM won’t get the benefit of the doubt from conservatives.

According to Allen’s article, “a string of current and former administration officials collectively described for the House Intelligence Committee over the last two weeks how the president directed a concerted effort to aid his own re-election efforts at the expense of U.S. national security interests.” What Allen omits is the fact that these testifiers got demolished on cross-examination. This is a perfect example of the Democrats’ star witness getting demolished:

Jim Jordan grilled Ambassador Taylor without being nasty. He simply got Taylor to admit that Taylor testified as to what he’d heard. Jordan replied that that’s what the problem was. Taylor testified as to what he’d heard. In this instance, it’s what Taylor heard third-hand. That’s what happened to the Democrats’ star witness on the first day of public testimony.

Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Gordon Sondland was pretty aggressive:

Rep. Turner questioned Ambassador Sondland:

Turner: No one on this planet told you that this aid was tied to investigations. Yes or no?”
Sondland: “Yes.”

Turner, who called Sondland’s testimony “somewhat circular,” questioned the ambassador’s assertion that “everyone was in the loop.” “If Giuliani didn’t give you any expressed statement, then it can’t be that you believed this [about the connection between investigations and aid] from Giuliani,” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Amb. Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to aid because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

Sondland said he was “presuming” that is what Trump meant.

“The way it was expressed to me was that the Ukrainians had a long history of committing to things privately and then never following through, so President Trump presumably, again communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on record publicly that they were going to do these investigations. That’s the reason that was given to me,” Sondland said.

In Taylor’s instance, he’d spoken 3 times with President Zelenskiy in a short period of time. In none of those instances did attach conditionality to the lethal military aid. In Sondland’s instance, he called President Trump directly to ask what he wanted with regard to the aid. President Trump said “I don’t want anything. No quid pro quo. I just want him to do what he campaigned on.”

Yesterday, David Holmes testified that it was his “clear impression” that the lethal military aid was tied to President Zelenskiy starting an investigation of Burisma. Burisma is the corrupt natural gas company that Hunter Biden got a no-show job with that paid him $50,000-$83,000 a month. That investigation didn’t happen. So much for clear impressions.

Gregg Jarrett’s article highlights the fatal flaw with the testifiers’ testimony:

These hearings have revealed a common and consistent thread. None of the witnesses have provided any direct evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable act. Instead, they have offered an endless stream of hearsay, opinion and speculation.

Of all of the people who testified, only Sondland had talked directly with President Trump.

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who testified on Day Two of the hearings, was fired months before the July 25th Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. That caused Devin Nunes to question why she was even there. Lt. Col. Vindman “testified that he felt ‘concerned’ about Trump’s conversation with Zelenskiy.”

The American people aren’t fooled. The TV viewership started off mediocre, then went downhill after that. President Trump’s approval rating went up. He’s now ahead of the Democrats’ top 4 candidates in Wisconsin. The momentum has switched.

If Democrats were smart, they’d put down their shovels and stop digging. That isn’t what’s likely to happen, though.

This article is the political equivalent of a pair of nuclear bomb explosions, one right in front of Nancy Pelosi’s office, the other in front of Adam Schiff’s office. The Hill is reporting that “‘Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,’ Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine.”

Foreign Minister Prystaiko continued, saying “I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Unlike most of the testimony Wednesday (or the expected testimony Friday), this is firsthand information. The testimony that we watched Wednesday that was supposedly damaging to President Trump wouldn’t have gotten into a court of law. More on that later.

The damaging testimony heard Wednesday would’ve hurt President Obama. For instance, when Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Trump had sent lethal military aid to Ukraine, Taylor affirmed that as accurate. When Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Obama had supplied lethal military aid to Ukraine, he said President Obama hadn’t supplied Ukraine with lethal military aid. When Taylor was asked which president’s military aid was better, Taylor affirmed that President Trump’s aid was superior.

