GOP's Jim Jordan moved to intelligence panel for public impeachment hearings

Then you turned right around, your very following post to declare that until the Senate convicts Trump, by our own constitution he is to be declared innocent, until convicted by the Senate. What a spin machine two posts amount to.

 

What? Aren't you by declaration a know it all?

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...aign=nl&bcid=1f0a5a02f7cf803f5b3b3f22dd26d3a5

Transcripts are being released from various impeachment inquiry witnesses and it’s becoming clear exactly why Adam Schiff wanted to keep all this stuff secret.

As we gain more context, many claims we’ve seen bandied about as bombshells have ended up becoming much more murky. For example, we saw more headlines than I can count proclaiming that Bill Taylor had confirmed a quid pro quo. Yet, his full testimony shows that his evidence consisted of fourth-hand assumption and a report in The New York Times. We also saw Gordon Sondland reveal that he told a Ukranian official that aid was “likely” tied to corruption investigations, including into Burisma (and by virtue Hunter Biden). Just as with Taylor, though, he swore under oath that he was basing that on presumption and not any direct order.


While it may be reasonable to claim there’s smoke here, none of this has been directly connected to the President. That seems like a pretty big issue if one seeks to impeach and remove him.

Outside of that issue though, there are other questions involving the original whistle-blower (reported to be Eric Ciaramella). We know he was not legally privy to anything on the telephone call between Trump and Zelensky, which has formed the genesis of this matter. That means that whoever gave him the contents was illegally leaking classified information. Perhaps the whistle-blower himself is protected by statute for simply passing that information along, but whoever gave it to him certainly isn’t it for their original crime.

That leads us to Alexander Vindman. He’s become a central figure in these discussions after he marched up to Capitol Hill, proclaiming himself a patriot, and shared all his deep concerns about Donald Trump. He accused the President of “subverting” U.S. foreign policy, which gives you a window into the perverted minds of some of these bureaucrats that assume it is they who actually run things.

It’s been suspected that Vindman was the one who leaked to the whistle-blower and now that his testimony has been released, it seems fairly certain. Check out these excerpts and see what you notice.


Sean Davis

✔@seanmdav
· Nov 8, 2019

Replying to @seanmdav
Yet another example here of Vindman's criminal defense attorney and Schiff working together to make sure Vindman doesn't disclose who he spoke with about the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. What are Vindman and Schiff hiding?



Sean Davis

✔@seanmdav

JORDAN: "Who else did you talk to following the July 25th call?"

And then Swalwell, Schiff, and Vindman's criminal defense attorney immediately jump in to make sure he never answers the question.

What are they afraid of?



995
12:11 PM - Nov 8, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

651 people are talking about this









In these transcripts, we see Jim Jordan pressing Vindman on who outside of the chain of command he talked to about the call. Then we see Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell jump in and stop him from answering. But it’s what they say when they stop Vindman that gives the entire thing away.

“Mr. Chairman, I want to object that the question calls to reveal the whistleblower, and if there’s no other — (interruption)

Then Schiff says this to follow up.

“Mr. Jordan, the minority may not care about protecting the whistleblower, but we in the majority do.”

The problem is that Jordan never asked about the whistle-blower. This means that both Schiff and Swalwell accidentally confirmed here that Vindman is indeed the source for the ICIG complaint. In short, if Vindman answering the question about who he talked to would give up the whistle-blower’s identity, that means Vindman was the source.

Ooops.

Last I checked, it’s a crime to share classified information with people not legally able to receive that information. We’ve been told from the beginning of this ordeal that the whistle-blower himself did not have the proper clearance to access the phone call.

The rough transcript of the call, according to the complaint, was first classified as secret and later top-secret, ensuring that only those with the highest clearances would be able to read it.

Not only did Vindman share concerns about a call classified at the highest level, he gave exacting details and quotes to the whistle-blower.

Contrary to what some said when Vindman was first called to testify, he does not enjoy any immunity simply because he’s part of an impeachment proceeding. He did not follow the chain of command or protocol to report his concerns, instead leaking to someone without proper clearance. I’m failing to see any argument that he didn’t break the law here.

This impeachment thing is going to be over soon enough. When it is, the DOJ needs to go to work. You don’t get to commit crimes just because you disagree with decisions made by the President. Vindman should absolutely be investigated over this. To let him skate would set yet another awful precedent.

