Here is my comment on the above at 60-Minute’s YouTube:
This didn’t age well. Leslie Stahl was spreading misinformation. Works by Lee Smith, Gregg Jarrett, Dan Bongino, Molly Hemingway, John Solomon, Chuck Ross, and the like — had already proven Trump’s statement via the E V I D E N C E. What a disgrace to investigative journalism 60-Minutes has become. Another example why more ppl distrust news sources, and with a recent poll showing a majority of Democrats now want Hillary investigated… 60-M will lose more viewers.
Suffice to say “spying” has been known to have happened already through multiple channels:
Lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid a technology company to “infiltrate” servers that belonged to Trump Tower and, later, the Trump White House “for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” according to a motion filed Friday by Special Counsel John Durham. Fox News reports:
Durham filed a motion on Feb. 11 focused on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussman has pleaded not guilty.
The indictment against Sussman says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work “for any client” when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.
According to the Feb. 11 filing, in a section titled “Factual Background,” Sussman “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive-1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”
Billing records show that Sussman “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”
Sources told Fox News that Sussman and Tech Executive-1 had also met and communicated with another law partner, Marc Elias, formerly of Perkins Coie, who also served as General Counsel to the Clinton campaign.
Durham’s filing states that in July 2016, the tech executive worked with Sussman, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm 1 on behalf of the Clinton campaign, numerous cyber researchers and employees at multiple internet companies to “assemble the purported data and white papers.”
“In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the filing states. “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”
“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham states. “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”…..
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, weighs in on new evidence from the Durham investigation that the Clinton campaign paid to spy on and link Russia to President Trump.
Ratcliffe Predicts More Clinton-Related Indictments
Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on the John Durham findings showing Hillary Clinton findings into the efforts to pin Russian collusion on Trump and his presidential campaign.
Hemingway: Durham Reveals Spying On Trump Was Worse Than Watergate
Bombshell Durham Report Finds Clinton Campaign Spied On Trump During Presidency
FOX Business Maria Bartiromo, Fox News Contributor Liz Peek and Michael Lee Strategy founder Michael Lee discuss the latest findings in the Durham report.
Gregg Jarrett & Peter Schweizer Respond to New Durham Info
Watters: ‘Criminal’ Clinton Should Be Banished From Polite Society
Jesse Watters comments on a filing from special counsel John Durham alleging the Clinton campaign paid money to penetrate Trump Tower servers and calls the former Democratic presidential candidate a ‘political criminal’ on ‘The Five.’
(Hat-Tip to OK BOOMER) Trey Gowdy shares his biggest takeaways from the DOJ Inspector General’s FISA abuse report on ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum.’
The next article is thanks to AMERICAN GREATNESS:“Ratcliffe: Dems Withholding Transcript That Reveals How ‘Whistleblower Got Caught With Chairman Schiff’”
…Ratcliffe pointed out that Democrats keep using the word “demand” do describe Trump’s suggestion to the Ukraine president that corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden should be looked into.
“Guess which word isn’t anywhere in the transcript?” Ratcliffe asked before informing the committee that the word is “demand.”
“Nowhere in that transcript does the president make a ‘demand,’” he declared. “Do you know where the word ‘demand’ came from? It came from the whistleblower. That’s the first time we heard the word demand,” Ratcliffe explained.
When he notified the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, he said President Trump made a demand! He thought he could do that because he thought no one would ever be able to prove that because what president would take the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript with a foreign leader. This president did! Something that the whistleblower never expected.
President Trump, we keep hearing, got caught. President Trump, we keep hearing, is obstructing justice. The president that took the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript so that everyone could see the truth is not obstructing congress. The president didn’t get caught. The whistleblower got caught. The whistleblower made false statements. The whistleblower got caught with Chairman Schiff!
Ratcliffe noted that rather than run the impeachment inquiry out of the House Judiciary where it belonged, Democrats put the highly conflicted chairman of the Intelligence Committee in charge of the case.
