Archive for the ‘Devin Nunes’ Category

This morning, Adam Schiff, the Democrat chair of the House Impeachment Committee, did his best tyrant impersonation after Devin Nunes tried yielding time to New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. Upon yielding time to Rep. Stefanik, Schiff gaveled in, repeatedly saying “The gentlewoman will suspend.” Ms. Stefanik replied “What is the interruption for this time? It’s our time.” Schiff replied “The gentlewoman will suspend. You are not recognized.”

Next, Devin Nunes tried intervening, saying “I just recognized her.” Schiff, acting like a petty tyrant, replied “Under House Res. 660, you are not allowed to yield except to Minority Counsel.” Technically, he’s right but the bigger point is that Schiff isn’t interested in working cooperatively with Rep. Nunes. Chairman Schiff isn’t behaving like Peter Rodino with Nixon or Henry Hyde with Clinton. Schiff hasn’t hesitated in acting like a world-class jerk.

In terms of acting like the chairman of an impeachment investigation, Schiff has hit a new low that Hyde and Rodino never came close to hitting. Hyde and Rodino cared most about doing what’s best for America. They were fair-minded. They gave the defense wide latitude. By contrast, Schiff lied about what President Trump said during President Trump’s phone call with President Zelensky. After he lied while putting the faux transcript into the Congressional Record, the other Democrats just sat there like potted plants. Those Democrats apparently didn’t see anything wrong with Schiff’s actions.

After Schiff’s sexist behavior towards Ms. Stefanik, Schiff’s Democrats sat silent just like they did when he lied about President Trump’s conversation. Schiff’s Democrats aren’t profiles in character. Schiff’s Democrats aren’t profiles in integrity.

It’s painfully obvious that the Democrats set up the rules to restrict the Republicans’ cross-examination of witnesses. Schiff’s interested in running a tightly scripted production. Pelosi knows that Nadler wasn’t up to the job of running impeachment hearings. That’s why Pelosi shifted that responsibility to Schiff. That’s why Pelosi tightened up the rules for Schiff’s hearings. Pelosi isn’t totally stupid. She’s aware of Adam Schiff’s ability to screw things up.

Another thing that’s becoming obvious as the hearings progress is that Adam Schiff is exceptionally thin-skinned. Prior to this heated exchange, Devin Nunes read the transcript from President Trump’s first phone call with President Zelenskiy into the record. He didn’t ask that it be admitted into the Congressional Record. Nunes literally read the entire transcript into the record so it couldn’t be turned into another Schiff parody. Here’s that tweet:


Rep. Stefanik needled Schiff by reading Schiff’s tweets into the record:

“The chairman refused to allow us to put these into the record with unanimous consent,” Stefanik, R-N.Y., said. “As we know, it is important to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and firing…but in this case, the fact that we are getting criticized for statements he, himself, made earlier in the process shows the duplicity and abuse of power we see.”

Chairman Schiff’s actions were disgusting. As I said earlier, Schiff’s performance isn’t worthy of the People’s House. In Schiff’s mind, this is Pelosi’s House or the Democrats’ House. If Democrats had any respect for We The People, they’d have greater respect for the people’s elected officials.

Unfortunately for America, these Democrats only respect themselves.

The Democrats’ defense strategy isn’t a mystery. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is rigging the process so only Democrat-approved witnesses can testify or be cross-examined. Schiff is preventing the Republicans from presenting an alternative explanation for what happened in Ukraine.

By preventing Hunter Biden from testifying, Schiff will prevent Republicans from asking legitimate questions about corruption. That’s important because the Democrats’ spin is that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy to interfere with the 2020 election. If Republicans can prove that Ukraine had corruption problems (it does) and that Hunter Biden had corruption issues or even had a whiff of corruption, then that justifies President Trump’s asking President Zelenskiy to look into the Bidens.

Democrats can’t afford the introduction of an alternative theory of what happened in Ukraine. Also, Democrats can’t let the whistleblower testify because he’d certainly be asked if he’d been coached by Schiff’s staff. If the faux whistleblower admits that he’s talked with Schiff’s staff, that will open the floodgates for the Republicans’ questions.

Democrats can’t let Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, become part of the story, either. That’s because Zaid is a card-carrying member of the #Resist movement. He’s proudly tweeted that a “coup” had started:


Zaid also said that CNN would play a major role in President Trump not serving his full term. The more that Republicans can highlight the Democrats’ hyperpartisanship, the weaker the Democrats’ case becomes.

