Schiff Walking In Fear Of Barr

The Washington Examiner had a story yesterday based on an interview Adam Schiff gave to the Talking Feds podcast on July 13, 2020 (transcript). Schiff's fear of Bill Barr is almost palpable--which should encourage the faint hearted. It's the fear Schiff has for an honest, principled, and highly competent man.

How Attorney General William Barr may yet unleash the power of the Justice Department has House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff unnerved.

The California Democrat invoked U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is conducting a criminal inquiry of the federal Russia investigation, as he discussed his dread that "more serious abuse" of federal law enforcement will happen in the coming days.

It's amusing to see Schiff, in what was surely a Freudian slip, allowing his inner Chekist to show, describing Barr as Trump's "sword and shield"--the first image to come to his mind, apparently. According to Schiff, so far we've mostly seen Barr as Trump's "shield," but what's apparently keeping Schiff awake nights is the fear that we're about to see--through the Durham investigation--Barr as Trump's sword. A terrible swift sword, to use a more American metaphor.

Grenell Puts Schiff On The Spot

Byron York is reporting at the Washington Examiner that Acting DNI sent Adam Schiff a letter on May 4, 2020, calling on Schiff to

honor your previous public statements, and your committee's unanimous vote on this matter, to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible.

The transcripts in question, of course, were private interviews of persons whom the House Intelligence Committee questioned about the Russia Hoax. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence cleared the transcripts for release over a year ago, but Schiff has refused to release the transcripts despite a unanimous House vote to do so once the transcripts had been cleared. The transcripts include the interviews of the following persons and should be fraught with great interest for researchers:

In what appears to be a clear indication that Grenell could act unilaterally if Schiff doesn't quickly honor his previous public statements, Grenell adds:

I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.

I guess this tells you something about the speed with which the Senate has taken up John Ratcliffe's nomination to become the new DNI.

Schiff V. Grenell

An interesting battle is shaping up between Adam Schiff, Dem chair of the House intelligence committee, and President Trump's Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Rick Grenell. Schiff has attempted to bully Grenell and bring him to heel--which is to say, bring a halt to Grenell's ongoing housecleaning of the Intel Community. Grenell has rejected Schiff's demand that personnel moves be cleared through Schiff. In typical Schiff fashion, Schiff's missives have--for practical purposes--been released to the press before Grenell has had any chance to respond. Grenell is having none of it, and has responded in a manner that sets him apart from the usual groveling of agency heads before a Congressional committee chairman.

The Hill has a summary of the spat: Intelligence chief Grenell hits back against Schiff criticism of agency reorganization. Schiff set things off by essentially claiming that Grenell should clear personnal changes through Schiff.

Schiff noted that Grenell was pursuing leadership changes at intelligence agencies without seeking authorization from Congress and raised questions about the removal or departure of every Senate-confirmed official at the ODNI.  

Schiff also accused Grenell of allowing his staff to “interfere with the production and briefing of intelligence information” on election security that was given to Congress during a March 10 all-members briefing on election security.  

...  

Another issue raised by Schiff was the decision by President Trump to fire Michael Atkinson, the now-former acting inspector general of the IC. Atkinson alerted Congress to the anonymous whistleblower complaint around Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that ultimately kicked off the impeachment investigation into Trump. 

Grenell responded by telling Schiff in just about so many words to mind his own business and spend some time reading the Constitution:

UPDATED: Will Ciaramella Pay A Price? Here's Hoping.

Rand Paul's tweet during the Senate Impeachment Theater repays a close reading. George Parry, former prosecutor does just that this morning

Saving Private Ciaramella

The alleged “whistleblower” may get the whistle blown on himself.

This morning I commented to Ray-SoCal that I wouldn't be surprised if crimes were committed during the Impeachment Theater. Of course, that doesn't mean those crimes would be easy to prove. However, one important revelation during the Impeachment Theater that points in that direction was that we learned that Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko were overheard at the NSC talking about taking President Trump out. As Senator Paul slyly notes, that happened before any talk of a "whistleblower," and in retrospect looks very much like the beginnings of a conspiracy. A conspiracy to do what? Possibly a conspiracy to submit false statements to the Federal government--that's right, it's not just a crime to the FBI, it's a crime to lie to the federal government generally.

Let's see how this could work, following Parry:

UPDATED: How Bad Is Schiff's Impeachment Theater?

I refuse to take the actual articles of impeachment seriously. So let's take a look at the theater aspect of it, which has always been what it's really about. And here is the depth to which our republic has descended.

What can you say about a liberal whom Politico feels called up to, er, correct?

Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show

Unredacted material shows he may have referred to the wrong "Mr. Z."

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff appears to have mischaracterized a text message exchange between two players in the Ukraine saga, according to documents obtained by POLITICO — a possible error the GOP will likely criticize as another example of the Democrats’ rushed effort to impeach President Donald Trump. 

Ya think?

The issue arose when Schiff (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas “continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky,” citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: “trying to get us mr Z.” The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff’s letter — was redacted. 

