Graham: Impeachment efforts will get 'not one vote' from Senate GOP

https://www.washingtonexaminer...vote-from-senate-gop

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed congressional Democrats as "sore losers" for proceeding with the impeachment of President Trump, claiming their efforts would get "not one vote" from Republicans in the Senate.

"You have to accept that President Trump is president,” Graham said in reference to House Democrats' plan to move forward with impeachment. “That’s the problem. They don’t accept that President Trump won the election, and America hates a sore loser as much as any country on the planet. This is an unfair process being driven by sore losers, and there is not one vote [from Republicans] in the United States Senate to impeach President Trump based on this phone call because he did nothing wrong."

Graham's defense of Trump comes just two days after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that there would be a resolution in the House to begin impeachment proceedings against the president. "This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records, and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation," her Monday statement said.

On Tuesday, Pelosi and other House Democrats clarified that the resolution being introduced on Thursday was not an "impeachment resolution."

"This is not an impeachment resolution,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday morning. “I don’t know what an impeachment resolution is."

Congressional Republicans in both the House and Senate have been critical of Democrats and their choice to hold early impeachment-related hearings in secret. Last week, dozens of House GOP members stormed the Capitol basement and barged into the secret room where former Department of Defense official Laura Cooper was being questioned by the House Intelligence Committee.

"A whole bunch of Republican Congress members who were duly elected just tried to get in to find out what is going on in their closed hearings, because we were elected to Congress and we don’t even know what is going on,” said Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona.

It seems the American Thinker has most succinctly analyzed Pelosi’s new House Resolution: “No longer an impeachment. Now it’s a railroading.” LINK

It is a good thing that Pelosi felt enough negative pressure to sense the need to try to quell the uproar; however, the product she produced to do it makes her position worse.

The new criticism mounts by the day.

As with the possible testimony of Bolton, if all they’re coming up with, even in the unfair process, is that functionaries disagreed with President Trump’s policy about how he wanted to deal with Ukraine, they are utterly bankrupt for impeachment tinder.

As noted by so many, the elected president sets policy. Even the Lt. Colonel who testified groused about the president not following the chain of command. What? Who is this minor officer to artificially promote his opinion in the chain of command of which he speaks? A Lt. Colonel is somewhat below The Commander in Chief.

The new “rules” being offered in Pelosi’s resolution only show the flailing that’s marked Pelosi’s efforts as she’s tried to engineer a result rather than an investigation.

This will only get worse as her continued railroading turns into a full scale train wreck as it alienates more and more of the fair-minded American people.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
As Britt Hume pointed put last night on the Tucker Carlson show, it is the President who sets this nation's foreign policy, not diplomats or State Department personnel. All of these people are upset because President Trump has the unmitigated gall to go against "established" foreign policy. These people are confused, very, very confused, and they think a lot of themselves, to put themselves above the duly elected President of the United States.

They could have had 50 people on that call, and everyone of them disagreeing with the President. Big freakin' whoop. It's not their decision. It's the President's decision. Period.

Donald Trump may be impeached in the House but he won't be in the Senate. Donald Trump will remain in office, and 12 months from now, he will win re-election in a landslide. Just keep hanging on, gents. It's comin', and in between now and then, we have John Durham who is gonna ruin some leftists lives.

A local radio talk show member likened Vindman's *opinion* as to an Indian having concerns over the Chief's decisions. Who elected Vindman? And why give credence to his *opinion* when the transcript of the phone call is a matter of record.

Calling this a dog-and-pony show is an insult to all dogs and ponies.

I think POTUS should have the lt colonel report for tdy at the whitehouse tomorrow and have him stand at attention until relieved.....maybe he could check guests coats or bring someone coffee....who the fook does he think he knows more than the Commander in Chief

I kind of like the idea of having the LtCol tdy to the WH. That would be fun to watch

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
That 4 minute video should air on every news network.

But they need to cut Shepard Smith's comment at the end--it is inappropriate.

flashguy

That was Bill Hemmer and I don't think it was inappropriate.