The Democrats’ credibility would get shattered if President Trump was justified in calling for Hunter Biden’s investigation. This article highlights the fact that Hunter Biden will play a major role in the hearings whether he’s there or not:

Kent also told congressional investigators that he had repeatedly raised concerns with the Obama administration about Burisma, and also discussed the administration’s efforts to remove Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin from his post. At the time, Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the former minister of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine— also the founder of Burisma.

Shokin was fired in April 2016, and his case was closed by the prosecutor who replaced him, Yuriy Lutsenko (though Ukraine is now reviewing such cases). Biden once famously boasted on camera that when he was vice president and leading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin.

Schiff is trying his best to keep Hunter Biden off the stand:

Schiff said the inquiry “is a solemn undertaking, enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution” and that the hearings “will not serve as vehicles for any Member to carry out the same 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.”

That isn’t the sound of impartiality. That’s what partisanship sounds like. This week, expect Democrats to sound like partisans. Expect Democrats to be on the defensive.

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.

Now that Speaker Pelosi has officially declared that House Democrats have started an official impeachment inquiry, it’s now time to study who will be Pelosi’s top lieutenants in this fight. Apparently, Pelosi has picked Adam Schiff to be the top general in the Democrats’ impeachment fight:

The confluence of two otherwise coincidental events — the embarrassing Lewandowski hearing followed in quick succession by the explosion of the Ukraine story — handed Pelosi an opening to sideline Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in favor of the more widely trusted head of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), as Democrats launch the formal impeachment inquiry. And Pelosi has made clear that the investigation will focus narrowly on the Ukraine matter, a scandal she believes could be easily understood by the public.

I can’t blame Pelosi for sidelining Nadler, especially after his disastrous performance in the Lewandowski hearing. The question I have, though, is whether Schiff is much of an upgrade over Nadler.

Frankly, considering Schiff’s opening statement at the Maguire hearing, it’s an even-money bet whether the American people would take Schiff seriously. Schiff’s opening statement was seen as a pack of lies or as an unfunny parody at a supposedly serious impeachment hearing. Republican Ranking Member Devin Nunes ripped Schiff with his opening statement:

Schiff’s ‘parody statement’ is already drawing fire from Rep. Andy Biggs. Rep. Biggs has introduced a motion to have Chairman Schiff censured for his dishonest opening statement:

I found this Schiff quote laughable:

“We have to flesh out all of the facts for the American people,” Schiff said in a letter to colleagues Friday. “The seriousness of the matter and the danger to our country demands nothing less.

If this matter is serious, why did Chairman Schiff open a hearing with a parody that didn’t accurately portray President Trump’s statements to the Ukrainian president? If this matter is serious, why hasn’t Speaker Pelosi called for a vote asking her members to approve of this impeachment hearing? This statement is beyond laughable:

“There’s no better guy on the face of the planet to undertake this in an adultlike, intelligent, integrity-filled manner than Adam B. Schiff. Period, full stop,” said Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.), a committee member.

I’m predicting right now that President Trump and Republicans will rip Schiff into shreds. He’s an idiot. He isn’t honest. He’s damaged goods from a PR standpoint. Those aren’t the worst of it. He’s been caught playing fast and loose with the truth too many times to be the face of a serious inquiry.

John Ratcliffe is quickly becoming one of my favorite Republicans because he’s skilled at cutting through the Democrats’ subterfuge. I just watched Rep. Ratcliffe demolish the Democrats’ impeachment charade. While questioning Acting Secretary McGuire, Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the so-called whistleblower didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy of Ukraine. Further, Ratcliffe pointed out that the whistleblower got his/her information from media articles. That caused Ratcliffe to say that this was “Russia 2.0”.

The transcript was made public yesterday. The whistleblower’s complaint was made public (with redactions) this morning. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the Democrats preferred the information from a document whose information was, at best, secondhand and perhaps thirdhand over the transcription of the actual phone call.

It’s worth noting that this tells me that the whistleblower will get crucified if that person testifies to Congress. If the whistleblower doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s phone call, why should that be considered credible? Ratcliffe highlighted that the whistleblower’s worries came from articles in Politico, NYTimes, Washington Post and other media outlets.

As bad as some of those articles might’ve been in terms of accuracy, they pale in comparison with Chairman Schiff’s opening statement:

Chairman Schiff rearranged some paragraphs from the transcript to make it sound nefarious. Apparently, it didn’t dawn on Chairman Schiff that reading things in the order they were written is required to understand what the people intended to convey. Shortly thereafter, Ranking Member Nunes delivered his opening statement. Notice how he mocks Chairman Schiff:

The whistleblower’s complaint contains some things that destroy the Democrats’ credibility. For instance, it says “In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple Government officials that President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. election.” In other words, it’s entirely possible that this whistleblower might’ve gotten their information from deep state operatives who hate President Trump. That isn’t a verified statement but it’s entirely possible.