But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, followed by a text message to Giuliani that states: “mr Z answers my brother.” That suggests Parnas was referring to Zlochevsky not Zelensky.

I assume Politico is trying to get out ahead of this story to make it "old news". You have to get to the bottom, through all the spin, to find out what GOPers are saying about this:

A Republican aide said the assumption that “mr Z” is a reference to Zelensky is sloppy oversight work at best. 

“The most charitable view of the situation is that [Schiff’s] staff committed the equivalent of Congressional malpractice by not looking more than an inch deep to determine the facts before foisting this erroneous information on his colleagues and the American public,” said one senior GOP aide. 

“But given the selective redactions and contextual clues, it seems as though Chairman Schiff sought to portray an innocuous meeting with Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky as an insidious one with the President of Ukraine simply because both of their surnames start with the letter Z.”

Nunes, Schiff, Horowitz

Adam Schiff. Anyone might be forgiven for thinking that Adam Schiff, the Grand Inquisitor in the Dems' Impeachment Theater, played no role in the Horowitz Dossier. But you'd be very wrong if you thought that. In fact, despite the fact that Schiff is not mentioned once by name in Horowitz's dossier, he actually plays a central role. Because it is Schiff's big lies, in his supposed rebuttal of Devin Nunes' famous memo, that are utterly debunked, once and forever, by Horowitz's recital of facts.

Kim Strassel of the WSJ lays it out for us in a few short, but very sweet, tweets:

1) Key findings of Horowitz report:

--Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to note what a "low threshold" this is. Durham's statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on reasonableness.

A "low threshhold" is, of course in the eyes of the beholder. Low compared to what other threshhold? Yes a "reasonableness" standard may appear "low" compared to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshhold required for a criminal conviction. But consider. Is it really such an easy thing to do to present "articulable facts" that make it reasonable to believe that a given person is an agent of Russia? We're not talking here of simple allegations--some unidentified person in a "friendly foreign government" said this and such. We're talking about "articulable facts." Andy McCarthy, a highly experienced former prosecutor, previously referred to the FBI's investigation as having been opened on "false pretenses", i.e., NOT based on "articulable facts." That's been my central contention for all these months. Tellingly, John Durham was willing to publicly contradict Horowitz's conclusion. Durham obviously doesn't think even such a supposedly "low" threshhold was met. AG Bill Barr also believes Comey's FBI and the DoJ stumbled, repeatedly, over that "low" threshhold. This story isn't finished yet.

2) The report is triumph for former House Intel Chair Devin Nunes, who first blew the whistle on FISA abuse. The report confirms all the elements of the February 2018 Nunes memo, which said dossier was as an "essential" part of applications, and FBI withheld info from FISA court. 

3) Conversely, report is an excoriation of Adam Schiff and his "memo" of Feb 2018. That doc stated that "FBI and DOJ officials did NOT abuse the [FISA] process" or "omit material information." Also claimed FBI didn't much rely on dossier. 

4) In fact, IG report says dossier played "central and essential role" in getting FISA warrants. Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings. 

5) Report is a devastating indictment of Steele, Fusion GPS and the "dossier." Report finds that about the only thing FBI ever corroborated in that doc were publicly available times, places, title names. Ouch. 

Who thinks the Republicans will ever let anyone, let alone Adam Schiff himself, forget the shamefully corrupt role Schiff has played in this historic drama of our constitutional republic?

Bill Barr---OMG!

I picked this up just now from a post at TGP: Bill Barr Indicts 8 Including Mueller Top Witness for Funneling Millions in Foreign Donations to Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and Top Senate Democrats. I've been wondering for days how to deal with this story, which broke Tuesday, December 3, 2019, because there's so much going on with impeachment, Horowitz, Durham. Today I get an easy way to do it. After a bit more easy explanation, I'm going to paste in the DoJ announcement.

However, the first thing I want to point out is that this is, indeed, about DoJ and, therefore, Bill Barr. The indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia, but the prosecutors handling the case do NOT work for the US Attorney for the District of Columbia--they're attached to the Public Integrity Section of DoJ's Criminal Division. That means, IMO, that this case is going places.

With that firmly in mind, read this, from News Thud (h/t, again, to TGP):

Bill Barr just dropped the hammer on the hypocritical Democrats and this wound will take years to heal. 

Bill Barr just broke up a massive scheme to illegally funnel foreign money into darn near every Democratic political candidate and organization. 

The list of the Dem organizations taking this illegal money is astounding – almost every Dem state organization and many super PAC’s including the big one Priorities USA. 

All of the leading names in the Democratic party took in this money including Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu, Jon Tester, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, etc.

A real rogues gallery if ever there was. 

To add insult to Adam Schiff’s injury, one of those charged is George Nader a key witness in the Mueller investigation. 

Nader is a convicted child molester. Nader works as a straw man for the middle east sheiks and it is clear now he was to influence certain members of Trump’s team as well as the entire Democratic party establishment.

Can anyone count the number of times I've reminded people of Barr's past statements that Hillary Clinton's shenanigans were more worthy of investigation than the Russia Hoax nonsense. He was saying that before he was ever even nominated to be AG. And now he's following up.

