On Sunday, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” with host Dana Bash to discuss the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Bash first asked Meadows if it was “appropriate” that “the president asked a leader of a foreign country to investigate his political rival.”
Meadows countered Bash’s premise, saying that Trump “didn&#8217;t do that &#8230; he talked about investigations.” The congressman then pointed to the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
Bash and Meadows then engaged in a back-and-forth about the context of what was said in the transcript, with Meadows maintaining that the president didn’t do anything wrong, while shifting the focus onto former Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
<blockquote>BASH: I just want to ask about this – just the appropriateness of asking regardless.
MEADOWS: The appropriateness of making sure that an investigation of anyone who had wrongdoing – we know that Joe Biden was involved with Ukraine, dozens of contacts with Ukraine. At a minimum, he should have recused himself from anything that related to his son. And I think you can agree with that.</blockquote>
Bash then asked Meadows about the way some of his colleagues in the House of Representatives have attempted to defend the president.
<blockquote>BASH: Your fellow Republican Congressman Mac Thornberry said that July 25 phone call, which I just read to you, where he asked to look into it, was inappropriate. Republican Congressman Mike Turner said it was alarming and not okay.
MEADOWS: Yeah.
BASH: They&#8217;re wrong?
MEADOWS: They are wrong. Listen, with all due respect to my two colleagues, I was in the deposition, over 100 hours, and myself, Jim Jordan, Adam Schiff are the only three that I know of that actually attended everything.
And when you look at the context of that, when you look at actually what happened – let&#8217;s talk to Ambassador Volker, who knows more than anyone else what happened and what didn&#8217;t happen. And yet somehow they wanted to dismiss this? Or let&#8217;s go to President Zelensky. Are you saying that he&#8217;s lying, that somehow he &#8230; is saying that he wasn&#8217;t pressured, that somehow he&#8217;s lying?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
“He didn’t do that. I don’t agree with your premise.” — <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepMarkMeadows</a> on President Trump asking the President of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. “Are you suggesting that someone who runs for President shouldn’t be investigated?” <a href="https://t.co/hiwZnb3lxU">https://t.co/hiwZnb3lxU</a> <a href="https://t.co/wJZPDzY5cC">pic.twitter.com/wJZPDzY5cC</a>
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1203681174029262850?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
On November 10, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” where he was asked about the impeachment process.
When host Martha Raddatz asked how one can “defend against the substance,” Thornberry replied:
<blockquote>I believe that it is inappropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival. Now that leads to a question, if there’s a political rival with a family member who’s involved in questionable activity, what do you do? Just let them alone. But set that aside. I believe it was inappropriate. I do not believe it was impeachable. And process – you know, you all always want to say substance, not process. There’s a reason we let murderers and robbers and rapists go free when their due process rights have been violated. We believe the integrity of the system, the integrity of the constitution, the integrity of the processes under our legal system, is more important than the outcome of one particular case. So, I don’t think you can sweep process under the rug, because it is part of an impeachment decision, which has a constitutional requirement: bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors, but also a political element about whether it’s good for the country to pursue it under these circumstances…</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@martharaddatz</a> presses Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Mac Thornberry on the Republican strategy to manage the substance of allegations in the impeachment inquiry: &#8220;I believe it was inappropriate, I do not believe it was impeachable.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/kLSp2fgDiG">https://t.co/kLSp2fgDiG</a> <a href="https://t.co/iA9seNehYW">pic.twitter.com/iA9seNehYW</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1193535609299558402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
On November 17, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) appeared on “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper.
Tapper laid out the allegations against the president, such as they were at the time, and asked Turner if he was troubled.
Turner replied:
<blockquote>Well, of course, all of that is alarming. And as I have said from the beginning, I think this is not okay. The President of the United States shouldn&#8217;t even, in the original phone call, be on the phone with the president of another country and raise his political opponent. So, no, this is not okay.</blockquote>
Turner then defended the president:
<blockquote>But if you look at Sondland&#8217;s testimony, which is also public, he says that the direction that he received from the United States was “no quid pro quo,” and that, in fact, that he said he wants nothing. He just wants him to do the right thing.
So, Sondland actually testified. And this is the first time, by the way, that you have direct testimony of someone speaking to the president and relating what the president has said. And what he says directly contradicts &#8230; these statements that are largely hearsay, of someone saying, “I heard from someone else who heard from someone else.” When you ask Sondland – and you have got his testimony &#8230; he actually says, I was told by the president of the United States: I want nothing, no quid pro quo. I just want him to do the right thing.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8220;Well, of course, all of that is alarming. As I&#8217;ve said from the beginning, this is not okay,&#8221; GOP Rep. Mike Turner says of Ex-NSC official Tim Morrison&#8217;s testimony on the Ukraine scandal <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CNNSOTU?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CNNSOTU</a><a href="https://t.co/Huku07KLYt">https://t.co/Huku07KLYt</a> <a href="https://t.co/ZrT3OjzS1q">pic.twitter.com/ZrT3OjzS1q</a>
— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNSotu/status/1196070934957957121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 17, 2019</a></blockquote>

Rep. Mark Meadows.

WATCH: Rep. Meadows Says Colleagues Are ‘Wrong’ To Say Trump’s Phone Call Was Inappropriate

Donald Trump

Impeachment

Mark Meadows

Ukraine

President Trump&#8217;s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently traveled to Ukraine, and the president says &#8220;I hear he&#8217;s found plenty.&#8221;
Ukraine is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry into Trump, who, Democrats say, asked the Ukrainian president for a &#8220;favor:&#8221; investigating a state natural gas company there connected to Joe and Hunter Biden.
Trump told reporters on Saturday that Giuliani&#8217;s trip was successful and that the former New York City mayor is &#8220;going to make a report, I think to the attorney general and to Congress. He says he has a lot of good information.&#8221;
&#8220;I have not spoken to him about that information yet,&#8221; Trump added. “He has not told me what he found, but I think he wants to go before Congress and also to the attorney general and the Department of Justice. I hear he has found plenty.”
The president was also asked about choosing not to participate in Monday&#8217;s impeachment hearing. He responded as he has in the past &#8212; that he discussed the option with several parties &#8212;  but said that &#8220;nothing came out of the conversation.&#8221;
“The impeachment thing is a total hoax,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;The numbers have totally swung our way. They don’t want to see impeachment. Especially in the swing states they’ve swung our way. I’ve never seen a swing like this. Because people realize it’s a total hoax. We had a perfect conversation. It was only a conversation. Nothing came out of the conversation, except for the relationship with Ukraine. And the people see that it’s just a continuation of this three-year witch. And I’m looking forward to seeing the IG report. I hear they’re announcing it on Monday. And I look forward very much to seeing what happens with the Durham report, maybe even more importantly. Because it’s a horrible thing that took place, and it should never happen to another president.”
Giuliani reportedly traveled to Hungary and Ukraine last week for meetings, according to The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/giuliani-europe-impeachment.html">New York Times</a>. The Times reports that he met with former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko in Budapest on Tuesday, then met with several former Ukrainian prosecutors in Kiev later in the week.
&#8220;What Mr. Giuliani is doing at this point is still confidential and is for the sole purpose of proving his clients innocence. In doing so he will prove that this latest farce is even more baseless and malicious than the first attempted coup takedown. Once all individuals have returned safely to the United States, we will reveal the significant witnesses involved,&#8221; a spokeswoman for Giuliani told <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/06/politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-trump-rivals/index.html">CNN</a> in a statement.
<div class="zn-body__paragraph speakable">&#8220;Andriy Telizhenko, a former Ukrainian diplomat and associate of Giuliani, wrote on Twitter Friday that Giuliani was &#8216;prepping for tomorrow another hard working day&#8217; meeting former Ukrainian prosecutors Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin,&#8221; CNN reported. &#8220;To all conspiracy theorist there is no secret on what we are doing,&#8221; Telizhenko wrote. &#8220;The TRUTH will come out. God Bless Ukraine and God Bless the United States of America.&#8221;</div>
<div>
On Friday, Giuliani suggested that the United States and Ukraine launch “a large scale joint investigation” into corruption in their countries.“In reviewing my notes, it seems to me that a large scale joint investigation into Ukraine and the US would uncover and recover billions stolen by crooks, from both countries, at the highest levels,” Giuliani wrote on Twitter. “This would be the most effective way to bring our two countries together.”
</div>

Republican presidential elect Donald Trump at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in Bedminster Township, N.J.