Sorry, sometimes I'm easily confused about people. I didn't mean what was said was inappropriate, just that it was there. I think it took the focus off the prior talk.

flashguy

Agreed, flashguy.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
A local radio talk show member likened Vindman's *opinion* as to an Indian having concerns over the Chief's decisions. Who elected Vindman? And why give credence to his *opinion* when the transcript of the phone call is a matter of record.

It's very typical of military officers who serve in important DC positions - they forget that they are there because they are a military officer with a job to do, they aren't there because of who they are as an individual or what they care / believe in. So they have a inflated sense of individual importance.

Which is why pretty much ALL of them who try to make the jump to politics fall flat on their faces. Yeah, some get cabinet positions, but they usually don't last very long unless they are really astute at how things work.

A LTC in that environment would be like an E4 specialist...

Anyhoo, it matters not a whit what his background is, whether he even won the MOH and killed Bin Laden while capturing Saddam.

All that matters is his firsthand knowledge concerning Trump-Ukraine yada-yada.

Oh, he was on the call and he didn't think it was appropriate! Well, [The Dude] That's just, like, your opinion man [/The Dude] and since Trump released the transcript, I guess we can all form our own. It's like the entire US was on the call at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
If the quote above was a major part of the reason for the whole “whistleblower” nonsense, it is utterly outrageous. Not only does this LTC have a serious conflict of interest, but he is not deferring to the policy of the commander in chief. His only moral recourse is to resign.

And there is your problem right there. Thinking that moral has anything to do with what any deep state Dim is doing is clearly a mistake.

Of course, we are all assuming that the transcript is an accurate word-for-word account of the conversation, aren't we? How justified is that belief?

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Of course, we are all assuming that the transcript is an accurate word-for-word account of the conversation, aren't we? How justified is that belief?

flashguy

There seem to be a lot of folks who claim to have been on the call and have concerns. Has there been a single one of them that has alleged that the transcript is not an accurate word-for-word account of the conversation? It seems to me like as much stuff as some of these individuals are trying to spin up, they’d be screaming from the rooftops if the transcript were incorrect.

It is getting hot in DC.

How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc.

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
October 30, 2019, 4:21 PM Eastern

For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower" who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway.



More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA.

But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.

RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate" -- as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.

Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.)

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.

With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.

On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.

Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.

Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and "biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from due scrutiny about his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm," although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.

“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias."

A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.

Federal records show that Biden’s office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.

Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in 2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama's "point man" for Ukraine. A Yale graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been assigned to the NSC by Brennan.

He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC, eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.

“He was moved over to the front office” to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he “saw everything, read everything.”

The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign policies. “My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies.”

“So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the whistleblower,” the official said.

In May 2017, Ciaramella went “outside his chain of command,” according to a former NSC co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier.

Contents of the email appear to have ended up in the media, which reported Trump boasted to the Russian officials about firing Comey, whom he allegedly called “crazy, a real nut job.”

In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the “Putin fired Comey” narrative, according to the research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by RealClearInvestigations.

Ciaramella allegedly argued that “President Putin suggested that President Trump fire Comey,” the report said. “In the days after Comey’s firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to investigate ‘Russia collusion.’ “

In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Putin. Ciaramella’s email was cited in a footnote in his report, which mentions only Ciaramella’s name, the date and the recipients “Kelly et al.” Former colleagues said the main recipient was then-Homeland Security Director John Kelly..

Ciaramella left the Trump White House soon after Mueller was appointed. Attempts to reach Ciaramella were unsuccessful, although his father said in a phone interview from Hartford, where he is a bank executive, that he doubted his son was the whistleblower. “He didn’t have that kind of access to that kind of information,” Tony Ciaramella said. “He’s just a guy going to work every day.” The whistleblower's lawyers did not answer emails and phone calls seeking comment. CIA spokesman Luis Rossello declined comment, saying, “Anything on the whistleblower, we are referring to ODNI.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.

In his complaint, the whistleblower charged that the president used “the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” Specifically, he cited a controversial July 25 phone call from the White House residence in which Trump asked Ukraine’s new president to help investigate the origins of the Russia “collusion” investigation the Obama administration initiated against his campaign, citing reports that “a lot of it started with Ukraine," where the former pro-Hillary Clinton regime in Kiev worked with Obama diplomats and Chalupa to try to “sabotage” Trump’s run for president.