Have we ever seen an AG like this before?

Reminder: This is about foreign money. Here's a link to TGP's earlier blog on Nader: Mueller Star Witness George Nader Indicted on Child Sex Charges Now Reportedly Involved in Funneling Millions Illegally to Hillary Campaign in 2016.

Any questions about the many reasons that have got Dem knickers totally in a knot?

Wanna bet that the FBI has done some interesting telecom investigation in this case?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

California CEO and Seven Others Charged in Multi-Million Dollar Conduit Campaign Contribution Case

Earlier today, an indictment was unsealed against the CEO of an online payment processing company, and seven others, charging them with conspiring to make and conceal conduit and excessive campaign contributions, and related offenses, during the U.S. presidential election in 2016 and thereafter.

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Assistant Director in Charge Timothy R. Slater of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, 48, of Los Angeles, California, on Nov. 7, 2019, along with George Nader, Roy Boulos, Rudy Dekermenjian, Mohammad “Moe” Diab, Rani El-Saadi, Stevan Hill and Thayne Whipple. The 53 count indictment charges Khawaja with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of making conduit contributions, three counts of causing excessive contributions, 13 counts of making false statements, 13 counts of causing false records to be filed, and one count of obstruction of a federal grand jury investigation. Nader is charged with conspiring with Khawaja to make conduit campaign contributions, and related offenses. Boulos, Dekermenjian, Diab, El-Saadi, Hill, and Whipple are charged with conspiring with Khawaja and each other to make conduit campaign contributions and conceal excessive contributions, and related offenses.

According to the indictment, from March 2016 through January 2017, Khawaja conspired with Nader to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions, directed to political committees associated with a candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 election. [Hint: They're not talking about Donald J. Trump!] By design, these contributions appeared to be in the names of Khawaja, his wife, and his company. In reality, they allegedly were funded by Nader. Khawaja and Nader allegedly made these contributions in an effort to gain influence with high-level political figures, including the candidate. As Khawaja and Nader arranged these payments, Nader allegedly reported to an official from a foreign government about his efforts to gain influence.

The indictment also alleges that, from March 2016 through 2018, Khawaja conspired with Boulos, Dekermenjian, Diab, El-Saadi, Hill, and Whipple to conceal Khawaja’s excessive contributions, which totaled more than $1.8 million, to various political committees. Among other things, these contributions allegedly allowed Khawaja to host a private fundraiser for a presidential candidate in 2016 and a private fundraising dinner for an elected official in 2018.

The indictment further alleges that, from June 2019 through July 2019, Khawaja obstructed a grand jury investigation of this matter in the District of Columbia. Knowing that a witness had been called to testify before the grand jury, Khawaja allegedly provided that witness with false information about Nader and his connection to Khawaja’s company. Boulos, Diab, Hill, and Whipple also are charged with obstructing the grand jury’s investigation by lying to the FBI.

Currently, Nader is in federal custody on other charges.

An indictment is not a finding of guilt. It merely alleges that crimes have been committed. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office is investigating the case and Deputy Chief John D. Keller and Trial Attorneys James C. Mann and Michael J. Romano of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section are prosecuting the case.

You can see a list of all the donations here. It's about as long as my arm, and it's all Dems.

Svetlana Lokhova Speaks

If Republicans in the Senate don’t stop this NOW and punish those responsible, forget democracy. #EnoughIsEnough @GOPLeader @GOP @LindseyGrahamSC https://t.co/wn0isP5pJU

— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) December 4, 2019

If you are struggling to tell the difference between Pinocchio and Adam Schiff, here is a guide. One is a wooden puppet with a pencil neck and lies compulsively. The other is Pinocchio. pic.twitter.com/ToCMiU3lp4

— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) October 15, 2019

Paul Sperry Totally On Fire This Evening

Paul Sperry
‏

Where are the public-interest law firms who will sue FaceBook and Google/YouTube for denying voters their First Amendment right to share information relevant to the impeachment of their president?

How is this different than the Soviet Union where one party controlled everything? In effect, Democrats control the media, the secret federal police, the intelligence agencies, the bureaucracy, the academy, the arts. Hell, Democrats even police the Internet!


"[AG] Barr has conveyed to others his belief that [IG] Horowitz has not been critical enough."

Ya think?


We r witnessing tyranny in slow motion. Presidential candidates being spied on. Journalists being monitored. Postings being censored. Voters potentially being disenfranchised by witch hunts,coups & now phony impeachment. If people dont wake up soon,the tyranny will hit full speed


Why is the House Intelligence Committee monitoring journalists?


Apparently Republicans are more afraid of an ethics investigation -- or a nasty write-up in the WaPo -- than they are of a coup against the president


Instead of making the case Obama did it (solicited foreign interference in the 2016 election), Republicans are being forced to make the case Trump didn't do it


BREAKING: Schiff in new impeachment report seems to spend more time investigating a journalist--ex-asst. AP bureau chief John Solomon--than Trump, inclg exposing Solomon's phone records & smearing him as "author of articles promoting debunked conspiracy theories about the Bidens"


Schiff's 300pp report is DOA; fails to provide evidence to back up his "key finding of fact." Absence of witness testimony & evidence to support his central charge warranting impeachment is a major hole in Dems' overall case for impeachment. POTUS lawyers will drive truck thru it


War Is Peace.