———————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive to read more of my latest articles.

Find me on Twitter and help out by following @bonchieredstate.

 

I am not on Twitter. You have shown me nothing, and if Vindman has released classified info to a person not entitled to it, get after him. I am more interested in what the 'classified' information is/was, so we all get closer to the truth.

Huh?

 

"That is a watered-down diplomatic version of the actuality he was well aware of..."

That's, like, your opinion, man.

 

Hispanics and blacks.

You knew the answer.

 

The NATO countries ALL wanted that prosecutor out precisely because he wasn't investigating the big boys which would include the ownership of the company Biden's son worked for. By ousting him it increased the chances of the company being scrutinized. And it was but the prosecutor said in the case of young Biden that there were no Ukrainian laws broken, a company can pay it's board whatever it wants, just like in the US. If any laws were broken they would have been in the US such as illegal lobbying for a foreign entity but in that case it is US not Ukrainian prosecutors that should be investigating. Where are the US prosecutions?
So why then would Trump go to the Ukranians? We've seen testimony that he wanted a public statement that an investigation was being pursued. Such a public statement would give him ammunition to attack Joe with, guilt by accusation.

 

I reckon it is a fair evaluation of how those Diplomats talk.

 

You regard Jim Jordan as a leftist?

 

Back to basics: As noted in the Constitution itself in Section 1, "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

When you get right down to it, the House of Representatives can actually impeach a president for any (ANY) reason that amuses it, whether that 'reason' has real validity, or makes sense to anyone else or not! The SENATE, however, is a different arena altogether.... That's where a trial takes place, and that's where removal from office would be voted on.

 

The more Republicans watching the better. They need to see the sham in progress.

 

You've been misinformed.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/in-m...t-saw-burisma-as-joe-bidens-issue-memos-show/

 

Looks like you got it.

 

Trump is not "declared innocent." Trump is under investigation. That's it.

 

The biggest sham is Donald Trump.

 

That's only because you have bought into the leftist bullshit narrative of lies.

This figure frequently cited by Biden defenders and the media significantly understates what Burisma was paying Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca Bohai firm for his and Devon Archer’s services. Bank records obtained by the FBI in an unrelated case show that between May 2014 and the end of 2015, Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s firm received monthly consulting payments totaling $166,666, or three times the amount cited by the media. In some months, there was even more money than that paid. You can review those bank records here.(link now closed)

The monthly payments figures are confirmed by the accounting ledger that Burisma turned over to Ukrainian prosecutors. That ledger, which you can read here, also shows that in spring and summer of 2014 Burisma paid more than $283,000 to the American law firm of Boies Schiller, where Hunter Biden also worked as an attorney.
https://johnsolomonreports.com/debu...-myths-about-biden-and-election-interference/

 

The more Americans watching the better. Not so good for Trump fans though. By all means watch it.

 

I agree with you that the congressional left are that monumentally stupid, petty, vindictive, immoral, inane,and lawless that they would pass thru baseless articles.

 

The Constitution does not differentiate between an investigation and a trial! ALL people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and the Republicans have every right to free speech and argue their point of view, as do all Americans. Much of this will end up in front of a Grand Jury anyway and then it will be as you described.

Your statement that "It is clear that Republicans have already determined the president is innocent before considering the evidence" makes no sense. You want to find him guilty before the evidence is in??

 

Yes, you would.

 

Great article, Professor, and John Solomon is one of the very best.. Too bad leftist won't it.

 

Ask the voters......first it was Russian collusion, then it was Kavanagh and his know nothing accusers, now it's the phone call. Yet somehow you think the voters can't see through those shams? They're assaulted with it every day and are growing weary of the constant BS. Carry on you're cementing Trump's re-election. I thank you.

 

You underestimate the American voters. Like the idiot from the Obama administration regarding Obama Care where he called us all stupid. The Democrats lost 69 seats in Congress in 2010. Carry on..........

 

Republicans did not opt for a circus. The circus is already in town and doing well.

 

I keep seeing people post that but they never post any links, please do so or sit down and be quiet.

 

Let me rephrase my question - what makes you believe "Republicans have turned their backs on the Constitution"?