Sunday Talks: Kevin McCarthy -vs- Maria Bartiromo – “this is a calculated coup orchestrated by Adam Schiff”…


House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ongoing details within the legislative impeachment process.  As part of his remarks Leader McCarthy states: “this is a calculated coup orchestrated by Adam Schiff”…

.

Sometimes we get so far into the weeds we forget to evaluate our location.  The minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives has just stated the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is “orchestrating a coup” against the sitting President of the United States of America…  And, McCarthy is correct.

After church services today I happened to have a conversation with an independent voter. During our discussion I mentioned that if you take the current Democrat argument without rebuttal; and then overlay their acknowledged level of hardened Trump support; the political left is trying to disenfranchise approximately 40 percent of the population of the U.S.

What exactly do the Democrats expect that 40 percent to do?

Do they think 140 million people will just sit down and shut up?

Have the politicians in DC really thought about an outcome where they are visible, clearly visible, removing a sitting U.S. President for no constitutional reason?

…Interesting to contemplate.

SCHIFF WORLD’S BIGGEST LIAR!


THE NOSE KNOWS

Shifty Schiff: World’s Biggest Whopper Teller

Adam Schiff is a lying, pencil-necked Pinocchio who continues to lie about President Trump. With every lie his nose grows longer and his pencil neck gets thinner.

For years, Schiff has been pitching his lies and deceptions to the American public. Fortunately, the public doesn’t believe Schiff and his cohorts, the fake news media.

Schiff refuses to accept the reality that the American people elected President Trump in 2016 and that Hillary Clinton, a truly horrible candidate, lost.

By means of constantly repeating innuendo and hearsay in a mass media echo chamber, Schiff seems to think his lies will become reality.

Oh, let us count the many lies of Adam “Shifty” Schiff:

  1. Schiff said he had evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, the findings of the Mueller report proved him wrong.

  2. Schiff repeatedly lied to protect DOJ official Bruce Ohr. Schiff claimed that the courts ere aware the dossier was created by a partisan Christopher Steele and the information was corroborated by the FBI.

  3. Schiff’s committee repeatedly leaked false information to media outlets during the Russia probe, causing the media outlets embarrassment when the truth came out.

  4. Schiff read the American people a fake transcript of President Trumps call with the president of Ukraine, which he tried to cover his ass by claiming it was a “parody” and not a lie.

  5. Schiff lied to the American people about his, or his staff’s connections with the so-called “whistleblower” before the “whistleblower’s” report was filed.

And his lies keep on coming!

Shifty Schiff never met a lie he didn’t like.  He should resign before his growing nose of lies tips him over.

Tina

Sunday Talks: NSA Robert O’Brien -vs- Margaret Brennan – Alexander Vindman Being Cycled Out of National Security Council…


National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien continues to impress today as he appears on Face the Nation for an interview with the ever-emotional and overly-dramatic resistance dingbat Margaret Brennan. [Transcript of Interview Here]

In 2016 and 2017 President Trump said NATO was obsolete and the moonbats went  bananas; NATO is the only thing saving the planet Brennan claimed.  Fast forward to 2019… Trump meets with a NATO nation leader (Erdogan) and the moonbats go bananas; NATO is a horrible construct, Erdogan bad. Yes, liberal apoplexy is contagious in groups.

.

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Joining us now to weigh in on Syria and more is the President’s National Security Adviser, Robert O’Brien. Good morning to you, Mr. Ambassador.

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ROBERT O’BRIEN: Good morning, MARGARET.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You just heard Charlie lay out a very complicated landscape. Diplomacy means talking to your friends and to your enemies and having difficult conversations. But you just heard everything Charlie laid out. I mean, Erdoğan defied the United States by invading Syria. He’s buying Russian made weapons. He’s doing everything you’re telling him not to. Why is he getting rewarded for bad behavior?

O’BRIEN: Well, let me just point out, MARGARET, that- that you got it right. And unfortunately Charlie got it wrong. When Charlie said we greenlighted the invasion of Syria- of Syria. That’s just absolutely false. It didn’t happen.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well the U.S. moved troops

O’BRIEN: –The President- the president–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –out of the way.