&#8216;I Hear He&#8217;s Found Plenty&#8217;: Trump Says Giuliani&#8217;s Recent Trip To Ukraine Was Fruitful

Rudy Giuliani

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz built on his reputation for being a thorn in the Democrats&#8217; side during the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings on Wednesday. Among several moments that ended up generating some buzz online is a question Gaetz asked the expert witnesses invited to testify Wednesday that drove home a larger point that Republicans have been making all along.
&#8220;So let&#8217;s see if we can get into the fact,&#8221; said Gaetz. &#8220;To all of the witnesses: If you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff report, please raise your hand.&#8221;
After none of the witnesses — a collection of law professors, only one of which was called by Republicans — raised their hand, Gaetz said, &#8220;And let the record reflect: no personal knowledge of a single fact.&#8221;
The fiery congressman then got to his point: &#8220;And you know what, that continues on the tradition that we saw from [Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff. Where Ambassador [William] Taylor could not identify an impeachable offense. Mr. [George] Kent never met with the president. Fiona Hill never heard the president reference anything regarding military aid [to Ukraine], Mr. [David] Hale was unaware of any nefarious activity with aid, Colonel [Alexander] Vindman even rejected the new Democrat talking point that &#8216;bribery&#8217; was invoked here. Ambassador [Kurt] Volker denied that there was a &#8216;quid pro quo.&#8217; Mr. [Tim] Morrison said there was nothing wrong on the call.&#8221;
&#8220;The only direct evidence came from Gordon Sondland, who spoke to the President of the United States, and the president said, &#8216;I want nothing, no quid pro quo.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;To all of the witnesses: if you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff report, please raise your hand.&quot;
*silence*<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachmentHearing?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachmentHearing</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachingHearings?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachingHearings</a> <a href="https://t.co/KPfpX6NcUg">pic.twitter.com/KPfpX6NcUg</a>
&mdash; Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1202340270743969792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As Gaetz points out, Sondland, the only witness who presented first-hand testimony about Trump&#8217;s orders on the Ukraine aid and investigations, testified during the Schiff-led inquiry that during a call with Trump in which he asked for clarity about his directives on the U.S. military aid to Ukraine, Trump made clear that he wants &#8220;nothing,&#8221; &#8220;no quid pro quo&#8221; — only that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky &#8220;do the right thing.&#8221;
&#8220;It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,&#8221; Sondland told the committee. &#8220;So I typed out a text to Ambassador Taylor and my reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay I’ve gone as far as I can go. This is the final word that I heard from the president of the United States.&#8221;
Gaetz&#8217; &#8220;raise your hand&#8221; moment was highlighted by the White House, which tweeted out a clip of the exchange. &#8220;Democrats are calling as witnesses the kind of people who would name the minor child of the President as a punchline in a committee hearing,&#8221; the White House wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Democrats are calling as witnesses the kind of people who would name the minor child of the President as a punchline in a committee hearing. <a href="https://t.co/lyqRxVXKsD">pic.twitter.com/lyqRxVXKsD</a>
&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1202342398455635968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Gaetz&#8217; fellow congressman Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) also pointed out the moment.
&#8220;As [Rep. Matt Gaetz] exposed, all 3 of the Democrats&#8217; witnesses have NO personal knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff Report &#8211; and all 3 have comments or contributions in their history that call their objectivity into question,&#8221; wrote Biggs, along with a clip of Gaetz&#8217;s &#8220;no personal knowledge of a single fact&#8221; comments. &#8220;This is a complete sham.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepMattGaetz</a> exposed, all 3 of the Democrats&#39; witnesses have NO personal knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff Report &#8211; and all 3 have comments or contributions in their history that call their objectivity into question.
This is a complete sham. <a href="https://t.co/sw0gYjqvKm">pic.twitter.com/sw0gYjqvKm</a>
&mdash; Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1202334615102480385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As noted by <a href="https://pjmedia.com/trending/rep-matt-gaetz-just-brought-a-blow-torch-to-the-impeachment-hearings-and-set-a-glorious-bonfire/">PJ Media</a>, Gaetz&#8217;s &#8220;raise your hand&#8221; moment was not his only memorable comments of the hearings Wednesday. &#8220;His questioning also saw Karlan explain that she’d given more money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign because &#8216;I&#8217;ve been giving to a lot of charities recently because of all the poor people in the United States.'&#8221;
Gaetz also called out Stanford University Professor Pamela Karlan for using Trump&#8217;s 13-year-old son as a punchline during her testimony.
&#8220;So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,&#8221; quipped Karlan in a line that resulted in instant <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-impeachment-witness-pamela-karlan-takes-a-shot-at-barron-trump">blowback</a>, including from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-melania-responds-to-democrat-impeachment-witness-taking-shot-at-barron">First Lady Melania Trump</a>.
&#8220;When you invoke the president’s son’s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument — it makes you look mean,&#8221; Gaetz told the professor.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;When you invoke the president’s son’s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument- it makes you look mean.&quot;<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachmentHearing?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachmentHearing</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachingHearings?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachingHearings</a> <a href="https://t.co/tHk3mcBioH">pic.twitter.com/tHk3mcBioH</a>
&mdash; Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1202338642334830594?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-to-democrats-if-youre-going-to-impeach-me-do-it-now-fast">Trump Has Taunting Message For Democrats After ‘Historically Bad’ Hearing: ‘Do It Now, Fast’</a>