Later in the conversation, Trump also requested information about Biden and his son, since “Biden went around bragging that he” had fired the chief Ukrainian prosecutor at the time a Ukrainian oligarch, who gave Biden’s son a lucrative seat on the board of his energy conglomerate, was under investigation for corruption.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff argued the whistleblower's complaint, though admittedly based on second-hand information, amounts to an impeachable offense, and they subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry that has largely been conducted in secret.

The whistleblower filed his “urgent” report against Trump with the I.C. inspector general on Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.

Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff’s Democratic staff for “guidance." At first, the California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet with the whistleblower early on.

Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC — both whom were also Obama holdovers -- to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.

During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.

Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.

“Their reaction tells you something,” said one official familiar with the inquiry.

For example, sources said Ciaramella’s name was invoked by GOP committee members during the closed-door testimony of former NSC official Fiona Hill on Oct. 14. Ciaramella worked with Hill, another Obama holdover, in the West Wing.

During Tuesday’s deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats shut down a line of inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing the identity of the whistleblower. Republicans wanted to know with whom Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns regarding Trump’s call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the questions, which reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans.

Determined to keep the whistleblower's identity secret, Schiff recently announced it may not be necessary for him to testify even in closed session. Republicans argue that by hiding his identity, the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, asserted the American people have the right to know the person who is trying to bring down the president for whom 63 million voted.

“It’s tough to determine someone’s credibility if you can’t put them under oath and ask them questions,” he said.

Added Jordan: “The people want to know. I want to get to the truth."

Rep. Louis Gohmert: Ciaramella was “supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption."

In an open House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) seemingly out of left field asked a witness about “Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National Security Council,” in what the Washington press corps took as a bid to out the whistleblower. He later told a Dallas radio station he knew the whistleblower’s name. “A lot of us in Washington know who it is,” Gohmert said, adding he’s a “very staunch Democrat” who was “supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption."

The Washington Post ran a news story over the weekend critical of Republicans for allegedly trying to “unmask” the whistleblower, for attempting to do the job journalists would normally do. Last week, the paper ran an op-ed by the whistleblower’s attorneys claiming he was no longer relevant to the inquiry and beseeching the public to let their client slip back into obscurity.

For its part, the New York Times ran a story last month reporting details about the whistleblower’s background, but stopped short of fully identifying him, suggesting it didn’t know his politics or even his name. “Little else is known about him,” the paper claimed.

On Thursday, Democrats plan a House vote on new impeachment-inquiry rules that would give Republicans for the first time the ability to call their own witnesses. Only, their requests must first be approved by the Democrats. So there is a good chance the whistleblower, perhaps the most important witness of all, will remain protected from critical examination.

https://www.realclearinvestiga...searcher_120996.html

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Of course, we are all assuming that the transcript is an accurate word-for-word account of the conversation, aren't we? How justified is that belief?

flashguy

I realize you might be taking the Devil's Advocate approach with that remark, but that is a YUUUUUUUGE leap to think President Trump would release/publish a falsified/inaccurate document with so many 1st hand witnesses, eh? With all due respect, that's witch hunt material, right there. Just sayin'...

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Of course, we are all assuming that the transcript is an accurate word-for-word account of the conversation, aren't we? How justified is that belief?

flashguy

As I recall, the president of Ukraine also contributed his opinion on the transcript and said it was word for word. Along with 3 others who were transcribing it as part of their apparent duties.

So we have a LTC who must have been passed over for promotion to full Colonel several times, now trying to damage Trump. And, as I understand it, he was NOT a party to the call.

Color me shocked.

“Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

House Impeachment Resolution Authorizes Fishing Expedition Probes that Go Far Beyond Ukraine

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...-far-beyond-ukraine/


The House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry resolution would officially authorize probes into U.S. President Donald Trump that are unrelated to the Ukraine-linked allegations that triggered the investigation to impeach him, including efforts to obtain the commander in chief’s tax returns.

Unveiled on Tuesday, the text of the resolution states that the measure orders “certain committees” to continue investigating whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump and “for other purposes,” without explaining what those purposes are.