O’BRIEN: Well, the president made it very clear that- that Turkey shouldn’t go in. He even said, “if you go in, I may have to obliterate your economy.” He did it on Twitter. He did it on- on the phone. He did it a letter that was a very strongly worded letter. So the- so the idea that the U.S. somehow greenlighted Turkey’s military operation, that’s- that’s just simply false. And- and the American people shouldn’t- shouldn’t believe that. Now, what he did do, we had 28 Green Berets who were at a forward operating post on the border that would have been caught in a crossfire between 15,000 Turkish troops and armor and- and seven or eight thousand YPG SDF troops. And the president was not willing—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Kurdish forces—

O’BRIEN: Kurdish forces—

MARGARET BRENNAN: –that are allies with the U.S.

O’BRIEN: Correct. And the president was not going to leave those young men in- in harm’s way in a crossfire. And so he pulled those- those troops out because it’s— look, it’s ultimately it’s the president who has to call the families. It’s the president who has to go to Dover—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

O’BRIEN: –if something happens.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But that’s why the question is relevant. Why reward that bad behavior? This is a NATO ally who is putting U.S. troops at risk, who is putting U.S. allies at risk.

O’BRIEN: Well, we’re not rewarding the behavior. The president promptly put on sanctions, and—

MARGARET BRENNAN: And then he took them off.

O’BRIEN: Well, he did because the Turks agreed to a cease fire. And- and Turkey said they wouldn’t agree to a cease fire, the president dispatched me and a number of top diplomats— David Satterfield, Jim Jeffrey and then- then dispatched the Secretary of State and the Vice President to Ankara. And in 24 hours, we had a cease fire. And by the way, that was a cease fire that the Kurdish forces had a lot of input into. We want- we wanted to save lives. We wanted to save Turkish lives. And keep in mind there were Turkish civilians being killed and- and rocketed by the Kurds. There were Kurdish folks being killed, including Turkish soldiers. We got a cease fire. And- and in a short amount of time, we got those Kurdish soldiers evacuated to- to a safe area. So I think the Kurds appreciated the cease fire. I think the Turks did as well. And that was a- a real diplomatic coup from the president because he- because of his tough line.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you recognize that there were war crimes committed?

O’BRIEN: Look, it- some of the things that we’ve seen are very disturbing, and—

MARGARET BRENNAN: By Turkey–

O’BRIEN: Well—

MARGARET BRENNAN: and Turkish supported militias?

O’BRIEN: Maybe the Turkish supported militias. Turkey has assured us that those are being investigated. We’re very concerned about those issues, the war crimes issues. We’re watching them. We’re monitoring it very closely. There is no place for genocide, for ethnic cleansing, for war crimes in the 21st century. The U.S. won’t stand by for it and- and we’ve made that position very clear to the Turks.

MARGARET BRENNAN: If Congress passes any of the at least three sanctions bills on Turkey that are going to get bipartisan support, will the president veto all of them?

O’BRIEN: Look, we’ll have to see what- what happens this week with our meetings with President Erdoğan. I mean, there are things that, Turkey’s a member of NATO. Turkey plays a very important geopolitical role for- for our friends in Europe, for ourselves. They- they sit astride the Bosporus—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

O’BRIEN: –the strait that goes into the Black Sea. We have NATO allies, Romania and Bulgaria that are Black Sea powers. So- so losing Turkey as- as an ally is not something that’s good for the Europe- for Europe or for the United States.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s talk—

O’BRIEN: And- and we’re going to- we’re going to work on making sure that—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

O’BRIEN: –we can do our very best to keep them as a- as a NATO member.

MARGARET BRENNAN: More to talk about your portfolio in a moment. We have to take a break. We’ll be right back.

(BREAK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. We continue our conversation with Ambassador Robert O’Brien, national security adviser to President Trump. I- I want to pick up on this idea where we left it with Turkey coming. And they are a NATO ally, as you emphasized. One of our NATO allies, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, said this week that NATO is suffering a brain death because of lack of American support and resolve. From what he’s seeing and then what we’re seeing with Turkey causing these cracks in the alliance, I mean you must be very concerned. Is that why you’ve brought the NATO secretary general to the White House this week as well?