Matt Gaetz

WATCH: Republican’s ‘Raise Your Hand’ Question At Impeachment Hearing Goes Viral

In a lengthy report published Tuesday that peels back the curtain on the Trump administration&#8217;s &#8220;Ukraine pressure campaign,&#8221; <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-ukraine-pressure-campaign-began-as-an-effort-to-undercut-the-mueller-investigation/2019/12/02/208204c8-12c9-11ea-9cd7-a1becbc82f5e_story.html">The Washington Post</a> ends up undermining the Democrats&#8217; attempts to focus public attention on President Trump&#8217;s request for Ukraine to &#8220;look into&#8221; his political opponent, rather than his attempt to prompt an investigation into alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. What actually fueled the pressure campaign, which was headed up by Trump&#8217;s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the Post details, was a desire to prove that special counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s &#8220;Russian collusion&#8221; investigation was based on false premises.
&#8220;As 2018 came to a close, the special counsel investigation was bearing down on President Trump,&#8221; the Post&#8217;s latest Ukraine-themed report begins. &#8220;Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III had secured the cooperation of Trump’s onetime fixer, Michael Cohen, and appeared to be preparing to indict a longtime adviser, Roger Stone. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was in jail after pleading guilty to multiple felonies, and Mueller’s prosecutors were pressing him to explain why he had given 2016 polling data to an associate with alleged ties to Russian intelligence.&#8221;
<div class="remainder-content">
<section>
<div>
&#8220;It was in this uncertain moment that Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani said he had the idea to focus on Ukraine,&#8221; the Post continues. &#8220;That November, he received a tip from a former colleague that it was the Ukrainians who had conspired to help Democrats in 2016, Giuliani said in recent interviews.&#8221;
As the Post highlights, Giuliani has openly explained this rationale, including in a recent interview with Glenn Beck. &#8220;I knew they were hot and heavy on this Russian collusion thing, even though I knew 100 percent that it was false,&#8221; said Giuliani. &#8220;I said to myself, ‘Hallelujah.’ I’ve got what a defense lawyer always wants: I can go prove someone else committed this crime.&#8221;
Giuliani made a similar statement in a tweet last month. &#8220;The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproved,&#8221; he wrote.
&#8220;Giuliani’s efforts to undermine the special counsel probe eventually snowballed into the current impeachment crisis gripping the capital — highlighting how the pressure Trump and his allies put on Ukraine originated as an effort to sow doubts about the Russia investigation,&#8221; the Post explains.
While the Post does its best to make Trump&#8217;s attempts to &#8220;sow doubts&#8221; about the Russian investigation sound insidious, as Mueller himself was forced to admit in the final report, the Democrat-pushed narrative that Trump&#8217;s campaign somehow &#8220;colluded&#8221; with the Russians turned out to be baseless. After a two-year investigation costing over $30 million, the special counsel revealed in its final report that &#8220;the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.&#8221;
The Post&#8217;s report on team Trump&#8217;s belief that Ukraine was really the culprit in 2016 election meddling aligns with other evidence, including Mueller investigation <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/newly-released-mueller-docs-trump-campaign-thought-ukrainians-not-russians-behind-democrat-email-hacks-trump-get-emails">documents</a> released in early November focusing on the special counsel&#8217;s interview in May 2018 with former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates. Trump advisers, said Gates, believed the hacking of the Democratic emails ultimately published by WikiLeaks was &#8220;likely carried about by the Ukrainians, not the Russians,&#8221; and that &#8220;the Democrats were pushing the Russia narrative&#8221; presumably for political purposes.
Trump has reiterated both publicly and privately his belief that corruption has plagued Ukraine. In a recent tweet, Trump explained his rationale for delaying U.S. security aid. &#8220;I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, [and] I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren’t putting up money also,&#8221; Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-heres-the-real-reason-i-held-back-money-from-ukraine-blocked-impeachment-testimony">tweeted</a> last week.
Fueled by this belief that Ukraine was corrupt and in part by his desire to undermine the premises of the Mueller investigation, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 — &#8220;<a title="www.washingtonpost.com" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-reveals-a-president-convinced-of-his-own-invincibility/2019/09/21/1a56466c-dc6a-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html?tid=lk_inline_manual_16">the very day after Mueller testified </a>before Congress,&#8221; as the Post notes — to investigate alleged Ukrainian meddling.
“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it,” Trump told Zelensky, as revealed in the transcript of the famous July 25 call. “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
As almost an afterthought, Trump also asked Zelensky to &#8220;look into&#8221; allegations of corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and Ukrainian-based energy company Burisma Holdings.
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that,” Trump said. “So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”
</div>
<div>
<div class="cb bg-offwhite mt-xxs pad-top-md pad-bottom-md mb-lg ml-neg-gutter mr-neg-gutter mr-auto-ns ml-auto-ns dn db-ns relative" data-qa="article-body-ad">
<div class="relative z-1">
<div class=" ">
<div class="teads-inread teads-display sm-screen">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
While the Post makes sure to highlight criticism about the Crowdstrike &#8220;conspiracy theory&#8221; that partly motivated Trump&#8217;s camp, the evidence is clear that the desire to undercut the Mueller &#8220;Russia collusion&#8221; investigation by exposing alleged Ukrainian involvement in election meddling was what was truly fueling the Giuliani-led effort to &#8220;pressure&#8221; Ukraine, not Trump&#8217;s desire to take out his potential 2020 political rival.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>
<div class="mb-lg pad-bottom-xs pad-top-xs" data-qa="comments-btn">
<div class="comments btn btn-white db hide-for-print"></div>
</div>

Washington Post: Trump Effort To Pressure Ukraine Was Really About Undermining Mueller, Not Biden

