Originally Posted by
archives
Not true, BenghaziGate was conducted the exact same way, all of those investigations had private testimony employing the exact same rules that Schiff is using today, in fact, they initiated those rules. In Clinton's impeachment, they didn't have a preliminary inquiry because Starr gave them four years of investigation, all of it conducted behind closed doors. And in that impeachment, just like today, the majority ruled over everything
John Solomon is a talking head, nothing more, of course he has a conspiracy, had any demogogue not have "proof" of something, but even Volker shot down Solomon's fiction in his testimony
The IG did know that the whistleblower had contacted Schiff's office and that Schiff's office recommended he talk to an attorney, and anyone who worked in or near the White House longer than three years had "worked" for Biden just like they are now working for Pence, it is part of their job
Nothing, absolutely nothing, "screams for an investigation," and asking for Biden's son to testify is nothing more than a deflection, it ain't about Biden, it is all about Trump, he is the one who abused his power
John Solomon was consistently right in calling the Russian Hoax; never once, did he breathlessly—and falsely, claim ‘the walls were closing in on Donald Trump’ as so many of our other ‘journalists’ have in the past three years.
IOW, he’s an excellent source.
At any rate, you blew right through a Stop Sign. Why would Ciaramella go to Schiff AT ALL? Why is Adam Schiff necessary to file a WB report? The only necessary components to a WB report are the WB and the office of the IG.
But we have this Schiff appendage hanging around in Ciaramella’s report. What business does Schiff have doing there? Did Ciamarella need some ‘advice’ from Schiff? If so, what kind of advice? A WB shouldn’t need any ‘advice’. If their report is in error nothing happens to them—the whole point is to keep it secret. But in Ciamarella’s case he involved other people in crafting his report.
Why did Ciaramella go to Adam Schiff when Schiff has been trying to impeach Trump for years; he has *falsely* claimed to have slam dunk evidence of Russian collusion and has done so REPEATEDLY, right in front of national television cameras. So when Schiff claims he didn’t meet with Ciaramella, lots of voters are skeptical of the claim.
And we aren’t allowed to ask Ciamarella any questions?
Really lol?
Here’s my advice to House Democrats if they are actually serious about doing anything more than hanging the label ‘impeached’ around Trumps neck.
Number One: get rid of Adam Schiff. Like, today. The inveterate liar shouldn’t be allowed within a ten mile radius an impeachment proceeding involving Trump.
Number Two: since Democrats didn’t do Step One, Schiff needs put under oath. And it’s not negotiable since Pelosi stood by while Schiff made himself a fact witness. Same ditto for Ciaramella: since his interactions with Schiff and/or Team Schiff make him something besides a garden variety WB, Ciaramella needs to come before Congress and testify under oath.
Of course, House democrats don’t need to do these things. On the other hand, since they won’t, Senate republicans will be justified in declaring the whole thing DOA the minute it gets to the Senate. Democrats need to understand they will take a political hit when that happens.
Which will make it a just another colossal waste of time by the Resistance.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Bookmarks