Freedom Is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

Ciaramella Does Not Exist.


BREAKING:In his Impeachment Report,Schiff insists Congress cannot publicly name the "whistleblower" b/c IDing him would put his personal safety @"grave risk."Yet Schiff can cite no actual threats made against WB anywhere in his 300pp report,even tho his name was published wks ago


BREAKING: As part of his "impeachment inquiry," Schiff investigated not just President Trump but his own committee vice chairman GOP Rep. Devin Nunes and Nunes' committee aide Derek Harvey, and even obtained Nunes' and Harvey's phone call records


BREAKING: Schiff's just-released "Impeachment Inquiry Report" confirms that Eric Ciaramella's former NSC allies and fellow Obama holdovers "Sean A. Misko" and "Abigail C. Grace" are part of Schiff's "Impeachment Inquiry Investigative Staff" and "Oversight Staff," respectively.


BREAKING: Following complaints by Schiff & Dems re outing the "whistleblower," Google has joined Facebook & YouTube in censoring the identity of the WB. Google is now banning the placement of ads on stories naming Eric Ciaramella b/c they contain "dangerous or derogatory" content


BREAKING: Judicial Watch suing DOJ for internal comms of Michael Atkinson when he was a sr DOJ official to see if he was involved in 2017 discussions to impeach Pres Trump or remove him from office under the 25th Amendment. Now ICIG, Atkinson facilitated "whistleblower" complaint


BREAKING: GOP investigating if DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa provided info to Schiff or his staff. In Aug 28 tweet, after Schiff alleged US military aid to Ukraine tied up w Ukrainian investigations, Chalupa replied to Schiff that she had “a lot of information on this topic.”

Oh No! Does This Mean Schiff's Been Lying All Along?

The idea that Eric Ciaramella has been receiving death threats has always been absurd, thus requiring that his identity remain The Biggest Secret Ever. Well, maybe not absurd, if the death threats came from Dems who are clearly desperate that he not be cross examined. But absurd if we're to suppose the threats came from GOPers, who would like nothing better than to cross examine Ciaramella and would gladly provide him with round the clock security in order to have that opportunity.

This is funny, and shows what happens when you deal with nut cases like Mark Zaid and Ciaramella--they go off narrative and expose your game:

BREAKING: The "whistleblower's" attorney has privately informed HPSCI staff that his client, a CIA officer, has not received credible threats, as Schiff has suggested;and he is not at personal risk since he nonetheless has been assigned a government security detail for protection

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

No credible threats, but government security detail provided nevertheless? Who knew obtaining a government security detail was seemingly so easy? Hmmm. Could it be that the security detail is to shield Ciaramella from any inquisitive reporters? It's all a lot of nonsense:

Schiff says can't reveal name of "whistleblower" & can't let him testify b/c it would expose him to dire threats. So why aren't you shielding the identities of the witnesses who've echoed the info in his complaint? His pal Vindman is PUBLICLY testifying next week. #RedHerring

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

Sadly, this sounds about right:

Republicans r aiding & abetting Schiff's coverup of his role in #Whistlegate by allowing selves to be intimidated by Schiff into silence re "whistleblower's" identity & continuing to self-censor over name.His partisan motivations continue to hide w him in the shadows of anonymity

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 15, 2019

Stalin Would Be Proud of Schiff

"Stalin Would Be Proud" is the title of a very good post at The Gateway Pundit. What TGP is referring to is Adam Schiff's 6 page memo on proper decorum in a Kangaroo Court. Specifically, Schiff is obliquely demanding that Eric Ciaramella not be mentioned by name, under pain of an ethics violation complaint. Here's the relevant portion of the memo:

Whistleblower Protection and Confidentiality. The Committee has a long, proud, and bipartisan history of protecting whistleblowers—including from efforts to threaten, intimidate, retaliate against, or undermine the confidentiality of whistleblowers. 

Among other authorities, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act include procedures for Intelligence Community personnel to make protected disclosures to inspectors general across the Intelligence Community and to the congressional intelligence committees. Among other things, Intelligence Community personnel are shielded from any action constituting reprisal or the threat of reprisal for making disclosures in accordance with these procedures. 

The statutory framework also prevents obstruction of lawful communications by federal employees with Congress, and of congressional proceedings. And, as mentioned above, the Code of Official Conduct for Members of Congress requires that every Member “shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” The Committee on Ethics has historically viewed this provision as “encompassing violations of law and abuses of one’s official position.”

Notice two things.

In the first paragraph Schiff attempts to put across the idea that it's somehow a bad thing to "undermine the confidentiality of whistleblowers"--on a par with threatening, intimidating, or retaliating against them.

