See SDY note here:
"CTH reports

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has announced that Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify About the 500+ page FISA report on Wednesday December 11th, 2019.

this likely puts the publication date for the report on/around Monday December 2nd

CTH also reports that the last day in Dec that is scheduled for House votes is 12 Dec. Impeachment vote could be a few weeks from now"

>> https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...540023364#3540023364

==========================
DOJ Inspector General testimony on FISA abuse to be on Dec. 11

I'm so damn tired of hearing about the "imminent" release of this report that is going to send all the coup plotters to jail.

Someone wake me up when they actually release the damn thing.

Lyndsey Graham finally doing something rather than just talking is actually a significant development. Unlike this impeachment nonsense, that's one hearing that I'll be tuning in for.

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/...impeachment-hearing/

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s staff, Democrats are pressing three misleading themes.

First, Chairman Adam Schiff and the Democrats’ counsel, Daniel Goldman, have attempted to frame a dichotomy between President Trump and what they call “official” US foreign policy. It’s a false framework. Official policy is not, as they suggest, made by the so-called policy community (comprised mainly of the NSC, the State Department and government agents from the intelligence community and the armed services). The president makes American foreign policy.

The function of the policy community is to give the president its best advice and the benefit of its considerable knowledge and experience. But in our representative republic, policy is made by the only official who actually answers to the voters whose lives and interests are at stake — the president.

The Democrats’ theory is that it is misconduct for the president to depart from the policy priorities of unelected bureaucrats. That gets things backward. The president sets policy; the policy community is supposed to carry out the president’s policy. It is certainly possible that a president’s policy may be misguided or even improperly self-interested — and in that sense, it could be wrong. But it cannot be regarded as wrong simply because the policy community disagrees.

Second, Democrats highlight the president’s reference, in the July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to a conspiracy theory that Ukraine may have been complicit in the hacking of Democratic email accounts. It is quite correct to contend, as they do, that there is no known support for this theory. It is also correct that US intelligence agencies and the Mueller investigation assessed that Russia was behind the hacking attacks.

From these correct premises, Democrats are drawing two false conclusions: (a) that there is no evidence of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election besides the discredited theory that Ukraine was behind the hacking; and (b) if Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Ukraine cannot have done so.

This is disingenuous.

There is significant evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Democrats want to suppress it because the interference was for the benefit of the Clinton campaign. For example, a Ukrainian court concluded in late 2018 that Ukrainian officials, including a parliamentarian and the anti-corruption police, interfered in the US election.

Ukrainian officials were responsible for leaks — in particular, a leak of a dubious ledger showing payments from the then-regime in Kiev — that resulted in Paul Manafort’s being ousted from the Trump campaign. That incident became an important part of the Democrats’ discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Logically, moreover, there is no credible either-or understanding of Russian and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. It is perfectly reasonable to believe both that Russia meddled by hacking Democratic email accounts, and that Ukraine meddled by seeking to find and publicize information that would hurt Trump and help Hillary Clinton.

Third, the Democrats took pains to elicit from this morning’s witnesses that there was no evidence of either (a) corrupt activity in Ukraine by former Vice President Joe Biden in connection with the notoriously corrupt energy firm, Burisma, that was lavishly paying his son; or (b) Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

They are plainly seeking to use this testimony (and similar testimony they have previously elicited) to argue that corruption allegations and claims of Ukrainian meddling have been disproved.

In point of fact, the witnesses who were asked to give this testimony later conceded they had no knowledge of the underlying facts.

In a judicial proceeding under evidentiary rules, witnesses would not be permitted to testify regarding matters of which they have no personal knowledge and no basis in admissible evidence to render conclusions.

The fact that this testimony has been elicited in a congressional hearing that is adhering to no evidentiary rules does not make the testimony true, accurate or reliable.

To be clear, this is not to accuse the witnesses of lying. They simply should not be asked questions that they have no known basis to answer informatively.

looks like some famous people are finally getting their day in court - as a defendant for making threats against the President...