FOOTNOTE: Both sides said that they won the day on Wednesday. The difference is that Republicans had proof of their victory. Democrats only had spin. Republicans could point to Jim Jordan’s dizzying recitation of the modification to Ambassador Sondland’s deposition. That’s the one where Jordan finished by saying that he’d seen church prayer chains that were less complicated:

Another explosive event from Thursday happened when Speaker Pelosi accused President Trump of bribery:

Jim Jordan reacted to Pelosi’s quote, saying “It’s ridiculous, just ridiculous.” Which it is. Let’s tie these stories together. First, let’s deal with Pelosi’s accusation:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharpened the focus of Democrats’ impeachment case against President Trump on Thursday, accusing the president of committing bribery when he withheld vital military assistance from Ukraine at the same time he was seeking its commitment to publicly investigate his political rivals.

There’s just one problem with that theory. Its premise just got blown out of the water:

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,” Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, a man with firsthand knowledge of what as negotiated and what wasn’t negotiated, said that military aid was never linked to Ukraine investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. If Democrats were smart, which I’m confident they aren’t, they’d finish their public hearings at the end of next week, then close shop. Why wouldn’t Democrats want to follow this advice?

There’s an old cribbage saying about a hand with all even cards that aren’t consecutive. That saying is that “the only right way to throw that hand is away.” That’s my advice to Democrats. The hand that they’re playing is terrible.

Finally, Sean Hannity announced Thursday night that he’d contacted of the 53 Republican Senators since Wednesday night. Each senator was asked if they’d support rules for impeachment that gave President Trump’s legal team the opportunity to cross-examine whistle-blowers. The other question each senator was asked was whether they’d support an impeachment rules package that required the following of legal rules of evidence. Specifically, they were asked whether they’d support a rule that hearsay testimony would be excluded.

Mitch McConnell replied immediately, saying that he’d only support impeachment rules that excluded hearsay testimony and included the protections outlined in the Sixth Amendment. That’d essentially wipe out the Democrats’ testimony. Plus, it’d guarantee the whistleblower’s unmasking.

Is that truly the path Democrats want to take? The smart choice is folding. Let’s see just how smart Democrats are.

If there was a more mesmerizing moment Wednesday morning than Jim Jordan’s ridiculing of Ambassador Bill Taylor, it’s impossible to believe. After having time given to him to cross-examine Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Jordan referenced EU Ambassador Sondland’s amended testimony. In the amended testimony from Ambassador Sondland, Sondland affirms “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I convey this message to Mr. Yarmack on September 1, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence’s meeting to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.'”

According to Ambassador Taylor, this is the part of Ambassador Sondland’s testimony that gave Ambassador Taylor a clear understanding of what was going on with the connectivity of the investigation of Hunter Biden to the lethal foreign aid to Ukraine. After Taylor affirms that, Jordan replies that “I’ve seen church prayer chains that were less complicated.”
Here’s the video of Jordan’s questioning of Taylor:

That’s as clarifying as mud. It’s impossible to think that Taylor suddenly had a clearer understanding of US lethal military aid being tied to investigating Hunter Biden after Taylor read Sondland’s additional testimony. That’s after Taylor testified to Jordan that he’d met with President Zelenskiy 3 times in 55 days but that the connectivity between the investigation into the Bidens and military aid never came up during the discussions.

If Ukraine felt threatened by Russia militarily in July, 2019, why wouldn’t President Zelenskiy bring that subject up? We know that President Zelenskiy brought up the subject of purchasing additional Javelin anti-tank missiles from the US during his call with President Trump of July 25, 2019. What’s amazing is that that’s a day prior to Ambassador Taylor’s conversation with President Zelenskiy.

If Zelenskiy was worried about protecting Ukraine from Russia, wouldn’t he have asked forcefully about the missiles from both President Trump and Ambassador Taylor? The transcript shows he mentioned the Javelins but that’s it.

Democrats have lost the impeachment fight. Wednesday was their only chance to make a first impression. Instead, the phrase that people will remember is Jim Jordan’s. Finally, Never Trumper Steve Hayes is dining on foot tonight. On Monday night’s All-Star Panel, Hayes said that Jim Jordan had done a good job prior to getting his Intel Committee assignment but then suggested that he wasn’t a good fit on the Committee. Here’s to that fine dining, Steve.