Trump Administration

Washington Post

On Monday, House Republicans released a 123-page report walking through all the key evidence presented after several weeks of closed-door interviews and public testimonies of witnesses. The Democrats, the Republicans maintain, not only failed to make their case that President Trump committed an impeachable offense, they abused their power in the process.
&#8220;The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system,&#8221; the Republican report reads. It states:
<blockquote>The Democrats are trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes. They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats were discomforted by an elected President’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats chafed at an elected President’s &#8216;outside the beltway&#8217; approach to diplomacy.</blockquote>
&#8220;The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, is merely the outgrowth of their obsession with re-litigating the results of the 2016 presidential election,&#8221; Republicans maintain. &#8220;Despite their best efforts, the evidence gathered during the Democrats’ partisan and one-sided impeachment inquiry does not support that President Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival to benefit the President in the 2020 presidential election. The evidence does not establish any impeachable offense.&#8221;
In the Findings section of the report, the Republicans detail the key evidence and context they say the Democrats are attempting to downplay or outright ignore to make their ultimately &#8220;failed&#8221; case for impeachment:
FINDINGS
Democrats allege that President Trump pressured Ukraine to initiate investigations into his political rival, former Vice President Biden, for the purpose of benefiting the President in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The evidence does not support the Democrats’ allegations. Instead, the findings outlined below are based on the evidence presented and information available in the public realm.
<ul>
<li>President Trump has a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.</li>
<li>President Trump has a long-held skepticism of U.S. foreign assistance and believes that Europe should pay its fair share for mutual defense.</li>
<li>President Trump’s concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board are valid. The Obama State Department noted concerns about Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma in 2015 and 2016.</li>
<li>There is indisputable evidence that senior Ukrainian government officials opposed President Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 election and did so publicly. It has been publicly reported that a Democratic National Committee operative worked with Ukrainian officials, including the Ukrainian Embassy, to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump.</li>
<li>The evidence does not establish that President Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election for the purpose of benefiting him in the 2020 election.</li>
<li>The evidence does not establish that President Trump withheld a meeting with President Zelensky for the purpose of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.</li>
<li>The evidence does not support that President Trump withheld U.S. security assistance to Ukraine for the purpose of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.</li>
<li>The evidence does not support that President Trump orchestrated a shadow foreign policy apparatus for the purpose of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.</li>
<li>The evidence does not support that President Trump covered up the substance of his telephone conversation with President Zelensky by restricting access to the call summary.</li>
<li>President Trump’s assertion of longstanding claims of executive privilege is a legitimate response to an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.</li>
</ul>
Below is the full text of the report&#8217;s Executive Summary (footnotes removed).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 8, 2016, nearly 63 million Americans from around the country chose Donald J. Trump to be the 45th President of the United States. Now, less than a year before the next presidential election, 231 House Democrats in Washington, D.C., are trying to undo the will of the American people. As one Democrat admitted, the pursuit of this extreme course of action is because they want to stop President Trump’s re-election.
Democrats in the House of Representatives have been working to impeach President Trump since his election. Democrats introduced four separate resolutions in 2017 and 2018 seeking to impeach President Trump. In January 2019, on their first day in power, House Democrats again introduced articles of impeachment. That same day, a newly elected Congresswoman promised to an audience of her supporters, “we’re going to go in there and we’re going to impeach the [expletive deleted].” Her comments are not isolated. Speaker Nancy Pelosi called President Trump “an impostor” and said it is “dangerous” to allow American voters to evaluate his performance in 2020.
The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system. The Democrats are trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes. They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats were discomforted by an elected President’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They are trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats chafed at an elected President’s “outside the beltway” approach to diplomacy.
The sum and substance of the Democrats’ case for impeachment is that President Trump abused his authority to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, President Trump’s potential political rival, for President Trump’s benefit in the 2020 election. Democrats say this pressure campaign encompassed leveraging a White House meeting and the release of U.S. security assistance to force the Ukrainian President to succumb to President Trump’s political wishes. Democrats say that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the President’s personal attorney, and a “shadow” group of U.S. officials conspired to benefit the President politically.
The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.
The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump pressured President Zelensky to initiate investigations for the purpose of benefiting the President in the 2020 election. The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump covered up the summary of his phone conversation with President Zelensky. The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump obstructed the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
At the heart of the matter, the impeachment inquiry involves the actions of only two people: President Trump and President Zelensky. The summary of their July 25, 2019, telephone conversation shows no quid pro quo or indication of conditionality, threats, or pressure—much less evidence of bribery or extortion. The summary reflects laughter, pleasantries, and cordiality. President Zelensky has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure. President Trump has said publicly and repeatedly that he exerted no pressure.
Even examining evidence beyond the presidential phone call shows no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of power. The evidence shows that President Trump holds a deepseated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption. The President has also been vocal about his skepticism of U.S. foreign aid and the need for European allies to shoulder more of the financial burden for regional defense. Senior Ukrainian officials under former President Petro Poroshenko publicly attacked then-candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign—including some senior Ukrainian officials who remained in their positions after President Zelensky’s term began. All of these factors bear on the President’s state of mind and help to explain the President’s actions toward Ukraine and President Zelensky.
Understood in this proper context, the President’s initial hesitation to meet with President Zelensky or to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent. Ultimately, President Zelensky took decisive action demonstrating his commitment to promoting reform, combatting corruption, and replacing Poroshenko-era holdovers with new leadership in his Administration. President Trump then released security assistance to Ukraine and met with President Zelensky in September 2019—all without Ukraine taking any action to investigate President Trump’s political rival.
House Democrats allege that Ukraine felt pressure to bend to the President’s political will, but the evidence shows a different reality. Ukraine felt good about its relationship with the United States in the early months of the Zelensky Administration, having had several high-level meetings with senior U.S. officials between July and September. Although U.S. security assistance was temporarily paused, the U.S. government did not convey the pause to the Ukrainians because U.S. officials believed the pause would get worked out and, if publicized, may be mischaracterized as a shift in U.S. policy towards Ukraine. U.S. officials said that the Ukrainian government in Kyiv never knew the aid was delayed until reading about it in the U.S. media. Ambassador Kurt Volker, the key American interlocutor trusted by the Ukrainian government, said the Ukrainians never raised concerns to him until after the pause became public in late August.
The Democrats’ impeachment narrative ignores Ukraine’s dramatic transformation in its fight against endemic corruption. President Trump was skeptical of Ukrainian corruption and his Administration sought proof that newly-elected President Zelensky was a true reformer. And after winning a parliamentary majority, the new Zelensky administration took rapid strides to crack down on corruption. Several high-level U.S. officials observed firsthand these anticorruption achievements in Kyiv, and the security assistance was released soon afterward.
The Democrats’ impeachment narrative also ignores President Trump’s steadfast support for Ukraine in its war against Russian occupation. Several of the Democrats’ witnesses described how President Trump’s policies toward Ukraine to combat Russian aggression have been substantially stronger than those of President Obama—then under the stewardship of Vice President Biden. Where President Obama and Vice President Biden gave the Ukrainians nightvision goggles and blankets, the Trump Administration provided the Ukrainians with lethal defensive assistance, including Javelin anti-tank missiles.
The Democrats nonetheless tell a story of an illicit pressure campaign run by President Trump through his personal attorney, Mayor Giuliani, to coerce Ukraine to investigate the President’s political rival by withholding a meeting and security assistance. There is, however, no direct, firsthand evidence of any such scheme. The Democrats are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions, and speculation—all of which are reflected in the anonymous whistleblower complaint that sparked this inquiry. The Democrats’ narrative is so dependent on speculation that one Democrat publicly justified hearsay as “better” than direct evidence. Where there are ambiguous facts, the Democrats interpret them in a light most unfavorable to the President. In the absence of real evidence, the Democrats appeal to emotion—evaluating how unelected bureaucrats felt about the events in question.
The fundamental disagreement apparent in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is a difference of world views and a discomfort with President Trump’s policy decisions. To the extent that some unelected bureaucrats believed President Trump had established an “irregular” foreign policy apparatus, it was because they were not a part of that apparatus. There is nothing illicit about three senior U.S. officials—each with official interests relating to Ukraine—shepherding the U.S.-Ukraine relationship and reporting their actions to State Department and NSC leadership. There is nothing inherently improper with Mayor Giuliani’s involvement as well because the Ukrainians knew that he was a conduit to convince President Trump that President Zelensky was serious about reform.
There is also nothing wrong with asking serious questions about the presence of Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, on the board of directors of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian company, or about Ukraine’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Biden’s Burisma has an international reputation as a corrupt company. As far back as 2015, the Obama State Department had concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Ukrainian anticorruption activists noted concerns as well. Publicly available—and irrefutable—evidence shows how senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President Trump’s candidacy, and that some in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington worked with a Democrat operative to achieve that goal. While Democrats reflexively dismiss these truths as conspiracy theories, the facts are indisputable and bear heavily on the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
In our system of government, power resides with the American people, who delegate executive power to the President through an election once every four years. Unelected officials and career bureaucrats assist in the execution of the laws. The unelected bureaucracy exists to serve the elected representatives of the American people. The Democrats’ impeachment narrative flips our system on its head in service of their political ambitions.
The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, is merely the outgrowth of their obsession with re-litigating the results of the 2016 presidential election. Despite their best efforts, the evidence gathered during the Democrats’ partisan and one-sided impeachment inquiry does not support that President Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival to benefit the President in the 2020 presidential election. The evidence does not establish any impeachable offense.
But that is not for Democrats’ want of trying.
For the first phase of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, Chairman Schiff led the inquiry from his Capitol basement bunker, preventing transparency on the process and accountability for his actions. Because the fact-finding was unclassified, the closed-door process was purely for information control. This arrangement allowed Chairman Schiff—who had already publicly fabricated evidence and misled Americans about his interaction with the anonymous whistleblower—to selectively leak information to paint misleading public narratives, while simultaneously imposing a gag rule on Republican members. From his basement bunker,
Chairman Schiff provided no due process protections for the President and he directed witnesses called by the Democrats not to answer Republican questions. Chairman Schiff also ignored Republican requests to secure the testimony of the anonymous whistleblower, despite promising earlier that the whistleblower would provide “unfiltered testimony.”
When the Democrats emerged from the bunker for the public phase of their impeachment inquiry, Chairman Schiff continued to deny fundamental fairness and minority rights. Chairman Schiff interrupted Republican Members and directed witnesses not to answer Republican questions. Chairman Schiff refused to allow Republicans to exercise the limited procedural rights afforded to them. Chairman Schiff rejected witnesses identified by Republicans who would inject some semblance of fairness and objectivity. Chairman Schiff denied Republican subpoenas for testimony and documents, violating the Democrats’ own rules to vote down these subpoenas with no notice to Republicans.
Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, and House Democrats seek to impeach President Trump—not because they have proof of a high crime or misdemeanor, but because they disagreed with the President’s actions and his policies. But in our system of government, the President is accountable to the American people. The accountability to the American people comes at the ballot box, not in House Democrats’ star chamber.
<a href="https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6564763-2019-12-02-Report-of-Evidence-in-the-Democrats">Read the full report here</a>.