Impeachment Inquiry Witness: Aid to Lebanon Withheld at Same Time, and Same Way, as Ukraine

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...same-way-as-ukraine/

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale testified to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this month that aid to Lebanon had been withheld at roughly the same time, and in the same way, as aid to Ukraine.

The transcript of Hale’s closed-door deposition was released Monday evening, on the eve of a slew of new hearings.

Hale, a career diplomat, testified that the suspension of aid to various countries was part of a context in which the Trump administration had “embarked on a foreign assistance review in which we are trying to reestablish the norms that guide the assistance that we provide overseas.” Hale called the review of U.S. foreign aid “long overdue.”

He added that aid to Lebanon had been withheld by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House– as had aid to the “Northern Triangle” of countries in Central America from which many of the migrants flocking to the U.S. border had come.

Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) attempted to push back, distinguishing between a broader review of aid and the specific review of aid that had happened over the summer in the case of Ukraine.

“My colleagues in the minority asked you about an overall review of foreign assistance, and I want to make sure that we’re not conflating the two here. … But there was a very specific hold placed on this assistance to Ukraine for inexplicable reasons, was there not?” he asked.

Hale replied: “That is correct. There was information that came to me starting in late June that a hold had been placed on both Ukraine assistance and Lebanon military assistance without any explanation on those, about those holds; that’s correct.”

Schiff then asked a series of leading questions, such as: “[T]he aid to the Northern Triangle wasn’t withheld because there was an effort to get political investigations involving the Bidens, was there?”

Hale said it was not.

He added, however, that the hold on Lebanon aid had been handled in the same way as the hold on Ukraine aid: “‘[N]o one explained to us in either case, Ukraine or Lebanon, the reasoning behind the hold, or the freeze really.”

Other witnesses have said that the lack of explanation for holding up Ukraine aid seemed suspicious; Hale seemed to describe it as part of the way the Trump administration handled such cases in general:

Q: Okay. And so you still — have you — has the State Department been provided with a reason why the hold [on aid to Lebanon] has been withheld?

Hale: Officially, no; formally, in no way, in no manner.

Q: How about informally?

A: Not even informally, no. We just understand there are differences of opinion on this, or there had been. And the matter now rests with OMB. I don’t think that the differences currently exist outside of OMB.

Q: And was this congressionally authorized aid as well to Lebanon?

A: I’m pretty sure of it, yeah. Yes.

Ambassador Hale’s testimony contradicted the Democrats’ narrative against President Donald Trump in many other respects, as well. He said that he was never aware of any link between U.S. aid for Ukraine and the investigations the president had requested.

Hale also testified that the transcript of the president’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seemed “perfectly normal” — at least, until the whistleblower complaint emerged. And he also said that it was “not unprecedented” for a president to lean on a private citizen — such as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — for support in public diplomacy.

He did say there had been no credible evidence of the allegation that former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had disparaged the president, but poured cold water on the idea that having her issue a public statement supporting the president — a statement the State Department ultimately decided against releasing — was a demand for political loyalty.

Hale is scheduled to testify in a public hearing later this week.

I’ll bet that Colonel Vindmen is the one that tipped off the whistleblower about the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. Mr. Vindmen is a fucking swamp rat.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
I’ll bet that Colonel Vindmen is the one that tipped off the whistleblower about the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. Mr. Vindmen is a fucking swamp rat.

I'd say you are 100% correct on both counts.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
I’ll bet that Colonel Vindmen is the one that tipped off the whistleblower about the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. Mr. Vindmen is a fucking swamp rat.

LIEUTENANT Colonel. He apparently snapped at Rep Nunes for referring him as "Mr. Vindman" instead of his rank and name. Who the fuck are you?

Why is this clown up there in full uniform? His duty uniform in the NSC is a freaking SUIT. And the Dems bitch at Trump for "using the military as props" during his 4th of July salute??

Apparently another bad day of theater for the Dems as each of their "witnesses" fucks up:

Vindman Admits To Violating Chain Of Command, Says Trump Within Rights To Request Foreign Investigation

Vindman is a perfidious sonofabitch, and an arrogant c#@ksucker.. You don't try to fuck your Commander In Chief. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
Vindman is a perfidious sonofabitch, and an arrogant c#@ksucker.. You don't try to fuck your Commander In Chief. Period.