In other words, the resolution, expected to be voted on this week, would authorize any ongoing Trump investigations under the sun. The measure is expansive, breathing new life into a wide range of non-Ukraine probes, including an ongoing investigation by the House Judiciary Committee into whether Trump paid money to silence sexual affairs accusations.

Echoing some Republican lawmakers, the White House has rejected the resolution as an “illegitimate sham.”

House Democrat impeachment investigators are supposed to be trying to determine if Trump abused his power by allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for aid during a July 25 call.

A “whistleblower” complaint accusing Trump of making the alleged quid pro quo offer during the call triggered the impeachment inquiry. Trump and Ukraine have denied the allegation.

House Democrats, however, have signaled that they are moving beyond the Ukraine-linked allegations and making the impeachment probe a fishing expedition.

Some of the House committees authorized to investigate Trump by the resolution are not directly involved in the impeachment inquiry process.

So far, the House Committees on Oversight and Reform, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs have been conducting the investigation. Ordinarily, the House Judiciary Committee manages the argument for impeachment. During the impeachment investigation into Trump, however, the House Committee on Intelligence led by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has taken the lead of the probe.

The resolution directs:

Certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.

…

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means, are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America.

The powerful Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee has demanded Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns. Trump has refused to release that information.

Meanwhile, the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees have subpoenaed some banks for years of financial documents from the president, his two sons, and daughter, as well as the president’s companies. The House panels have asked Deutsche Bank to hand over some of the Trump tax returns in its possession.

Some of the House committees mentioned in the resolution are also looking into potential conflicts of interest involving Trump’s businesses.

The Financial Services Committee, led by the ardently anti-Trump Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), is also “investigating possible ties between Russian financial institutions, Mr. Trump and anyone affiliated with him,” the Wall Street Journal noted in early May.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (R-NY), one of Trump’s most vocal critics, is also investigating Trump’s business dealings. Some of the committee investigations legitimized by the resolution are trying to revive the Robert Mueller Russian collusion hoax investigation.

The Democrat-led committees highlighted in the resolution have spent months investigating allegations that Trump used his office to make money in violation of the law, obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation, and paid hush-money to women.

Under the resolution, those investigations would officially become part of the impeachment inquiry, radically expanding the probe far beyond Ukraine.

The resolution orders the House intelligence panel to transfer the impeachment probe evidence it collects to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to draft articles of impeachment based on the other committees’ findings.

If the Democrat-led House approves those articles, the Senate would then hold a trial to decide if they want to convict or acquit Trump. Two-thirds (67 members) of the Senate would have to vote in favor of convicting Trump to remove him from office.

Trump has accused the Democrats of trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election with their impeachment efforts.

Disgraceful what is happening to a duly elected sitting President. People should go to jail.....but they won't WTF?

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
It seems the American Thinker has most succinctly analyzed Pelosi’s new House Resolution: “No longer an impeachment. Now it’s a railroading.” LINK

It is a good thing that Pelosi felt enough negative pressure to sense the need to try to quell the uproar; however, the product she produced to do it makes her position worse.

The new criticism mounts by the day.

As with the possible testimony of Bolton, if all they’re coming up with, even in the unfair process, is that functionaries disagreed with President Trump’s policy about how he wanted to deal with Ukraine, they are utterly bankrupt for impeachment tinder.

As noted by so many, the elected president sets policy. Even the Lt. Colonel who testified groused about the president not following the chain of command. What? Who is this minor officer to artificially promote his opinion in the chain of command of which he speaks? A Lt. Colonel is somewhat below The Commander in Chief.

The new “rules” being offered in Pelosi’s resolution only show the flailing that’s marked Pelosi’s efforts as she’s tried to engineer a result rather than an investigation.

This will only get worse as her continued railroading turns into a full scale train wreck as it alienates more and more of the fair-minded American people.

And when the dust settles on this complete waste of time and resources, the Speaker needs to be removed from Government. She has not the mental capacity to function as a sane person. Factly, all those involved in this 3 year long sham need to be removed from their positions for obvious reasons, some need to serve time in prison. This includes that crawling little worm in New York, Schumer. The whole lot of them need exposure, expulshion and many in prison. Otherwise, this all may well come again in the future.