O’BRIEN: Well, we the NATO summit coming up the third and fourth of December. So, we’ll be in London for that summit. I think- I think it’s going to be a good summit between NATO allies. NATO’s an important alliance to us. But look, I think the cracks of that have formed in the alliance are because we have members of the alliance that aren’t paying their fair share, that aren’t spending money on defense. I mean, the- the United States taxpayer and- and the taxpayer of eight of the NATO country- taxpayers of eight of the NATO countries that are spending their two percent on national defense. We spend over 4 percent. They’re doing the right things. But there are a bunch of countries, including Germany and others, that- that aren’t paying their fair share. It’s not- it’s not right for the American taxpayer to have to defend these countries that don’t want to defend themselves. So- so, the president has been very- very strong on this issue. There’s been a hundred billion dollars in new NATO defense spending since he took office. It’s a great accomplishment of President Trump. I think the Americans are happy about it. I think most Europeans are happy about it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Emmanuel Macron was voicing out loud some real concerns. And if you look at what Turkey has done, as you just described, you thought that there was a potential NATO ally would fire on the United States, intentionally or not, in Syria. You’ve also seen Turkey go ahead and buy Russian made weapons in defiance of NATO.

O’BRIEN: Yeah, we’re- we’re very upset about that. And we’ve made—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Can you get behind sanctions on them?

O’BRIEN: Well–

MARGARET BRENNAN: I mean, they’re supposed to be triggered by Congress.

O’BRIEN: Well, look- look, if- if Turkey doesn’t get rid of the S-400, I mean, there will likely be sanctions. The CAATSA sanctions will- will pass Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan majority and Turkey will feel the impact of those sanctions. We- we’ve made that very clear to President Erdoğan. There’s no place in NATO for the S-400. There’s no place in NATO for significant Russian military purchases. That’s a message that the president will deliver to him very clearly when he’s here in Washington.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you’re just back from Asia. The president says he wants to meet with Xi Jinping and possibly get a trade deal by December. Is that a hard date on the calendar?

O’BRIEN: Look, there- there’s no deadline. We want to get a good deal. And I think we’re very close to getting a phase one trade deal. And it will be the first time that we’ve had a trade deal where China has actually respected the United States and- and hasn’t, you know, stolen intellectual property, has been fair and reciprocal in trade. So, if we can get a good deal, then we’ll get a good deal. I think we’re very close. And I think if there is a deal, the president and President Xi, will- will get together and sign it. Look, we want great relations with China, but this is the first president that stood up to China that- that has been, you know, stealing American intellectual property. Not all American companies that have access to Chinese markets engage in unfair trade practices. That has to come to an end because the Chinese have been using that to fill- to- to fund one of the most massive military buildups in history.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

O’BRIEN: And- and- and you know, that has to come to a stop.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, as I just said, you’re back from Asia. You’ve been raising concerns about China’s militarization, particularly of the South China Sea. I mean, this only seems to be escalating militarily.

O’BRIEN: Well, I don’t think it’s escalated militarily. I think the president put tariffs on- on China. We’ve always- and- and those tariffs have- have led the Chinese to the negotiating table. And I think we’re going to get a pretty good deal for the American people, especially for the American farmers, for owners of intellectual property.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So- so you see a trade deal going ahead and what you’re talking about in terms of militarization in the South China Sea, that kind of thing is not going to complicate?