President Trump

GOP Impeachment Report: Here’s All The Evidence Democrats Are Ignoring

Adam Schiff

Republican Party

Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI) told a group of reporters on Monday that politicians routinely engage in what she claimed was a &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying that the difference was that they did not do so for alleged personal gain.
MLive <a href="https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2019/12/slotkin-undecided-on-whether-trump-should-face-impeachment-censure.html?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=mlive_sf&amp;utm_source=twitter">quoted</a> Slotkin as saying, “We always do this kind of quid pro quo — to be honest, we do it — but we do it for the national security interests of the United States, not for personal or political gain.”
On whether impeachment and removal should be pursued, Slotkin said, “I think the facts should lead that conversation, not politics.”
MLive, which is a left-leaning publication, claimed that &#8220;Republicans seized&#8221; on Slotkin&#8217;s decision to pursue an impeachment inquiry in an op-ed she published alongside other freshman Democrats earlier this year, saying that it was &#8220;evidence Slotkin abandoned campaign promises to govern from the center.&#8221;
Slotkin&#8217;s claim that the president engaged in a quid pro quo has largely not be substantiated thus far in Democrats&#8217; public impeachment hearings as multiple witnesses, including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEyaUW9UvAY&amp;feature=youtu.be">Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1196955065782800385">Senior NSC official Tim Morrison</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1196955065782800385">Ambassador Kurt Volker</a>, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ambassador-sondland-strikes-at-democrats-impeachment-narrative-trump-told-me-he-wanted-no-quid-pro-quo">Ambassador</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rep-mike-turner-gets-witness-to-admit-bombshell-debunks-cnn-headline-in-real-time">Gordon Sondland</a> all testified that there was no quid pro quo during the phone call.
Furthermore, additional details that have come out about the timeline of the U.S. aid to Ukraine being withheld <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/dates-of-omb-staff-resignations-undermine-link-to-ukraine-aid-hold">undermine</a> the notion that it was being withheld for personal gain by Trump.
Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who is Vice President Mike Pence’s National Security Adviser, released a statement last week stating that he was on the call and nothing improper took place.
“I was on the much-reported July 25 call between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky,” Kellogg <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-lt-general-in-white-house-releases-statement-on-trump-ukraine-call">wrote</a>. “As an exceedingly proud member of President Trump’s Administration and as a 34-year highly experienced combat veteran who retired with the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army, I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns.”
Democrats have increasingly started to hesitate on the issue of impeachment as they worry about the political ramifications that come with the politically polarizing procedure.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-warns-party-not-to-impeach-trump-because-of-who-gop-will-nominate-in-2020">warned</a> his party during a CNN interview on Monday that if they removed Trump, the GOP would nominate a much more difficult candidate to beat in 2020.
“I do think that it’s the right thing to do to remove him from office. I believe he is an imminent danger to this country and to our democracy, but I was saying that the political consequences may not be very good for the Democrats,” Yarmuth said. “I will guarantee you the Republican Party would not nominate Mike Pence to succeed him. They would nominate someone like Nikki Haley who would be much more difficult for Democrats to defeat.”
In an interview on Sunday, Democratic Congressman Jefferson Van Drew <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-warns-party-not-to-impeach-trump-because-of-who-gop-will-nominate-in-2020">said</a> that he opposed impeachment because “to some folks, that’s reminiscent of what was done to kings and queens many years ago. Everything our country doesn’t stand for.”
Late last month, Democrat Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tide-turning-on-impeachment-as-democrat-congresswoman-flips-i-dont-see-the-value-of-kicking-him-out-of-office">said</a>, “You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president. We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here, knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of kicking him out of office, but I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.”

Elissa Slotkin

Democrat Elissa Slotkin On Trump’s Ukraine Call: ‘We Always Do This Kind Of Quid Pro Quo, To Be Honest, We Do It’

In the initial disclosure form submitted to the intelligence community inspector general, the whistleblower behind the complaint that sparked the Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry failed to include key information about his/her contact with the office of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), who is heading up the inquiry.
While CBS News first reported on the missing information on the disclosure form on November 22, CBS Senior Investigative Correspondent Catherine Herridge&#8217;s tweet Monday highlighting blank sections in the form requiring &#8220;a detailed accounting of who is aware of the complaint&#8221; has drawn renewed <a href="https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/12/02/did-not-disclose-contact-catherine-herridge-highlights-literally-issue-with-whistleblowers-credibility-screenshot/">attention</a> to the issue in conservative circles online.
&#8220;As impeachment enters new phase, [whistleblower] did not initially disclose contact w/Schiff staff citing &#8216;guidance on a procedural question,&#8217; &#8216;no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed,&#8217; and &#8216;way the form question was worded,'&#8221; tweeted Herridge, noting that she highlighted the key sections that should have included detailed disclosures.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As impeachment enters new phase, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WB?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WB</a> did not initially disclose contact w/Schiff staff citing “guidance on a procedural question,” “no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed,” and “way the form question was worded.” <a href="https://t.co/WPgcbI88Ym">https://t.co/WPgcbI88Ym</a> My Sharpie. My highlighter. <a href="https://t.co/EtzuSDX87l">pic.twitter.com/EtzuSDX87l</a>
&mdash; Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1201478280257380352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In its initial report on the whistleblower&#8217;s incomplete disclosure form, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-ukraine-whistleblower-schiff-committee-contact-intel-watchdog-documents-say/">CBS News</a> reported that the whistleblower — whose name is still being withheld by officials — &#8220;reached out to the intelligence community watchdog on October 8 to clarify the nature of his or her contact with Democratic majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee before the complaint was filed.&#8221;
The whistleblower claimed that he/she left a section requiring a detailed accounting of any contact with &#8220;Congress or congressional committee(s)&#8221; blank because he/she felt that since &#8220;no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed,&#8221; it was not &#8220;necessary.&#8221;
&#8220;The whistleblower acknowledged reaching out to the committee, but claimed that nothing substantial was discussed and that the staff member directed them to go through official channels, according to the &#8216;Memorandum of Investigative Activity,&#8217; provided to House and Senate Intelligence Committee leadership by intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) Michael Atkinson,&#8221; CBS reported:
<blockquote>According to the document, the whistleblower reported to the ICIG investigator that the committee staffer advised: &#8220;&#8216;Do it right, hire a lawyer, and contact the ICIG.&#8217; So that is what the COMPLAINANT did. At the time, COMPLAINANT did not even know what the ICIG was.&#8221;
The whistleblower felt that &#8220;[b]ased on getting guidance on a procedural question, and that no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed, COMPLAINANT did not feel, based on the way the form question was worded, that it was necessary to check that box.&#8221;
&#8220;That box&#8221; refers to the whistleblower disclosure form, which requires a detailed accounting of who is aware of the complaint. The box for &#8220;Congress or congressional committee(s)&#8221; was left blank by the whistleblower.</blockquote>
The contact between Schiff&#8217;s office and the whistleblower prior to the filing of the complaint that sparked the Schiff-led impeachment inquiry was first revealed by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html">The New York Times</a> six days before the whistleblower reached out to the inspector general to &#8220;clarify&#8221; about his/her contact with Schiff&#8217;s office. In the October 2 report, the Times made clear that the general nature of the complaint was conveyed to Schiff&#8217;s office and that Schiff was personally informed about the complaint by one of his aides:
<blockquote>
The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.
The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.
The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.
The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.
</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/texas-republican-schiff-is-withholding-secret-transcript-of-key-witness-interview-because-of-my-questions">Texas Republican: Schiff Is Withholding ‘Secret’ Transcript Of Key Witness Interview Because Of My Questions</a>

SEE IT: Whistleblower Failed To Disclose Contact With Schiff’s Office In Initial Complaint, CBS Reporter Highlights