But in the very next paragraph he, um, undermines that attempted subterfuge by plainly and accurately stating that the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act only shields whistleblowers from "any action constituting reprisal or the threat of reprisal for making disclosures."

Is mentioning a whistleblowers name a reprisal or threat? No. It's not. And Schiff doesn't dare make that bald assertion.

And, in fact, Eric Ciaramella isn't even a whistleblower, as defined by statute. As TGP concludes:

Stalin would sure be proud of Adam Schiff and his Soviet-style impeachment coup against Trump.

If the Republican members have even a single hair on their collective ass, each and every one of them will repeatedly mention Eric Ciaramella by name. Repeatedly and insistently. Every single one of them.

Is the USA now a banana republic or what?

Outstanding: A Prosecutor's Insights

Sean Davis spoke with Rep. John Ratcliffe today. The result is a must read article that's pretty much in the nature of a monologue by Ratcliffe: Adam Schiff’s Problem Isn’t That He’s Biased, It’s That He’s Running A Corrupt Process. I've called this post "A Prosecutor's Insights" because what Ratcliffe, a former prosecutor, presents are the insights that jump out at a professional prosecutor but might not occur to others.

The importance I see in Ratcliffe's presentation has to do with what could happen when, presumably, this hoax impeachment reaches the Senate. What Ratcliffe presents constitutes powerful grounds for dismissing any articles based on the fact that the House has deprived President Trump of Due Process--inflicting harm upon him without regard to fundamental fairness under our Constitution.

In a very real sense the issue of predication arises as part of this lack of due process--exactly how and on what basis was this "inquiry" instituted? No wrongdoing or offense has actually been alleged that would fall under the Constitutional standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Moreover, there are strong grounds to suspect that President Trump has been for his entire presidency the target of groundless investigation and even illegal leaks of classified information derived from organized spying. In other words, the entire operation was so lacking in predication--may actually involve fabricated "evidence"--as to constitute a concerted conspiracy precisely designed to deprive President Trump of due process and of his Constitutional rights as President and head of the Executive Branch.

With those considerations in mind, read what Ratcliffe had to say to The Federalist. He contends that Schiff's problem goes far beyond his well known bias against Trump and extends to real corruption that strikes at the validity of the inquiry. In other words, Ratcliffe is questioning not only the process that has been followed, but the character of its leader, who has compared himself to a prosecutor leading a grand jury.

From Behind The Closed Doors

Sean Davis at The Federalist cites "sources familiar with the testimony" of George Kent, a top U.S. diplomat and expert on Ukraine, as evidence that not everything is going smoothly for Adam Schiff's Kangaroo Court. Of course, none of what goes on behind the closed Intel Committee doors is supposed to be public unless leaked by Schiff. For some reason Schiff didn't leak much of Kent's testimony--who would have been very knowledgeable about US dealings with Ukraine re Burisma, an energy company long accused of corrupt practices, and the controversial firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor. Fortunately, Davis' sources were more informative and are telling us that it was the Obama administration, not the "International Community," that orchestrated a Ukraine prosecutor’s firing. The prosecutor in question was Victor Shokin who, at the time he was fired, was investigating Burisma, which was paying then VP Joe Biden's son large amounts of money despite his apparent lack of qualifications. The significance of Kent's testimony is that it totally undercuts the claims of Biden's defenders. What Kent had to say yesterday

... directly contradicts claims that the Obama administration was merely following the lead of the so-called international community in demanding the firing of Viktor Shokin, a controversial Ukrainian prosecutor who was reportedly investigating Burisma, a global energy company long suspected of corruption and money laundering. In 2014, Burisma paid Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, tens of thousands of dollars to sit on its board despite the younger Biden’s complete lack of expertise or professional experience running a multi-national oil and gas concern. 

Kent told lawmakers on Tuesday that the Obama administration spearheaded the efforts to have Shokin removed from his position as the top federal prosecutor in Ukraine. Kent said the international community — namely the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Western nations within the European Union — were deferential to U.S. directives on the matter. 

... 

Allies of Biden, who is currently vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, have defended the former vice president from charges of improperly taking official actions that could financially benefit his son by claiming that the international community, rather than Biden and the Obama administration, were behind the efforts to get rid of Shokin. Kent’s testimony, however, indicates it was Biden and the Obama administration who were running the show, not the so-called international community. 

Kent also testified that concerns about corruption within Burisma, where Hunter Biden inexplicably served as a highly paid board member for five years, were openly voiced long before Trump became president. 

Oh my! It sounds like the Obama administration pressured the "international community". How awful! The Dems demanded the testimony and they got it.

What Did Obama Know--And When?

An alternative title might have been: The Russia Hoax Lives! But I decided to go with the more or less real news.