Saw this today...here's my shocked face

REVEALED: During Ranger School Lt. Col. Vindman’s Peers Said He Was “Lazy and a Chow Thief” – They Wanted Him Out

I hope he gets to find out what the weather is in Kansas, through a very small window. POS sounds like John Kerry. Purple Heart for a Band Aid. Back to work that afternoon. I'll bet it really hurt.

Anyone seen a video clip of LTC Vindman’s testimony about cautioning President Volodymyr Zelensky about Russian and advising him not to interfere with U.S. Politics?

Particularly interested in hearing how he explained that he was not sure that he pre-cleared this discussion he had with President Zelensky at a public meet and greet.

Seems like LTC Vindman stepped out on his own, outside of proper channels.

All Presidential calls are classified material.

Classified information can not be revealed to anyone without a need to know even if the person you reveal it to has a security clearance. This is what General Petraus was convicted of.He gave classified material to his lover who had a security clearance.(Paula Broadwell)

There’s a military term for the type of individual that LTC Vindman is; Blue Falcon.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 2BobTanner,

Rush had some interesting things to say today, particularly:

1. Vindman was thrice offered the position of minister of defense for Ukraine(!)
("You all remember that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?")

2. Jackie Speier is refusing to talk to Politico reporters unless Politico cans John Solomon.
How's that for quid pro quo?

Key impeachment witness Vindman was a registered Democrat

https://www.washingtonexaminer...-registered-democrat



Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council official who has testified to Congress about alleged quid pro quo between President Trump and Ukraine, was a registered Democrat for over a decade, according to public records.

Trump has accused Vindman of being a “Never Trumper,” a charge the NSC official denied on Tuesday.

“I would call myself never partisan,” Vindman told the House Intelligence Committee.

Vindman, a 44-year-old Army combat veteran who received a Purple Heart for injuries sustained during the Iraq War, initially registered as a Democrat in New York in 1994. He was listed as a Democrat at least as recently as 2009, according to public records. In 2012, Vindman registered to vote in Washington, D.C., but did not declare a party.

Vindman has been a key witness for congressional Democrats as they move forward on impeachment proceedings against Trump. Trump is accused of improperly threatening to withhold military aid unless the Ukrainian government agreed to investigate corruption allegations involving Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s work for Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

Vindman also told lawmakers on Tuesday that he believed Trump’s actions were “improper” and would have been viewed as “an order” by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Vindman also received applause when he praised the United States' free speech protections, noting that they did not exist in his birthplace of the Soviet Union.

"Congressman, because this is America. This is the country I have served and defended, that all of my brothers have served. And here, right matters," Vindman said. The Army is reportedly considering relocating Vindman onto a military base after the NSC official asked the military to review his security situation, according to the Wall Street Journal.

"The Army will make sure he's safe, and the Army is actively supporting any safety needs as deemed necessary," an official told the paper.

short video of the prick Vindman testifying


https://youtu.be/Iyd9MuzFQHk

seen at CTH

CTH thoughts:

HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes questioned NSC official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman about whether he had shared the contents of the phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky with anyone outside the White House.

In responding Vindman stated “two people”, and then named State Dept George Kent, and a person from the intelligence community. Then things get interesting. Vindman refused to name the intelligence agency because it would likely expose the CIA “whistle-blower”.

This non-answer makes Alexander Vindman the source for the CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
Vindman is a perfidious sonofabitch, and an arrogant c#@ksucker.. You don't try to fuck your Commander In Chief. Period.

If ever a blue falcon motherfucker needed a fragging it’s that piece of shit.

He clearly leaked classified information to individuals who were not need to know.

His excuse for going to a lawyer (and apparently the fake whistleblower) about his concerns about the call instead of following his chain of command was that he was busy that week? Freakin' kidding me? Piece of shit. Nail his ass to the wall.