Along with the transcript of the two leaders&#8217; famous July 25 call showing no &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; imposed by President Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky&#8217;s repeated <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ratcliffe-to-impeachment-witness-here-are-all-the-times-ukraines-president-said-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo">public denials</a> of any such arrangement continue to undermine the Democrats&#8217; impeachment efforts. In an <a href="https://time.com/5742108/ukraine-zelensky-interview-trump-putin-europe/">interview</a> published by Time magazine on Monday, Zelensky — even while expressing some frustration with Trump and his administration — further drove the nail in the coffin of those hoping he would somehow change his tune on &#8220;no quid pro quo.&#8221;
In a loaded question, Time reporters tried to get Zelensky to offer something incriminating about Trump&#8217;s decision to delay U.S. security aid to Ukraine. &#8220;When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trump’s decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations that Trump and his allies were asking for?&#8221; a Time reporter asked. &#8220;Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo?&#8221;
But, as he&#8217;s done consistently, Zelensky rejected any talk of the potential corruption investigations being linked to the U.S. military aid.
&#8220;Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo,&#8221; said the Ukrainian president. &#8220;That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.&#8221;
Zelensky&#8217;s &#8220;not about a quid pro quo&#8221; comment came after Time&#8217;s reporters asked impeachment-themed questions that hit on tensions between the Trump administration and Ukraine.
&#8220;[I]n the context of the impeachment inquiry, [Ambassador Kurt] Volker has left his post, as have other officials who supported Ukraine within the Trump Administration. In that context, how do you see the U.S. role in the peace process? How has it changed in the last few months, and how do you see it going forward?&#8221; Time asked.
&#8220;First off, I would never want Ukraine to be a piece on the map, on the chess board of big global players, so that someone could toss us around, use us as cover, as part of some bargain …&#8221; said Zelensky. &#8220;As for the United States, I would really want &#8212; and we feel this, it’s true &#8212; for them to help us, to understand us, to see that we are a player in our own right, that they cannot make deals about us with anyone behind our backs. Of course they help us, and I’m not just talking about technical help, military aid, financial aid. These are important things, very important things, especially right now, when we are in such a difficult position.&#8221;
He continued:
<blockquote>&#8220;The United States of America is a signal, for the world, for everyone,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;When America says, for instance, that Ukraine is a corrupt country, that is the hardest of signals. It might seem like an easy thing to say, that combination of words: Ukraine is a corrupt country. Just to say it and that’s it. But it doesn’t end there. Everyone hears that signal. Investments, banks, stakeholders, companies, American, European, companies that have international capital in Ukraine, it’s a signal to them that says, ‘Be careful, don’t invest.’ Or, ‘Get out of there.’ This is a hard signal. For me it’s very important for the United States, with all they can do for us, for them really to understand that we are a different country, that we are different people. It’s not that those things don’t exist. They do. All branches of government were corrupted over many years, and we are working to clean that up. But that signal from them is very important.&#8221;</blockquote>
Time then made a point of bringing up Trump recently describing Ukraine as &#8220;corrupt,&#8221; asking, &#8220;Do you have a plan for changing his mind?&#8221;
&#8220;I don’t need to change his mind,&#8221; said Zelensky. &#8220;During my meeting with him, I said that I don’t want our country to have this image. For that, all he has to do is come and have a look at what’s happening, how we live, what kinds of people we are. I had the sense that he heard me. I had that sense. At least during the meeting, he said, ‘Yes, I see, you’re young, you’re new, and so on.’&#8221;
The Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry was sparked by a whistleblower complaint based on second-hand knowledge of Trump&#8217;s July 25 call with Zelensky. Though Democrats have alleged that a quid pro quo was imposed by Trump, the transcript released by the administration, along with the complaint, revealed no such arrangement.
&#8220;There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that,&#8221; Trump told Zelensky during the famous call. &#8220;So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ratcliffe-to-impeachment-witness-here-are-all-the-times-ukraines-president-said-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo">WATCH: Impeachment Witness Asked About All The Times Ukraine’s President Said There Was ‘No Quid Pro Quo’</a>

Ruffalo

Even While Criticizing Trump, Ukraine President Slaps Down ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Claim

Volodymyr Zelensky

Hunter Biden, the youngest son of former Vice President Joe Biden, was &#8220;suspected of smoking crack inside a strip club where he dropped &#8216;thousands of dollars&#8217; during multiple visits,&#8221; The New York Post reported on Wednesday.
<blockquote>The incident, which took place at Archibald’s Gentlemen’s Club in Washington, DC, late last year, represents the most recent alleged drug use by Biden, 49, who has acknowledged six stints in rehab for alcoholism and addiction that included a crack binge in 2016.
Workers at Archibald’s, located about three blocks north of the White House, said Biden was a regular there, with two bartenders and a security worker all instantly recognizing his photo and one worker identifying him by name.</blockquote>
<a href="https://pagesix.com/2019/11/26/hunter-biden-suspected-of-smoking-crack-in-dc-strip-clubs-vip-room/?_ga=2.192608361.21772666.1574867121-1378737382.1574867121">Page Six</a> cited security worker Ranko Petrovic, who said Hunter Biden &#8220;would routinely hole up in a VIP room and drink during his visits.&#8221;
And Archibald’s former managing partner James Ritter said &#8220;one occasion in late 2018 was marred by a &#8216;suspicion of drug use.'&#8221;
“There was a smell of burning Styrofoam in the VIP room. We told him nothing illegal can go on here,” Ritter said. “We didn’t see anything illegal. After he was spoken to, the smell stopped.”
“VIP employees suspected it was crack,” he added, said the Post.
Biden has acknowledged a long history of illegal drug use and alcohol abuse. &#8220;Biden admitted to using crack as late as fall 2016,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hunter-biden-accused-of-smoking-crack-in-vip-strip-club-near-white-house">Washington Examiner</a> reported. &#8220;Biden said he bought the drugs off sellers working out of a homeless camp in Los Angeles, California. He was staying in the city for a week and returned to the homeless camp several times to buy drugs.&#8221;
In a divorce filing from early 2017, Kathleen Biden, who was married to Hunter Biden for 22 years, said he spent extravagantly on prostitutes and drugs.
Biden is currently married to Melissa Cohen, a 32-year-old South African filmmaker, whom he wed 10 days after meeting her. Between marriages, Biden was romantically involved with Hallie Biden, who was married to to Hunter&#8217;s brother Beau Biden before he passed away in May 2015 after battling brain cancer.
At the time of the suspected crack use at the strip club, Hunter Biden was a board member of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma, which reportedly paid him as much as $83,000 a month.
Hunter Biden in October said he did nothing wrong when he served on the board of Burisma, but acknowledged that he likely got high-paying positions on such boards because “I’m the son of the vice president of the United States.”
“If your last name wasn’t Biden, do you think you would have been asked to be on the board or Burisma?” ABC News’ Amy Robach asked.
“I don’t know, I don’t know, probably not,” Biden said. “It is impossible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I’m the son of the vice president of the United States.”
He went further, saying, “I don’t think that there’s a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn’t Biden.”