Glenn Simpson, of Fusion GPS fame, is coming out with a book in November: Crime in Progress--The Secret History of the Trump-Russia Investigation. I doubt that it's a "tell all"--you could knock me down with a feather if it were. Nevertheless, we're being teased with something rather interesting:

BREAKING: In new book "Crime in Progress," set for release next month, #Spygate archvillain Glenn Simpson reveals that he was first hired to investigate Trump in "the fall of 2015" and that memos from his now-discredited Steele dossier made their way directly "to President Obama" pic.twitter.com/inpB0swhkS

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) October 14, 2019

Obviously, Obama had to have known that the Steele memos were Hillary funded oppo research. Aside from other considerations, knowing that the Steele guff came from Glenn Simpson, could Obama have imagined it was anything else but oppo research? As POTUS, he had an absolute obligation to get to the bottom of where this nonsense was coming from--was it true or not? Consider what the publisher, Penguin Random House says:

In the autumn of 2015, the founders of the US political research firm Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, were hired by a Republican presidential candidate to look into the records of Donald Trump. What began as a march through a mind-boggling trove of lawsuits and sketchy overseas projects soon took a darker turn, as they became the first to uncover Trump's disturbing ties to the Kremlin and the crimes that since have plagued his presidency. 

To help them decipher this alarming evidence, they engaged the services of an old acquaintance, the former British MI6 agent and Russia expert Christopher Steele. Steele would produce the notorious dossier which disclosed that the Trump team was deeply compromised by a hostile foreign power bent on disrupting the West and influencing the US presidential election. 

In Crime in Progress, the authors - and Steele - break their silence for the first time, chronicling their high-stakes investigation and their desperate efforts to warn both the American and British governments, the FBI and the media, to little avail - and no matter the costs. Yet when the dossier finally exploded onto the world stage after a leak, a ten-person research firm above a Starbucks in Washington was thrust into the centre of the biggest news story on the planet - a story that would lead to the Mueller report and disrupt Trump's secret planned rapprochement with Putin's Russia that could have re-ordered the western alliance. After four years on his trail, the authors' inescapable conclusion is that Trump is an asset of the Russian government, whether he knows it or not.

DiGenova: Sammy The Whistleblower Worked With Fusion GPS, And More

Joe diGenova appeared with Rudy Giuliani on Laura Ingraham's show. There was a variety of interesting chit chat, but the most interesting part was what diGenova said "Everybody knows." I'll just paraphrase here, but it's as close to literal as doesn't really matter. This topic arose in the context of Byron York's disclosure yesterday that Sammy had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 Dem candidates. So,

Everybody knows that Sammy

1) Worked with Fusion GPS, and

2) Worked with a former FBI agent.

Everybody also knows that Sammy didn't write the complaint and that the complaint was actually written by political consultants connected with the DNC.

Lawyers also know that IG Michael Atkinson "is a moron. He got slapped down so bad by the Office of Legal Counsel."

Laura says that even a liberal outfit like Axios defended Byron York's reporting on the 2020 candidate connection which means, she says, "We're gonna learn a lot more." To which diGenova responds, with a very broad smile, "It's gonna get a lot worse."

Giuliani also points out that the "whistleblower" law firm was offering bribes to get people to "come forward", i.e., to make up stories. The bribes were in the form of help with mortgages, etc.

DiGenova gets in a great line re Adam Schiff's nonsensical notions of "obstruction": "If it weren't for double standards Democrats wouldn't have any standards at all."

Amid general laughter at Schiff, Giuliani adds, "It'd be really funny if they weren't trashing our Constitution, and that has repercussions."

Laura closes with the simple factual assertion that the Dems are "trying to paralyze the country." It's the only way they can come up with to try to stop Trump from doing the job he was elected to do.

She then turns to diGenova and asks: "Joe, how confident are you that in the next couple weeks we're gonna know a lot more, from Horowitz, Durham, and the rest?"

DiGenova, with an ear to ear grin, responds: "This is gonna be a bang-bang couple of weeks," and then breaks into laughter.

Buckle up!

More On Schiff's Ukraine Connection

It's the way Washington "works." Back on September 29, 2019, we discussed Shifty Adam's Ukraine Connection--and that connection is Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak:

The whole Russia hysteria seems inexplicable in realistic terms--there doesn't seem to be a convincing reason for the outlandish fear mongering with regard to Russia. Now we may have a partial answer. 

You may have seen some of the stories that have been starting to circulate about Adam Schiff's connection to Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. It seems that Pasternak has hosted campaign fundraisers for Schiff ...

And anywhere there's a connection between Ukraine and left wing politics, George Soros can't be far away ...

Stop me if this sounds too "conspiratorial," but ...

Ukraine is in conflict with Russia, so they want US help. US help can be obtained--for a price! That price can be paid in the form of campaign contributions to US politicians, but it has to be done creatively. Say, in the form of hosted fundraisers by Ukrainian Americans. Alexandra Chalupa is ready to help! The industrious Yakov Apelbaum is happy to document that for you (How to Finance Your Congressional Campaign with Arms Sales). 

So the deal is something like this. US politicians drum up anti-Russia hysteria. Ukrainian money men route filthy luchre to the campaigns of US politicians. That's called a quid pro quo, and it seems to be what makes US politics "work".