Earlier, I mentioned John Ratcliffe’s questioning of Secretary McGuire. Now, I have the videotape of his questioning. Right at the opening of Rep. Ratcliffe’s questioning, Rep. Ratcliffe starts with something very disturbing:

That’s pretty stunning. The whistleblower first accuses Rudy Giuliani of conspiring with Bill Barr to rig the 2020 election. Later, in a footnote, the whistleblower admits that they aren’t certain to what extent either Giuliani or Barr was ever involved. That’s kind of a big point to be uncertain about if you’re interested in journalistic integrity. If you’re just worried about impeaching President Trump regardless of whether the evidence supports it, which appears to be the Democrats’ goal, then it isn’t that important.

Final prediction: Apolitical people will side with Republicans on this issue. Hyper-partisans will side with Democrats. Since there are more people whose lives don’t revolve around politics, it’s likely that this issue favors Republicans politically.

What wooden stakes are to vampires, the Mueller hearings, especially the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing, is to impeachment. When John Ratcliffe asked Special Counsel Mueller what other person (besides President Trump) had the burden of proving themselves innocent, Mueller replied that nobody has had that burden imposed on them. Rep. Ratcliffe asked that in reference to Andrew Weissmann’s statement that, while they didn’t indict President Trump, they didn’t exonerate him, either.

Each time Special Counsel Mueller couldn’t (or wouldn’t) answer key questions about Weissmann’s investigation, a little impeachment momentum disappeared into the ether. Once it’s gone, it isn’t returning. While Speaker Pelosi tries propping up her chairmen, she knows that impeachment is dead. She can put tons of perfume on that pig, it’s still just a pig. Here’s how Pelosi tried propping up Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler:

“The American people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our Constitution,” Pelosi said in the Capitol of Mueller’s testimony. “It is a crossing of a threshold in terms of the public awareness of what happened,” she later said during a news conference following Mueller’s testimony.

With little due respect to the Botox lady by the Bay, the hearings had the same effect on articles of impeachment that cold water has on campfires. If you want to watch Ms. Pelosi’s nauseating press conference, you can watch it here:

It’s easy to pile on Robert Mueller this morning. I’ve already done that in other posts so I won’t continue with that. That being said, the real villains in this travesty are the activists in the Resist Movement, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and other Democrats, Rod Rosenstein (who never should’ve offered Mueller the position), the FBI lovebirds (Strzok and Page), Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissman and Jim Comey.

Without these disgusting people, there wouldn’t have been a special counsel appointment. But I digress. Another thing that needs to be highlighted is the discipline that Republican members of the Judiciary and Intel committees showed yesterday. They shined like I’ve never seen them shine before.

Usually, politicians participating in high profile hearings specialize in grandstanding. That didn’t happen Wednesday. Each member focused like a laser on a specific topic in their attempt to elicit new information. That’s the new model that Republicans should adopt for high profile hearings from now on.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler also said his committee would go to court Thursday to seek access to grand jury material in the Mueller report and to enforce a subpoena against former White House Counsel Don McGahn to try to get him to testify. “Today was a watershed day in telling the facts to the American people. With those facts we can proceed,” Nadler said — although he, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.

Stick a wooden stake in that impeachment vampire. It’s dead. CPR won’t resuscitate this patient, either. Fill our the toe tag for impeachment. Unless Democrats want to lose the House again in a landslide.

John Solomon’s reporting in this article should worry Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller’s lead prosecutor.

According to Solomon’s article, “an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit” that “[t]he April 12, 2017, Associated Press article reported that DMI [Manafort’s company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI that correspond to payments in the ‘black ledger.'” Then Solomon wrote “There are two glaring problems with that assertion. First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller’s deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting.”

Then there’s this:

Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.

It gets worse:

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. “They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence,” he said. “It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys’ bar,” he added.

The operational premise likely is that the FBI should have firsthand information because of its investigation. The other premise is that ‘news’ articles aren’t exactly reliable these days. News articles, furthermore, should be considered hearsay. That’s the most important reason why judges shouldn’t trust news articles. The other important reason not to trust news articles is because, lately, political operatives have weaponized information in a way to sabotage their opponent’s campaign.

Why wouldn’t Weissmann worry about the inaccuracy of this information? Is it because he’s that unethical? Is it because he’s that much of a partisan hack? Is it because he isn’t as worried about accuracy as he is about convictions whatever the cost? Is it all of the above? I’m betting it’s the last one.