Hunter Biden

Hunter Biden ‘Suspected Of Smoking Crack Inside D.C. Strip Club,’ Report Says

Joe Biden

Citing &#8220;two people familiar with the matter,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-complaint-ukraine.html">The New York Times</a> reported Tuesday that President Trump was informed about the whistleblower&#8217;s complaint about his alleged &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; with Ukraine before he decided to release U.S. security aid to the country.
&#8220;Lawyers from the White House counsel’s office told Mr. Trump in late August about the complaint, explaining that they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to Congress, the people said,&#8221; the Times reported.
<div class="css-53u6y8">
&#8220;The revelation could shed light on Mr. Trump’s thinking at two critical points under scrutiny by impeachment investigators: his decision in early September to release $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine and his denial to a key ambassador around the same time that there was a &#8216;quid pro quo&#8217; with Kyiv. Mr. Trump used the phrase before it had entered the public lexicon in the Ukraine affair,&#8221; the Times continues.
The Times also notes that the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Trump administration &#8220;did not have to hand over the [whistleblower] complaint&#8221; due to executive privilege. Despite that ruling, Trump decided to release the full complaint along with the transcript of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, maintaining consistently that he has nothing to hide from the &#8220;perfect&#8221; call.
The Times report was published the same day that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-impeachment-witness-deposition-reveals-why-they-were-told-to-hold-ukraine-aid">transcripts</a> were released from the deposition of White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Mark Sandy which undermined the Democrats&#8217; claim that Trump was withholding the aid as an attempt to &#8220;bribe&#8221; Ukraine into investigating alleged corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
In response to being asked what explanation the White House gave OMB official Michael Duffey for why the aid to Ukraine was being delayed, Sandy said Duffy told him it was &#8220;the President’s concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.&#8221;
<div class="css-53u6y8">
Trump made a similar statement in a series of tweets on Monday, stating that he &#8220;held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, [and] I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren’t putting up money also.&#8221;
&#8220;The D.C. Wolves and Fake News Media are reading far too much into people being forced by Courts to testify before Congress,&#8221; Trump wrote in the posts Monday. &#8220;I am fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President. Other than that, I would actually like people to testify. Don McGahn’s respected lawyer has already stated that I did nothing wrong. John Bolton is a patriot and may know that I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, &amp; I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren’t putting up money also. Likewise, I would love to have Mike Pompeo, Rick Perry, Mick Mulvaney and many others testify about the phony Impeachment Hoax. It is a Democrat Scam that is going nowhere but, future Presidents should in no way be compromised. What has happened to me should never happen to another President!&#8221;
</div>
The Democrat-led impeachment inquiry was prompted by a whistleblower&#8217;s complaint alleging that Trump imposed a quid pro quo in an attempt to &#8220;pressure&#8221; Ukraine to investigate his political rival. However, Zelensky has repeatedly stated that there was no pressure, and the transcript of Trump&#8217;s famous July 25 call with Zelensky shows that while Trump did ask him to &#8220;look into&#8221; the Biden corruption allegations, no quid pro quo was issued.
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that,” Trump told Zelensky in the much-analyzed call. “So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”
</div>
<aside class="css-ew4tgv" aria-hidden="false" aria-label="companion column">
<div class="css-ke163a" data-testid="article-companion-wrapper">
<div id="newsletter-module" class="css-48vsi0">
<div class="css-1k9ek97">
<div class="css-tjpxhb">
<div class="css-sefkcv">
<div id="story-ad-1-wrapper" class="css-1r07izm">
<div id="story-ad-1-slug" class="css-l9onyx">Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-heres-the-real-reason-i-held-back-money-from-ukraine-blocked-impeachment-testimony">Trump: Here’s The Real Reason I Held Back Money From Ukraine, Blocked Impeachment Testimony</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</aside>

NYT: Trump Knew About Whistleblower Complaint Before He Released Ukraine Aid

New York Times

President Trump explained in a series of tweets Tuesday his rationale for temporarily withholding $391 million in U.S. military aid from Ukraine and preventing some Trump administration officials from testifying amid court orders that they do so.
<div class="js-tweet-text-container">
&#8220;The D.C. Wolves and Fake News Media are reading far too much into people being forced by Courts to testify before Congress,&#8221; Trump in a series of posts Tuesday. &#8220;I am fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President. Other than that, I would actually like people to testify.&#8221;
The president then highlighted a few key figures who he said would back up his handling of the Ukraine aid situation.
&#8220;Don McGahn’s respected lawyer has already stated that I did nothing wrong,&#8221; he wrote &#8220;John Bolton is a patriot and may know that I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, [and] I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren’t putting up money also.&#8221;
&#8220;Likewise, I would love to have Mike Pompeo, Rick Perry, Mick Mulvaney and many others testify about the phony Impeachment Hoax,&#8221; Trump continued. &#8220;It is a Democrat Scam that is going nowhere but, future Presidents should in no way be compromised. What has happened to me should never happen to another President!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The D.C. Wolves and Fake News Media are reading far too much into people being forced by Courts to testify before Congress. I am fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President. Other than that, I would actually like people to testify. Don McGahn’s respected&#8230;.
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1199352946187800578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8230;love to have Mike Pompeo, Rick Perry, Mick Mulvaney and many others testify about the phony Impeachment Hoax. It is a Democrat Scam that is going nowhere but, future Presidents should in no way be compromised. What has happened to me should never happen to another President!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1199352977934487553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Democrats are accusing Trump of &#8220;bribery&#8221; in an attempt to &#8220;pressure&#8221; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate alleged corruption involving the Ukraine-based energy company Burisma Holdings and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Allegations of wrongdoing on the Bidens&#8217; part have been swirling for years after Hunter landed a lucrative position on the board of Burisma despite having no direct experience to warrant the role other than his father&#8217;s newly appointed role of overseeing U.S.-Ukraine relations. The former vice president famously <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html">bragged</a> to the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018 about getting Ukraine&#8217;s top prosecutor, who had been looking into Burisma for alleged corruption, fired by threatening to do exactly what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing: withholding U.S. money.
<blockquote>BIDEN: I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption &#8230; [I]t just happened to be [Ukraine] was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to — convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said — I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b*tch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.</blockquote>
During their famous July 25 call, Trump asked Zelensky to &#8220;look into&#8221; allegations of corruption involving the Bidens. &#8220;There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that,&#8221; Trump told Zelensky. “So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.&#8221;
The Democrats say that Trump was imposing a quid pro quo in the call, but Trump and his defenders say the transcript shows nothing of the sort and point to Zelensky&#8217;s repeated public assertions that there was no such pressure applied to him by the U.S.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-texas-republican-exposes-democrats-failure-on-trump-bribery-claim">WATCH: Texas Republican: Here’s How Many Times Impeachment Witnesses Have Even Mentioned ‘Bribery’</a>
</div>

Trump: Here’s The Real Reason I Held Back Money From Ukraine, Blocked Impeachment Testimony