“The person who got caught with the whistleblower!” Ratcliffe exclaimed.
The Texas Republican recalled how Schiff had initially denied having any contact with the anti-Trump complainant identified online as Eric Ciaramella (seen below shaking hands with former president Barack Obama).
The president took the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript so everyone could see the truth.
Here’s another transcript everyone should see: sworn testimony confirming that the whistleblower didn’t tell the truth both verbally and in writing. But Schiff won’t release it. pic.twitter.com/uRCvDPK1rg
When questioned by Ratcliffe during his closed door testimony on October 4, Atkinson revealed information about a potential link between Schiff or his staff and the whistleblower.
Responding to a question about the transcript on Twitter last month, Ratcliffe said: “It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his ‘investigation’ into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified ‘secret’ so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions.”
I know why @paulsperry_ It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his “investigation” into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified “secret” so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions
Buried in the IG report is a line that poses an enormous question, one that is central to everything, and really must be answered. Remember: According to all relevant players, prior to July of 2016, nobody had a Trump-Russia collusion narrative on their minds.
Indeed, the FBI says it was only the Downer tip-off at end-July that spurred the investigation. Downer for his part says it was public revelation in July of the DNC hack that caused him to finally wonder about collusion and connect his spring conversation with Papadopoulos.
Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson, meanwhile, in Senate testimony, “stress[ed]” he hired Steele in May to look at Trump’s “business activities” in Russia….By Simpson’s telling (under penalty of perjury), Steele just sort of stumbled on this much “broader” “political conspiracy.”
But here is what Steele told the IG: That in May 2016, Simpson approached Steele to “assist in determining Russia’s actions related to the 2016 election”; “whether Russia was trying to achieve a particular election outcome”; and…
“whether there were any ties between the Russian government and Trump and his campaign.” (Page 93) Seems Simpson had a pretty good bead on the “narrative” long before the govt. claims to have had it and before even his own source had reported it to him. Huh.
Let’s hope Attorney John Durham provides some answers on who exactly knew what in the spring of 2016.
The answer could be that Glenn Simpson and his wife, Mary Jacoby, wrote the script a long time ago.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” in the spring to discuss the origins of the Steele dossier. He said it should really be called the “Simpson” dossier. Although Christopher Steele likely contributed “stories” to the dossier, and his years of experience in British intelligence lent credence to the document, Nunes said he believed that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson may actually have written the majority of it.
Simpson hired Christopher Steele in June 2016. According to Smith, Steele had been “identified as a British spy in 1999.” He had been chief of the “Russia desk when Russian assassins killed FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko in London and was hardly in a position to make discreet inquiries. Still, Simpson must have thought Steele’s name at a minimum would be useful in marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Reportedly, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI, and journalists love spies who spill secrets.”
MOST IMPORTANT to keep in mind as the viewer is immersed in this implosion of Democratic narratives:
…The far-left Washington Post hid a bombshell under the anodyne headline “Americans are split on impeachment, just like they were before the public hearings”– except, yeah, in the only states that matter, they are actually not split…
Buried under six paragraphs, we learn that, in almost all of the 2020 swing states, a majority oppose this hoax impeachment by a clear margin of 51 to 44 percent: [emphasis added throughout]
Battleground state polls show a more negative reaction to the impeachment inquiry, signaling more risk to Democrats and potential benefit for Trump. An average of 44 percent supported impeachment, with 51 percent opposed, averaging across a dozen October and November polls in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin. That’s a flip from an average of national polls that finds support for impeachment narrowly edging opposition, 47 percent to 43 percent.
And this is not the first poll that shows impeachment backfiring in the only places that will matter next year.
The depressed support for impeachment in key states was first signaled by a series of New York Times-Siena College polls conducted in mid-October, which found between 51 and 53 percent opposing impeachment in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Let’s not forget that Wisconsin poll that shows 53 percent oppose impeachment, while only 40 percent disagree.