This weekend, Mark Zaid, the lead attorney for the so-called whistleblower, offered to have his client answer written questions from Impeachment Committee Republicans. It didn’t take long for Republicans to reject that offer:

But, late Sunday, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemingly rejected the offer from whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, saying “written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross examine the so-called whistleblower. You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it,” Jordan said.

Zaid’s reply came through this tweet:


About those whistleblower protections, it’s apparent that Mr. Zaid is doing the deflecting:

In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:

Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.

In other words, this anonymous informant isn’t a heroic whistleblower saving the republic. He’s just another CIA snitch spying on President Trump.

That means that Democrats are protecting this snitch for purely partisan purposes. This isn’t done for patriotic purposes. It’s done because Democrats want to impeach President Trump so badly they’d say or do anything to make it happen. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, knows this law. If he doesn’t, then he isn’t qualified to be the House Impeachment Committee. That’s part of his responsibility.

According to Jason Chaffetz, the former chair of the House Oversight Committee, that committee routinely went through whistleblower submissions. Why wouldn’t Schiff’s committee do the same? This anonymous informant doesn’t qualify for whistleblower protections because he/she isn’t “assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA).” Also, the informant isn’t reporting on a covered person. It’s obvious that this person is a snitch.

This is just posturing anyway. The minute that the House impeaches President Trump, the trial is held in the Senate. At that point, the Senate will set the rules and issue the subpoenas. At that point, Adam Schiff will lose his ability to protect this whistleblower. That will leave Mr. Zaid with little negotiating leverage at that future point.

I’d consider this offer a let’s-see-if-they-blink offer. If Jordan, Nunes and others blink, fantastic for Zaid’s client. If they don’t, which appears to be the case, Zaid hasn’t lost anything by trying.

If Speaker Pelosi sincerely believed in the Constitution’s protections, she wouldn’t have published this set of impeachment rules. Every ‘right’ granted to President Trump and/or Republicans, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are allowed to take away. It isn’t that President Trump and Republicans weren’t ‘given’ some rights. It’s that the rights that they were given can also be taken away.

Unless the House makes the Republicans’ rights ironclad, Senate Republicans should publish a statement5 minutes after the House votes on Ms. Pelosi’s rules. The Senate’s statement should state without hesitation that the Senate won’t recognize the House’s articles of impeachment until a) all hearings from this point forward must be public, b) all GOP witness requests must be granted, c) all transcripts from previous witnesses must immediately be made available to the members of the Intel, Foreign Affairs, Oversight & Reform and Judiciary Committee members.

Without those rights guaranteed, the Senate should emphatically state that the House’s witch hunt won’t be taken as a legitimate investigation. Further, the Senate should emphatically make known that, because the House investigation wasn’t legitimate, the impeachment will be considered invalidated upon arrival to the Senate. That would send the signal to Ms. Pelosi and the freshmen Democrats that they’ll be taking a vote that’s meaningless. The message to the House would be that these vulnerable freshmen Democrats would cast a provocative, meaningless vote that immediately endangers Ms. Pelosi’s freshmen. Ms. Pelosi is lots of things but being an incompetent bean-counter isn’t one of those things. She’s very good at what she does, especially counting noses.

The minute the testimony transcripts are made public, including the cross-examinations of each witness, Republicans should examine the contents of those transcripts. The minute Republicans find testimony that doesn’t match Schiff’s spin, Republicans should highlight the discrepancy between Schiff spin and the transcript.

This hearing explains why Ms. Pelosi didn’t pick Jerry Nadler to be the public face of the Democrats’ impeachment investigation:

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler have repeatedly told us that the Mueller Report would provide the proof to impeach President Trump. It didn’t. Next, Schiff and Nadler insisted that having Mueller testify would breath life into their witch hunt. This cross-examination by John Ratcliffe ended that pipe dream:

That’s why Pelosi wouldn’t let Nadler or Schiff conduct their hearings in public. These aren’t talented people. They’re idiots that got embarrassed in public. That’s why President Trump’s rights were violated. The dominant denigrating description for Schiff’s proceedings was that of a kangaroo court. I’d argue that the better fit is that of the Three Stooges, although I’m open to the argument that the Three Stooges were way funnier than Schiff and Nadler.