John Solomon and Sarah Carter are the Woodward and Bernstein of 2019. They aren’t alone, though. It’d be improper to not recognize the work of Devin Nunes and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. In this video, Mr. Fitton goes into detail on the multiple dossiers in play:

If Weissmann isn’t worried, he’s stupid. The Judicial Watch video is fascinating because it highlights the connections between Steele and the State Department and/or Obama administration officials. That sounds pretty shady. I don’t know if it’s illegal but it’s worth looking into.

What I know is that the US attorney that’s assigned to “investigate the investigators” isn’t a prosecutor to be trifled with. John Durham took over a 30-year-old cold case and turned it into a conviction. If laws were broken, Mr. Durham will get a conviction. With all of the documents admitting what various people were doing, I can’t imagine Durham not getting to the bottom of these cases.

As is becoming the case more often lately, Rep. Devin Nunes has uncovered another important document that provides a more complete picture of the Mueller special counsel investigation.

According to the article, Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-CA), “told Fox News he’d reviewed still-classified materials related to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memos outlining the breadth of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation. He said the bulk of the information in the second scope memo came from the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through funding from the Clinton campaign and the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

The further we dig into this fishing expedition, the more we find out that the Steele document essentially triggered the government’s surveillance and the government’s investigation. That’s pretty frightening when you consider the fact that Steele’s document is likely Russian disinformation that couldn’t be verified if Steele’s life depended on it. Check out this interview:

It’s important to ask the question about whether any part of this investigation was based on legitimate, verifiable intel. If this doesn’t sound like the Deep State working overtime, then I don’t know what does. This isn’t just a screw-up. This is, quite possibly, the insurance policy that Strzok and Page talked about. It isn’t a stretch to think that Strzok and Page thought a special counsel investigation into President Trump that was based on Russian disinformation would cripple President Trump’s administration.

Why would the Intelligence Community start an investigation based on a document that they were repeatedly told was fiction? And yes, the FBI, State Department and the CIA were told the Steele document was worthless multiple times.

Let’s just be blunt about something. Adam Schiff is the Democrats’ political hack if choice. He’s been exposed as this generation’s Lanny Davis. (That isn’t a compliment.) This morning, Schiff called to order a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. I’d call that hearing room a virtually intelligence-free zone but that’s obvious of any room with Schiff in it.

This article highlights how Devin Nunes blew Schiff’s smears to smithereens. This isn’t that difficult since Schiff’s premise was discredited months ago. Schiff is the partisan who just … can’t … let … go … of Russian collusion. They’ll have to pry Russiagate from his cold, dead fingers. He’s that desperate for a place in history. (The only thing that history books will remember about Schiff is that he’s the Democrats’ favorite partisan hack.)

Meanwhile, Nunes took Schiff apart. Here’s what Nunes said:

One would think the Democrats would simply apologize and get back to lawmaking and oversight but it’s clear they couldn’t stop this grotesque spectacle even if they wanted to. After years of false accusations and McCarthyite smears, the collusion hoax now defines the Democratic Party. The hoax is what they have in place of a governing philosophy or a constructive vision for our country.

Right after Democrats launched their first laughable investigation, Democrats insisted that they were perfectly capable of “walking and chewing gum at the same time.” That isn’t relevant. That question should be whether Democrats are interested in walking and chewing gum at the same time. HINT: They aren’t interested in “walking and chewing gum at the same time.”

This video contains Schiff’s intentionally misleading statements:

Here’s what Sara Carter quoted from the Mueller report debunking Schiff’s intentional lies:

Nunes Lists Democrats Favorite Debunked Conspiracy Theories (Below Is An Excerpt From Nunes Statement)

Unfortunately for Democrats, the Mueller dossier, as I call it, either debunked many of their favorite conspiracy theories or did not even find them worth discussing. These include:

  1. Mueller’s finding that Michael Cohen did not travel to Prague to conspire with Russians. No evidence that Carter Page conspired with Russians.
  2. No mention of Paul Manafort visiting Julian Assange in London.
  3. No mention of secret communications between a Trump Tower computer server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
  4. And no mention of former NRA lawyer Cleta Mitchell or her supposed knowledge of a scheme to launder Russian money through the NRA for the Trump campaign. Insinuations against Mitchell originated with Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson and were first made public in a document published by Democrats on this committee.

Other than those major omissions, I’d treat Chairman Schiff’s statements as though they were Gospel truths.

WOW!!!:


That’s proof positive that Schiff is a partisan Democrat hack. Schiff couldn’t get President Trump so the vindictive wimp trashes innocent victims. What a patriot. Not.