O’BRIEN: Look we’re- we’re going to still stand up and I did at the ASEAN summit at the East Asia Summit. I made it very clear that that just because one country’s big and other countries are small in the region, the bigger countries shouldn’t bully the smaller countries and- and take their resources, whether they’re fishery resources or oil and gas resources. And the U.S. Navy will continue to have freedom of navigation operations through the South China Sea. This nine dash line or cow’s tongue that the Chinese have drawn around the entire South China Sea, which is a major swath of the Pacific Ocean, and claimed that as internal waters, as if it was Lake Tahoe or something, that just can’t stand. The United States Navy won’t put up with it, the countries in the regions- region won’t put up with it. And- and all those countries, with very few exceptions, were grateful because- that America’s standing up for them, standing up for their resource patrimony. That’s the future for their kids and their grandkids with the oil and gas and the fisheries, the minerals off their shores, China shouldn’t be allowed to take it just because they’re bigger.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You on Ukraine. I know you were not at the White House when this July 25th phone call happened. That is now at the heart of this impeachment inquiry. But you are now part of Ukraine policymaking. You heard Senator Graham at the top of the program say the policy is completely incoherent. Will the U.S. continue lethal military aid to Ukraine until Russia backs out of Crimea and stops supporting separatists in Ukraine?

O’BRIEN: Well, look, I think you put your finger on the most important issue, and that’s lethal military aid. I was in Ukraine in 2014, I was there to observe the elections in Ukraine. I was there as part of a bipartisan election observation mission and I had younger Ukrainian soldiers and young Ukrainians come up to me and say, why won’t the U.S., the arsenal of democracy, send us lethal aid? You’re sending us blankets and MRE’s. Why won’t—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

O’BRIEN: –President Obama send us military aid?–

MARGARET BRENNAN: And President Trump changed–

O’BRIEN: –and there- and there–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –policy by doing that.

O’BRIEN: There was no military aid going to the Ukrainians under the- the Obama-Biden administration. When President Trump got into office he sent military aid. So I think what people ought to be focusing on is the president has been helping the- the Ukrainians defend themselves by sending them lethal military aid to stand up to the Russians. That’s the real story that’s been lost in all this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But is the- is the policy though, that? That that lethal aid will continue until Russia stops backing separatists and trying to annex parts of Ukraine?

O’BRIEN: Well, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about what could happen down the road. I mean, hopefully Russia and Ukraine can get along and there can be some sort of a peace treaty and- and an agreement between them. So I’m not going to commit the United States to what we’re going to do forever. But- but for right now, we’re set. We’re the first administration, President Trump is the first president to send lethal military aid to Ukraine. I think that’s very important. And I think that’s something that’s been lost in- in all the hullabaloo about the- about the telephone call. And one other thing I’d say about this, I’ve been with President Trump in two dozen conversations, either in person or on the phone with foreign leaders. And if the American people could be on those phone calls they’d be extraordinarily proud of the president, how he represents America, the cordiality that he- he has with world leaders, but also the tough message that he has to- to protect U.S. interests. I mean, they’d- they’d be proud of what their president does in those meetings with foreign leaders.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who has testified under oath, is serving on the National Security Council currently. Will he continue to work for you despite testifying against the president?

O’BRIEN: Well- well look, one of the things that I’ve talked about is that we’re streamlining the National Security Council. It got bloated to like two hundred and thirty six people from- up from 100 in the Bush administration under President Obama. We’re streamlining the National Security Council. There are people that are detailed from different departments and agencies. My understanding is he’s- is that Colonel Vindman is- is detailed from the Department of Defense. So everyone who’s detailed at the NSC, people are going to start going back to their own departments and we’ll bring in new folks. But we’re going to get that number down to around 100 people. That’s what it was under Condoleezza Rice. She came and met with me. I met with a number of my successors.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

O’BRIEN: We don’t need to recreate the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security over at the White House. We’ve got great diplomats and soldiers and- and folks that can- that do that work for us in the departments.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Just to button that up, though. You’re saying Colonel- Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is scheduled to rotate out. You are not suggesting in any way that there will be retaliation against him?

O’BRIEN: I- I never retaliated against anyone. So the- the- it’s—

MARGARET BRENNAN: But his time is coming to an end?

O’BRIEN: There- there will be a point for everybody who’s detailed there—

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

O’BRIEN: –that their time, that their detail will come to an end. They’ll go back to their agency. And what we want them to do is take the experience and skills they learned at the White House, take it back to their departments and agencies and- and do an even better job there. And- and so we’re grateful that we can have these detailees come in, and they’ll come spend the year- a year or, you know, maybe a little bit more at the White House and then they’ll go back to their agency. And they’ll do a better job at their agency–

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right.