Today Fox is offering a few more details. Nothing changes:

John Ratcliffe Suggests Schiff Is Still Lying

In an excellent interview with Maria Bartiromo this morning, TX Rep. John Ratcliffe made some powerful criticisms of the Dem run House. The most important--but it's all important--is that Adam Schiff may still be lying when he says that he had no personal contact with the "whistleblower." Ratcliffe won't say that flat out, but you be the judge. In my transcript I've trimmed a bit from some of Maria's questions, but not much.

Bartiromo: There's speculation this morning that in fact Adam Schiff met with the whistleblower directly. Can you confirm that? 

Ratcliffe: [Smiles] Well, uh, think about this, Maria. Washington Post, of all newspapers, hadda give Adam Schiff four Pinocchio's, for, when he said that they had not had any direct contact with the whistleblower. That wasn't true. So, what I can tell is, there was contact between the whistleblower and either Adam Schiff and his team on the Intelligence Committee and the details of that we all, I think the President who is, they're attempting to remove from office on the basis of this impeachment, deserves to know what type of contact there was between Adam Schiff and his team and this whistleblower. And we shouldn't have to take Adam Schiff's word for it with a wordsmith press release or tweet that 'There's not much and we really don't need to look at that.' He needs to be put under oath, he needs to answer the questions. And, again, that's the reason he should not be allowed to run the investigation where he and his team are central fact witnesses. 

Bartiromo: House Republican Minority leader Kevin McCarthy responded to Pelosi's refusal to answer questions about more information about this impeachment and he sent a letter, he's sending a letter, to her last week basically saying that, 'You need to get Adam Schiff out of that leadership position.' And you talked to me about several reasons why Adam Schiff cannot run this investigation. One of them is that this is being done in the Intel Committee, as opposed to the Judiciary Comittee. Any impeachment process the jurisdiction is Judiciary, right?

Ratcliffe: In the 240 years, plus, of our history, those rare times we have had impeachment process, it's always gone through the House Judiciary Committee, because the House Judiciary Committee is the Committee of jurisdiction over the Constitution and over impeachment. It's not the Intelligence Committee. 

Bartiromo: Then why would she [Pelosi] go to the Intelligence Committee, that Adam Schiff runs? 

Ratcliffe: I think two reasons. One, I think, Nancy Pelosi I think has so little confidence, apparently, in Jerry Nadler to run this the way she wants it. The other reason is, by moving it to the Intelligence Committee she can accomplish what they did this week. Adam Schiff can say, 'Gosh, this all has to be done behind closed doors,' unlike any other impeachment in our country, which is public, he's conducting this behind closed doors, making up the rules as it goes, as he wants them, as it suits his purpose. And so you have a jurisdictional problem, you have a problem with transparency, and then worst of all the guy who's in charge of running the investigation is a central witness in the investigation, something which we don't allow anywhere in this country and never have. Third world countries are shocked at the kangaroo court, banana republic, make it up as you go impeachment inquiry that the Democrats are running in this country.

Ambassador Kurt Volker's Testimony Re Ukraine Hoax

Yesterday's testimony by US Ambassador to Ukraine Kurt Volker is important for explaining what was going on in President Trump's telephone conversation with Ukraine President Zelenskyy. This is particularly so regarding the role of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, which has been a focus of the false Ukraine Hoax narrative. By any fair reading, the testimony utterly destroys the false narrative put out by the CIA and House Dems, led by Adam Schiff.

You'll recall that at the time the whole Ukraine Hoax came up, and after reading the call transcript, I pointed out that it was Zelenskyy who was adamant about wanting to speak with Giuliani, whereas Trump repeatedly introduced AG Bill Barr's name. Volker explains in his testimony that he, too, attempted to explain the distinction between the president's personal attorney and the Attorney General, but that Zelenskyy insisted that he needed to speak with Giuliani.

Volker's testimony provides the reason for Zelenskyy's strong desire to speak with Giuliani--it arose from Volker's own representations to Zelenskyy. Volker relates that he believed, as far back as May, that Trump was receiving an unduly negative perception about Ukraine from Giuliani--and he communicated this concern to Zelenskyy. Volker admits that, in the event, his impression was mistaken. Nevertheless, as a result of hearing Volker's apprehensions, Zelenskyy not unnaturally concluded that it was important for him to speak directly with Giuliani in order to convince Giuliani, and through him Trump, that Ukraine was now on a new path and was serious about rooting out corruption.

I don't have any reason to disbelieve that, but I believe another factor was probably involved as well. Zelenskyy is a product of a deeply corrupt culture--not merely in independent Ukraine but also reaching back to Ukraine's past as a major component of the USSR. In any corrupt system personal connections are paramount. I suspect that Zelenskyy believed that Giuliani's views would simply carry more weight with Trump than those of Barr. That betrays a misunderstanding of the American system of governance--as revealed by Trump's repeated attempts to introduce Barr's name into the conversation--but an entirely understandable one from Zelenskyy's standpoint.

The other important point that emerges from Volker's testimony is that he never informed Ukrainian officials that a hold on US aid was being discussed. The reason he didn't mention this to Ukraine officials was that he believed strongly that such a hold wouldn't be adopted, so there was no point in even introducing the topic in his discussions with the Ukrainian side. So, there was no pressure--Trump didn't mention the possibility of withholding aid and Zelenskyy had not awareness of it in the first place.