Even the best news for Democrats is bad news. These so-called impeachment hearings, even as rigged as they were by Democrats, even as hyped and supported as they were by the fake news media, did nothing to move the needle. Oh…
Matt Gaetz, whom PJ-MEDIA says “brought a blow torch to the impeachment hearings and set a glorious bonfire“:
WEASEL ZIPPERS notes the “objectivity” (videos) — and PJ-MEDIA laid down the law with this chicks Congressional statements:
…She even peddled the nonsense in a published law review article. Karlan falsely wrote, “For five of the eight years of the Bush Administration, [they] brought no Voting Rights Act cases of its own except for one case protecting white voters.”
Karlan’s sleight of hand might be interesting… if it were true. Sadly, for her credibility, it is demonstrably false, and she has never once corrected her false scholarship. Her fellow travelers never mention her falsehood and instead praise and elevate her, still.
This is demonstrably false; any visit to the DOJ website demonstrates this. Karlan says the Voting Section brought no cases to protect minorities under the Voting Rights Act in five of eight years — let’s look at the record:
Even if Karlan were to claim she meant only “vote dilution cases” (commonly thought of as “redistricting” cases), she is still lying. Dilution cases were brought in four of the eight years, not three of the eight, as she falsely claims. In any event, it’s impossible to claim she only meant dilution cases: she made the bold, broad statement that the Bush DOJ “brought no Voting Rights Act cases of its own” in five of eight years. Taken literally, Karlan’s claim is especially false, as cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were brought — as we see above — in every year except 2004.
Wow… she is a nutter and wrong on facts. Damn — good job Dems. But the other people the Democrats chose are not as bad… right? Wrong. GATEWAY PUNDIT notes the RADICAL nature of Noah Feldman:
…Noah Feldman, the first impeachment ‘witness’ the Dems rolled out on Wednesday not only called for Trump’s impeachment shortly after Trump was sworn in, he actually argued in a NY Times op-ed titled, “Why Shariah?” that Islamic Sharia law is more humane than US law.
Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor, bashed legal systems created by Western countries including the United States and argued Sharia law is more ‘just’ and ‘fair’ than the US Supreme Court.
Mr. Feldman actually believes that a medieval system of laws that chops off the hands of thieves, stones ‘adulterous women,’ blames the woman when she is raped by a man, publicly hangs and tosses homosexuals off of buildings, is more “progressive” and “humane” than Western laws.
“In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation,” Feldman argued.
Feldman also claimed that the West “needs Shariah and Islam.”…
JIHAD WATCHhas some older article on this cat, here, and here for example. Another noteworthy questioning was by Ratliff:
Here is the FULL Republican counsel’s questioning of Turley:
In the fight between left vs right, Democrats vs Republicans, progressives vs conservatives, the sides are clear. The motives are clear. One side will say what they believe helps them the most and hurts their opponents at the same time. It may be ugly, but it’s honest (at least in their intentions if not in substance).
On Tuesday, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) laid out the Republican case against impeachment in his opening statement as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. In his statement, he did as most expected and attacked the Democrats’ case, but the real meat and potatoes from his statement came in the form of attacks against mainstream media. (NOQ REPORT)
Rep. John Ratcliffe, notes that Democrats have called Trump’s conduct “bribery” and then pulls out a mountain of papers of deposition transcripts. He says at no point have witnesses described his conduct as “bribery” in the last six weeks. He says the word appears only once — and that’s in relation to former Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged conduct.
Here’s a few notable clips from this evening’s hearing, the first of which is both Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker agreeing that Zelensky had no idea that the Ukraine ad was being held up at the time of the July 25th phone call…
Volker also testified that there was no quid pro quo or ‘bribery’, as they are now calling it:
And finally, Morrison, who was listening in on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky says nothing concerned him about the call:
Remember, just like in Clinton’s case… the impeachment fortified his popularity with the people. SO TO is this happening (as predicted) with Trump… already his popularity is up 4-points. And it is rooted in people seeing the following ass-whoopin’ by the GOP on Democratic shenanigans. NUNES hits another one out of the ballpark. House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes makes his opening statement during the second public impeachment hearing.