O’BRIEN: — having been at the White House.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you very much—

O’BRIEN: Thank you for having me, MARGARET—

MARGARET BRENNAN: — Ambassador O’Brien for joining us. Appreciate it.

[LINK]

Eric Swalwell: “These witnesses, for the most part, they’ve not been coordinating or talking to each other”…


The closed-door sessions with Adam Schiff and his Lawfare-contracted legal aide, Daniel Goldman, were pre-planned.  The process was designed last year.  The current HPSCI legislative impeachment process, and every little aspect within it, is the execution of a plan, just like the DOJ/FBI plan was before it in 2016, 2017 & 2018.

Today democrat Representative Eric Swalwell appears on Face The Nation to discuss his ongoing efforts as part of the impeachment agenda.  Within the interview Swalwell has a little Freudian slip highlighting how the House is manufacturing witness testimony:

[@01:17] REP. SWALWELL: These witnesses have been fairly consistent. And for the most partthey’ve not been coordinating or talking to each other.

Whoops: “for the most part“?  Thereby Mr. Swalwell admits the witnesses are coordinating some testimony.  [Transcript Available Here]

After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff.

Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hired Douglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.

The use of a ‘whistle-blower’ was pre-planned long ago.  The agreements between Schiff, Lawfare and the CIA ‘whistle-blower’ were pre-planned.  The changing of whistle-blower rules to assist the plan was designed long ago.

Adam Schiff and Daniel Goldman are executing a plan concocted long ago. None of the testimony is organic; all of it was planned a long time ago, long before anyone knew the names Marie Yovanovitch, Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland or Bill Taylor.   All of this is the coordinated execution of a plan.

The anti-Trump members of the National Security Council and U.S. State Department were always going to be used.  Throughout 2018 and 2019 embeds in the ‘resistance’ network were awaiting instructions and seeding evidence, useful information, to construct an impeachment narrative that was designed to detonate later.

When Bill Taylor is texting Gordon Sondland about a quid-pro-quo, and Sondland is reacting with ‘wtf are you talking about’, Taylor was texting by design.  He was manufacturing evidence for the narrative.  This was all a set-up. All planned.

When Marie Yovanovitch shows up to give her HPSCI deposition to Daniel Goldman with three high-priced DC lawyers: Lawrence Robbins, Laurie Rubenstein and Rachel Li Wai Suen, having just sent her statements to the Washington Post for deployment immediately prior to her appearance, Yovanovitch is doing so by design.  All planned.

When Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, testified before congressional committees conducting an impeachment inquiry on October 29, he was wearing a full military uniform.  All by design.  Like the previous witnesses, Vindman brought a contingent of lawyers to protect himself from the sedition outlined by his own testimony. [More]

All of this coordination is clear.  The construct of the scheme is clear as day.  The only reason why the Democrats are getting away with it is because the media allows it.

We no longer have a fourth-estate media to keep a check on government corruption. Instead we have a media apparatus that actually participates in the schemes, and helps sell the fraud….  As Lee Smith eloquently said: “the media’s involvement in pushing the transparently false 2016 Trump-Russia narrative was an extinction level event for their credibility.”  So true.

 

Sunday Talks: Devin Nunes Uninterrupted…


In a refreshing change from Fox News Interruptus interviews, where the pundits talk more than the guests, HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes appears for an interview with Mike Huckabee on Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) to discuss the impeachment dynamic.

Within the interview Mr. Nunes walks through the Chairman Schiff impeachment team and then expands with details of the prior witnesses brought to the committee.

Adam Schiff Announces CIA “Whistleblower” Will Not Be Called to Testify During Impeachment Effort Initiated by “Whistleblower”…


HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff responds to the republican witness request list.  In the final paragraph of the letter, Schiff announces the “whistleblower”, the person Chairman Schiff coordinated with to initiate the impeachment, will never be called to deliver testimony:

(Source Link)

The “Coup” Against a Sitting U.S. President Became Official on October 29th, 2019…


The word “coup” shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.

Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.