WaPo Rips Schiff--Four Pinocchios

When the WaPo rips the Dem impeachment point man like this, that's gotta be a sign that the whole thing is collapsing. The WaPo's Glenn Kessler didn't hold back, because--after all--no one who considers himself a professional likes to be lied to. Here's a greatly shortened excerpt of the WaPo article, which goes into rather minute (and tedious) detail regarding Schiff's shifty narratives to various reporters:

But politicians spin all across Washington, often to deflect uncomfortable facts. Now let’s look at comments by Schiff, who is heading the impeachment inquiry, as reporters probed about the whistleblower before the details of the allegation were revealed. 

...

Sept. 17, interview on “Morning Joe” 

Sam Stein: “Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the whistleblower?” … 

Schiff: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to. But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.” 

This is flat-out false. Unlike the quick two-step dance he performed with Anderson Cooper, Schiff simply says the committee had not spoken to the whistleblower. Now we know that’s not true. 

But Schiff on “Morning Joe” clearly made a statement that was false. He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the IG’s office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication. 

The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity. 

Schiff earns Four Pinocchios.

This One Goes To ... 12?

And now Schiff continues his efforts to suppress the truth. Here is a Hannity segment regarding US Ambassador to Ukraine Kurt Volker's testimony before Schiff's Intel Committee yesterday. Hannity begins by noting, "I hear on a scale of one to 10, it was a 12, in terms of backfiring on the Democrats and blowing up in their face."

Jordan: Volker testimony undermines Democrats' narrative

Fred Fleitz Takes His Well Earned Victory Lap

Yesterday afternoon Fred Fleitz took a well deserved victory lap. Tuesday evening he had appeared on Chris Cuomo's show to talk about the CIA's attempted takedown of President Trump--disguised as "whistleblowing." Fleitz told Cuomo:

When I saw this one, I thought it was very unusual, not just that it was extremely well written, but it had legal references and footnotes. That was a little bit unusual, but I compared that with the fact that Adam Schiff was talking about the subject matter of this complaint throughout the month of August. He posted a tweet at the end of August that almost identically reflected this complaint.

In other words, as a longtime intelligence professional with a wide experience both in the Intel Community and working for Congress (read about his career here), he gave his professional assessment on the likely origins of the complaint. Cuomo tried to paint Fleitz as partisan, in effect just repeating GOP talking points:

“But you don’t know any of that,” Cuomo pushed back. “You’re raising it as questions. You know that is meaningless unless you can put some meat on the bones. Of course the Republicans are agreeing with you. That’s the whole state of play. Anything you say that’s negative about this guy or this woman they’re going to pick up on.”

When the NYT came out with its story exposing Schiff as a liar and, by implication, a bozo, Fleitz took to Twitter:

1/ The NYT confirmed what I said last week: Schiff knew about the CIA whistleblower in advance -- way in advance. Before he even filed his complaint. This is a much bigger scandal that people realize. At a minimum, Schiff should recuse himself from this impeachment inquiry.
Below is this twitter thread and the two relevant tweets: 

That "at a minimum" is a nice touch, mocking the Dem calls for Bill Barr to recuse himself "at a minimum."

Thread by @FredFleitz: "1/ As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are my thoughts on […]" 

Thread by @FredFleitz: "1/ As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are my thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which …
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1177206661603348480.html

3/ So the whistleblower DID come to the @HouseIntelComm first just as i said. We now know that the request by the whistleblower to meet with committee members was a fraud -- he already did this.

4/ Supposedly the @HouseIntelComm dem counsel told the CIA whistleblower to hire counsel and go through the ICIG process. That would be believable if Schiff and his staff revealed this weeks ago. @Susan_Hennessey and @MiekeEoyang : don't be fooled by this.

5/ Schiff talked about the Ukraine issue throughout the month of August. The contents of the complaint leaked before it was presented to Congress. There is zero chance in mind mine that Schiff's HPSCI lawyers were not working hand and glove with the WB and his lawyers.

6/ And here's the kicker (@Susan_Hennessey & @MiekeEoyang pay attention): under @HouseIntelComm rules, any classified info brought to the committee from outside sources MUST BE SHARED WITH BOTH SIDES. Schiff broke committee rules by not telling committee GOP members about this.

7/ This is a very serious violation of @HouseIntelComm rules. Why did Schiff do this, especially when he was using this information to score political points throughout the month of August? The reason is clear: it was part of the latest Dem ploy to take down @realDonaldTrump

8/ It never made any sense to discuss impeachment or a non-intelligence matter like the Ukraine allegations in @HouseIntelComm . Given Schiff's politicization of this issue and serious violations of HPSCI rules, the impeachment charade must end.

So that demonstrates very succinctly why Dems--for the umpteenth time--are backpedaling madly. The question is, will there be consequences for his bozo performance, or will he be absolved by Dem leadership because he was doing it all with their knowledge and at their request?

And the even bigger question: Will heads roll at CIA, as they should?