It isn’t that Republicans are afraid of fighting this faux impeachment on the merits. It’s that the argument over constitutional principles was easier. If Democrats think that John Ratcliffe, Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows aren’t confident in their ability to utterly dismantle the Democrats’ case, they’re foolish.

It’s time for Republicans to fight for these foundational constitutional principles. The Democrats’ frequent violations of President Trump’s rights aren’t just a threat to President Trump. They’re a threat to future presidents, too.

This weekend, Adam Schiff went off the rails at the Aspen Institute’s Security Forum. Then again, his replies to questions didn’t sound that much different than his replies back in DC. Most importantly, Chairman Schiff, one of the Democrats charged with impeaching President Trump, insisted that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation into alleged FISA abuse is “tainted” because of political influence.

According to the Washington Examiner article, “At the Aspen Security Forum this weekend, Schiff accused top Justice Department officials of pandering to Trump by instigating a “fast track” report last year about former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. His comments came as part of a broader answer to a question about whether he has concerns about Attorney General William Barr’s review of the origins of the Russia investigation.”

That’s irrelevant. If IG Horowitz can gather testimony and forensic evidence showing that the upper echelons of the FBI didn’t tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the FISA Court, then those FBI people who signed off on the integrity of the Russian disinformation otherwise known as the Steele Dossier are in trouble. As a former federal prosecutor, Schiff knows that it’s what IG Horowitz can prove, not what Schiff can spin about in fanciful terms. What’s important is what’s verifiable. This is hilarious:

“I have no reason to question the inspector general’s conclusion, but that investigation was put on a fast track. It was separated from a broader inspector general investigation, which is still ongoing,” he said. “Why was that done? It was done so he could be fired to not get a pension. It was done to please the president when the initiation investigation is tainted. So are the results of that investigation.”

Immediately after Schiff said that he doesn’t have a reason to question the IG’s conclusion, Schiff questions the IG’s conclusion that hurts the Democrats’ drive for impeachment the most. Schiff is as easy to read as a children’s book. Jim Jordan chimed in with this pertinent question:

“Inspector General Horowitz is a professional. He’s conducting a crucial investigation into FBI and DOJ misconduct. But @RepAdamSchiff said his investigation is ‘tainted.’ What’s got Schiff worried?” Jordan tweeted.

Already, Democrats are deploying 2 different spin messages. The first is that the Mueller investigation was heavily restricted, which corrupted the investigation. The other is that DOJ rules for DOJ employees testifying limit Mueller’s answers, also corrupting Mueller’s testimony. Both lines of spin aren’t worth the bandwidth they’re printed on.

What’s most frightening is that this clown is in charge of the Intel Committee:

If you go to the dictionary to find the definition of the term dishonest broker, Adam Schiff’s face will appear.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, then the House Intel Committee. In both instances, the hearings will be public hearings. Democrats are touting this as a big win for the American people and Democrats. I’ll agree that it’s a win for the American people but I’m betting it’ll be a loss for Democrats.

Fox News had panel after panel, interview after interview on the potential ramifications of Mueller testifying. Capitol Hill Producer Chad Pergram is exactly right when he said “We’ve had some explosive hearings on Capitol Hill before. You think of James Comey testifying, Jeff Sessions in the Senate a couple of years ago. You think about Michael Cohen in February. This will dwarf that. The pure magnitude of this will be off the Richter scale.” Democrats will rue the day they insisted on calling Mueller to testify.

Speaker Pelosi issued this statement:

“We are pleased that the American people will hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller. Our national security is being threatened and the American people deserve answers. The Mueller Report revealed that the Russians waged a ‘sweeping and systematic’ attack on our elections, and America’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials have warned that the Russians will attack our elections again. Yet, sadly the President calls it a hoax, and suggests that he would welcome Russian interference again. Members of Congress must honor our oath and our patriotic duty to follow the facts, so we can protect our democracy.”

That’s PH.D. worthy spin, as in Pile it High and Dry worthy.

President Trump is right in calling the investigation being a hoax. Russia attacking our electoral system isn’t a hoax. The Obama-Biden efforts to prevent the Russians’ attacks weren’t a hoax. They were either a joke or an embarrassment. Team Obama-Biden flunked that national security test. (Remember, it was Democrats that controlled the levers of government at that point. It wasn’t Republicans.