In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, testified before congressional committees conducting an impeachment inquiry on October 29, wearing a full military uniform.

To date there has been no visible comment from U.S. military sanctioning Lt. Col. Vindman for his decision; or correcting the impression represented by Vindman’s military appearance.  The willful blindness is concerning, but it gets much worse.

Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies.

The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard.  Consider…

The testimony from Lt. Col. Vindman is available here. [SCRIBD pdf below]

Borrowing from Roscoe B Davis, here are some highlights:

Representative John Ratcliffe begins deconstructing Lt. Col Vindman, while his arrogant attorneys begin trying to interfere with the questioning.

This next section is very interesting, and very important.

Congressman John Ratcliffe begins questioning Vindman from the perspective of an Article 92 violation, coupled with an Article 88 violation.  President Trump, is Lt. Col Vindman’s superior.  President Trump sets the foreign policy. 

Two weeks after President Trump has established an agreement with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, and established the policy direction therein, Lt. Col. Vindman is now giving contrary instructions to the Ukranian government.  Vindman’s lawyer recognizes where the questioning is going and goes absolutely bananas:

Here’s the Full Transcript:

.

A reminder from the CIA “whistleblower” attorney.  January 30th, 2017, ten days after President Trump’s inauguration:  the “coup has started”

House Republicans Deliver List of Eight Witnesses Requested for Impeachment Inquiry….


Chairman Adam Schiff is leading the impeachment inquiry into President Trump and told republicans they had a deadline of yesterday for any requests for witnesses for the upcoming public hearings.

Schiff has stated he will arbitrarily approve or deny any request from the House republicans.

Today House republicans released a list of eight witnesses they want to see called to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry (full pdf below).  Included in the list is the anonymous CIA “whistleblower”, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa (DNC operative who met with Ukrainian officials in 2016), and Nellie Ohr who was doing the Fusion-GPS 2016 opposition research using Ukrainian contacts and sources.

 

The full list includes: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, Alexandra Chalupa, Tim Morrison, David Hale, Kurt Volker, Nellie Ohr and the “Whistleblower”.  [Direct House pdf Link]

It is unlikely Chairman Adam Schiff would permit the republicans to call Nellie Ohr as a witness because her activity throughout the 2016 election would be too damaging to the current impeachment narrative.  Indeed, questions to Nellie Ohr would likely expose the origin of the Clinton-DNC-Fusion opposition research and manufacturing operation that eventually blended with the DOJ  and FBI.

What If the Unthinkable Could Happen in Politics?


Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians just for once looked at what they have done and actually cared about the people and the future?

The Whistle-Blower’s Lawyer Called for a Coup back in 2017 Against Trump – That’s Impartial?


The attorney for the claimed whistleblower against President Donald Trump that the Democrats are desperate to try to hide his identity, Mark Zaid, defended his tweets calling for a “coup” against President Trump. Zaid claims to be nonpartisan but he is obviously not when he calls for a coup against the president of the United States. He wrote in early 2017 that a “coup” against Trump “has started,” and that “rebellion” would come, to be followed by “impeachment.” He is fully on board in the coup to overthrow Trump. He wrote back in July 2017: “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

Anyone else would go to prison for 20 years under the law (18 USC §2385) for this type of statement. He should be immediately arrested and indicted. Then perhaps we will discover who is the whistleblower. He is rejecting democracy and if his choice does not win, then overthrow the government is what he advocates. That is NOT what you would call American or any supporter of democracy. He is advocating tyranny which many would consider to be treason.

U.S. Code § 2385.Advocating overthrow of Government

“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the refusal to reveal who is the whistleblower when his attorney was calling for a coup back in 2017, demonstrates that he is no way impartial. The Democrats are hiding the name for a reason and it violates every principle of Due Process. You have a fundamental right since the American Revolution to face your accuser. That is basic law!

Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, newly released memos show.

During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

This is starting to appear as yet another made-up story to disrupt and influence the 2020 election. There is absolutely no question that Biden’s son was hired only for influence as was Hillary’s brother in Hati. This is a common practice in politics on both sides that should be outlawed. Biden has no place in government.