30-second tear-down (GOP setting records):
In 30 seconds, @RepChrisStewart got the answers that House Democrats have spent 7 hours trying to avoid.
…Stefanik points out that Yovanovitch testified that she participated in practice confirmation hearings in the Obama administration, taking practice questions specifically regarding Hunter Biden being hired on Burisma’s board.
Stefanik then drops her payload:
“So for the millions of Americans watching, President Obama’s own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation. And yet our Democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask that same question that the Obama state department was so concerned about.”
So there you go. It was a huge concern for Obama’s own state department but nobody else is allowed to bring it up? And remember, this ‘prepping’ was well before Biden’s infamous comments on it that gave life to Republican concerns about it.
Levin responded to Stefanik’s testimony this way:
BOOM! Stefanik just destroyed the Democrat narrative and these hearings. BUT the media will continue with their Democrat Party propaganda
Early on in her testimony, she stated under oath that the issue of Hunter Biden and Burisma was never brought up to her by the previous administration. Later, though, Rep. Stefanik finally got to ask some questions and that’s where things went off the rails. Under intense questioning, including reading of her prior closed-door testimony, Yovanovitch was forced to admit that the previous administration had indeed brought up the Biden/Burisma issue to her.
And lest someone argue it may have been a forgettable affair, it wasn’t just in passing. The Obama officials prepping her were apparently so concerned about the issue being raised that it was part of her mock Q and A to get ready for her nomination hearing. These are issues she studied up on and she clearly was aware that the previous administration had briefed her on the matter. Yet, we see her pretty clearly lie about it early on in today’s hearing, only admitting it after being pressed with her prior testimony.
That sure sounds like perjury to me….
The DAILY WIRE also notes the discrepancy in testimony:
…Yet, earlier during the hearing Yovanovitch gave what appeared to be contradictory remarks.
Yovanovitch said, “And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.”
WOW! And this may not be the only time — unfortunately (FEDERALIST):
Yovanovitch Emailed With Dem Staffer After Whistleblower Complaint, Contradicting Under-Oath Testimony: What makes the email particularly unsettling is that it indicates former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch possibly committed perjury during her ‘impeachment inquiry’ deposition, where he was questioned under oath.
(1) Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) admonished former special counsel Robert Mueller for not following the regulations by writing about decisions that weren’t reached.
(2)Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, pushed back on former special counsel Robert Mueller’s characterization that his investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice did not “exonerate” the president. “There is no power or authority to exonerate,” Turner said in the July 24 hearing with Mueller, pointing out that “exonerate” is not a legal term.
…Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the DOJ and FBI ‘soft coup’ attempt headed by Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Ratcliffe also discusses the outlook with newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr and what actions he hopes AG Barr will take in the wake of mounting evidence that Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and former Acting AG Sally Yates were coordinating an effort to remove President Donald Trump.
With the recent no-show of the guy who set-up Hillary’s server, and the pleading of the fifth by her people… the pressure is back on Comey and what they hell he even does at the FBI.
FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements. Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can’t believe how an indictment wasn’t warranted.
What I find interesting is the fact that the FBI is not saying who at the FBI is authorizing the release of the documents, but then Comey gets raked over the coals again. Why is the FBI even leaking these documents when they know it is going to further discredit them. Something just doesn’t make sense. There must be something significant going on behind the scenes. Like I said before, it appears that Hillary is being thrown under the bus.
The hearing was about 4 hours. They used the usually 5min rule back and forth across party lines. I edited down to 22min picking what I thought was the most relevant testimony from the usual dynamic characters. Ratcliffe was a surprise. Don’t know much about him, but he was fun to watch!