Alan Dershowitz laid it out pretty nicely on what Democrats should expect. Dershowitz said Democrats should expect Republicans to question Mueller about the basis of the FISA warrant against Carter Page. There’s lots of fertile ground that Republicans can plow through. Rest assured that they’ll persist in getting answers to questions that Mueller didn’t investigate.

Mueller has stated repeatedly that his report is his testimony. When news broke Tuesday night, Mueller confirmed that his testimony would stay “within the 4 corners of the report.” Further, DOJ guidelines prevent prosecutors from going beyond saying who they refused to prosecute and who they prosecuted. Tuesday night, Dershowitz said that the questions that Democrats want to ask about are questions that DOJ guidelines prevent Mueller from talking about. Dershowitz said that the questions that Republicans want to ask can be asked because they weren’t part of the Mueller investigation.

Imagine how sensitive Mueller will be when (not if) a Republican asks him why he exclusively hired partisan Democrats to his attorney staff. Imagine the follow-up question to that initial question. Does anyone think that’ll turn out well for Democrats? I don’t.

Democrats were already tiptoeing past a minefield. Thanks to Tuesday night’s decision, Democrats face the possibility of tiptoeing through that minefield — while wearing snowshoes. Good luck with that.

Reading this article is a reminder that DC often ignores what the people want. Early in the article, it says “But he later hedged, saying he wanted to wait to see what comes out of the Common Sense Coalition. This group of more than 20 senators, led by GOP Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), has begun drafting legislative text. But it still hasn’t reached a consensus about what it could support. ‘I think we’re getting pretty close on coming up with a proposal that may or may not be offered next week,’ Collins told reporters after the group’s last closed-door session. ‘There will probably be more than one [amendment offered] but it’s too early to tell right now.'”

Nothing in this article seems like they’re even slightly worried about what the American people want. If this “Common Sense Coalition” ignores the will of the American people as expressed in the 2016 election, the legislation should be defeated outright. Common Sense Coalition is just a slick attempt at marketing. It doesn’t have anything to do with doing the right thing by the American people.

These idiots in the Senate seem to think that the Trump coalition is irrelevant. Any member of the Common Sense Coalition that lives in a red state and that’s up for re-election in 2018 or 2020, regardless of party, should expect to be defeated.

Look at how dismissive Chris Wallace is of the American people:

Here’s the key part of the transcript:

WALLACE: Let’s turn to immigration. The Senate takes up DACA this week trying to find some solutions, some compromise, and what they are talking about — and also what the president is talking about, is a package that includes — now you put the tough part first, the president and some Republicans say that it all comes together, that you’re going to have a path to citizenship for the Dreamers in 10 to 12 years. You’re going to have tougher border enforcement on our southern border and also tougher enforcement both legal and illegal immigration.
Would you support that package?
JORDAN: I’ll support a package consistent with what the voters said. I mean, look, the voters don’t trust that Washington is going to do the right thing on immigration and they are tired of this, oh, we’ll give some kind of amnesty to folks who came here illegally and we promise, promise, promise will do something to secure the border — they’re sick of that play.
What they want is border security first. So, build a border security wall, end the chain migration, get rid of this crazy visa lottery, do things in a way that make good common — sanctuary city policy, get rid of those. Do those things first and then we’ll deal with the DACA situation. That is consistent with the mandate of the 2016 election and frankly consistent with what the president and what Republicans campaigned on.
WALLACE: But I’m asking you —
JORDAN: And that is consistent with Goodlatte’s legislation. That’s why we want to pass that.
WALLACE: I’m asking you a direct question because that isn’t where this compromise seems headed in the Senate. They are talking about doing them all at once, the path to citizenship and these other things all at the same time, not enforcement first.

What part of Jim Jordan’s statement didn’t Chris Wallace understand? The American people want the DACA fix only if the wall is built and chain migration ends immediately. This isn’t that complicated.

This is what happens when DC starts thinking that they can push the American people around. The fuse is lit. It won’t take long before DC pays the price for its stubbornness. DC-itis isn’t just something found in politicians. It’s also found in the media.