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of President Trump&#8217;s personal attorneys, has increasingly become the focus of the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry. Now, ABC News is reporting that the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), has their hands on various audio and video recordings and photographs related to Giuliani&#8217;s Ukraine activities.
Mentioned by Trump in his famous July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Giuliani&#8217;s actions related to Ukraine have repeatedly come up in impeachment testimony, including by that of Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who told the committee Wednesday that &#8220;yes&#8221; there was a &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; for a &#8220;requested White House call and White House meeting.&#8221; The &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; Sondland emphasized, came from Giuliani, not Trump. &#8220;I’ve never heard from President Trump that the aid (to Ukraine) was conditioned on the investigations,” Sondland said.
Giuliani is also connected to two men — Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — who were recently arrested at Dulles International Airport with one-way international tickets. The two men are under criminal investigation by the Southern District of New York for allegedly &#8220;circumventing campaign finance laws against straw donations and foreign contributions,&#8221; as <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-intelligence-committee-possession-video-audio-recordings-giuliani/story?id=67276448">ABC</a> explains, charges to which both men have pleaded not guilty.
&#8220;According to the indictment, Parnas sought then-Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s ouster earlier this year along with his efforts to get Ukrainian officials to investigate the president’s political rival, matters that have repeatedly emerged in the House impeachment inquiry,&#8221; ABC reports.
With the Southern District of New York looking into his connections to the two men, Giuliani is reportedly featured in recordings and photographs provided to Schiff&#8217;s committee by Parnas.
&#8220;The House Intelligence Committee is in possession of audio and video recordings and photographs provided to the committee by Lev Parnas,&#8221; ABC News reported Sunday citing multiple sources familiar with the matter. &#8220;The material submitted to the committee includes audio, video and photos that include Giuliani and Trump. It was unclear what the content depicts and the committees only began accessing the material last week.&#8221;
In a statement to CNN Sunday, Schiff said that his committee has subpoenaed Parnas and Fruman for their records. So far, Parnas appears to be complying while Fruman refuses. Some of the material that Parnas has provided is currently being held by the Southern District of New York, sources say.
<div class="teads-inread sm-screen">
In a statement provided to the press, Parnas&#8217; attorney Joseph A. Bondy said the evidence and potential testimony that his client intends to provide &#8220;is non-partisan, and not intended to be part of a battle between the left and the right, but rather an aid in the determination by our government of what is in the best interests of our nation.&#8221;
While Democrats and federal prosecutors focus more on Giuliani, the former mayor has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/giuliani-claims-to-have-decades-of-evidence-relating-to-biden-family-corruption-in-latest-tweet">fighting back</a> online and on air.
&#8220;I discovered a pattern of corruption that the Washington press covered up for years!&#8221; Trump&#8217;s attorney tweeted Saturday. &#8220;I’m also going to bring out a massive pay-for-play scheme under the Obama Administration that will devastate the Democrat Party. Do you honestly think I’m intimidated?&#8221;
He also cited in a follow-up post that he has &#8220;files in my safe about the Biden Family’s 4 decade monetizing of his office&#8221; which &#8220;will appear immediately along with my RICO chart&#8221; if he should &#8220;disappear.&#8221;
In an interview with Fox News&#8217; Ed Henry on Saturday, Giuliani addressed the rumors that Trump was going to &#8220;throw him under the bus.&#8221; He and Trump &#8220;have a very, very good relationship,&#8221; said Giuliani.
&#8220;I mean, I’ve seen things written like, he’s gonna throw me under the bus,&#8221; he said. &#8220;When they say that, I say, &#8216;He isn’t, but I have insurance.&#8217; [It’s] ridiculous. We are very good friends. He knows what I did was in order to defend him, not to dig up dirt on Biden.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/giuliani-joe-biden-should-be-prosecuted-for-bribery">Giuliani: Joe Biden Should Be Prosecuted For Bribery</a>
</div>

Report: Schiff Has Recordings Of Giuliani From Arrested Associate

Rudy Giuliani says former vice president Joe Biden should be prosecuted for bribery.
Giuliani cited Biden&#8217;s boast at a Council on Foreign Relations event that he had threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid from Ukraine unless the government fired a prosecutor.
“Here is what Joe Biden says he did. He offered him a $1 billion loan guarantee, he threatened him with a $1 billion loan guarantee, and in return for that, so that’s part one of bribery,” Giuliani said on Fox News on Saturday. “Part two is, he got the president of the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor.”
Biden&#8217;s son, Hunter, allegedly made hundreds of thousands of dollars through his employment with Burisma, the largest private gas company in Ukraine — despite having no known qualifications for the job. And when word spread that a prosecutor was looking into the matter, then-vice president Biden reportedly demanded that the prosecutor be fired.
Biden is on tape discussing his push for the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, bragging he had threatened to withhold $1 billion until Shokin was canned. “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” he says he told Ukrainian leaders. “Well son of a bitch, he got fired,” Biden says with a smile in the video clip.
In his Fox interview, Giuliani said Joe Biden, who claims he knew nothing about his son&#8217;s work in Ukraine, should be prosecuted for the crime of bribery.
“If he wants you to believe he didn’t know about his son’s business in the Ukraine — that can be disproven 10 ways,” Giuliani said. “That’s called a false exculpatory statement. If Joe Biden is not prosecuted for these crimes, then nobody in America should ever be prosecuted for bribery.”
“It’s an outrage — an outrage the kind of protection he gets,” the mayor added. “And the part I really find disturbing is because the media puts on these vicious attacks on you if you go after one of their protected people, people in law enforcement are afraid to go after him.”
Trump has been accused of doing something similar to what Biden&#8217;s boasts he did. Weeks before Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump put on hold $391 million in aid. He says he did so to pressure other nations to contribute more money and to take time to examine programs, but Democrats say it was a clear quid pro quo: Dig up some dirt on Biden and his son or no money.
In his wide-ranging interview, Giuliani also warned that if the Mafia couldn’t kill him, the media wouldn’t succeed, either.
“I expected, the moment I heard Biden’s name, I told my colleagues, &#8216;they’re going to try to kill me,&#8217;” he said. “Because they’re going to kill the messenger. But damn it, the mafia couldn’t kill me, your colleagues are not going to kill me.”
On Twitter, Giuliani also said he had “files in my safe about the Biden Family’s 4 decade monetizing” the former vice president and senator’s office. “If I disappear, it will immediately appear.”

ALBANIA-IRAN-POLITICS

Giuliani: Joe Biden Should Be Prosecuted For Bribery

On Saturday, former Mayor of New York City and President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani appeared on Fox News with anchor Ed Henry to discuss the ongoing impeachment process.
At one point during the nearly 15-minute interview, Henry asked Giuliani about his professional relationship with the president:
<blockquote>HENRY: Have you talked to President Trump in the last week or two? Have you met with him? Are you still his counsel?
GIULIANI: I do not discuss my conversations with my client. You can assume that I talk to him early and often.</blockquote>
Giuliani continued, saying that he and the president “have a very, very good relationship,” and that the comments he’s seen suggesting that he might be made into a fall guy are “ridiculous.”
<blockquote>I mean, I’ve seen things written like, he’s gonna throw me under the bus. When they say that, I say, “He isn’t, but I have insurance.” [It’s] ridiculous. We are very good friends. He knows what I did was in order to defend him, not to dig up dirt on Biden.</blockquote>
The president’s attorney added that he started his investigation “a year ago” when Biden hadn’t yet “decided to run for president,” and that the “evidence” he has has allegedly gathered will ultimately reveal a “conspiracy” in which some elected Democrats participated.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u8WJtT3vINE?start=596" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Rudy Giuliani has used the “insurance” line before, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/471792-giuliani-threatens-he-has-insurance-if-trump-turns-on-him-in">The Hill</a>.
Speaking with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-insurance-loyal">The Guardian</a> earlier this month, the former mayor was asked about the possibility that President Trump might attempt to “throw him under a bus.” Giuliani reportedly replied with a similar “insurance” comment, adding that if such a thing were to happen, “all my hospital bills will be paid.”
Giuliani’s personal attorney made sure to note that his client was just “joking,” according to The Guardian.
During the impeachment hearings this week, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sondland-yes-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo-for-white-house-meeting">claimed</a> to have received direct orders from Giuliani about a “quid pro quo” pertaining to Ukraine and Burisma:
<blockquote>Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.</blockquote>
Under questioning from Republican counsel Steve Castor, Sondland noted that President Trump never personally told him that a visit to the White House by Ukrainian president Zelensky was tied to the announcement of an investigation:
<blockquote>CASTOR: Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything?
SONDLAND: No&#8230;
CASTOR: The president never told about any preconditions for a White House meeting?
SONDLAND: Personally, no.
CASTOR: You said you didn’t have your records or your documents from the State Department, but if you did, there wouldn’t be any documental record that ties President Trump personally to any of this, correct?
SONDLAND: Boy, I don’t want to speculate what would be on –
CASTOR: No, your documents or records.
SONDLAND: I don’t recall anything like that.</blockquote>
Castor then asked Sondland about his testimony regarding Giuliani allegedly requesting a White House visit “quid pro quo.”
<blockquote>CASTOR: You indicated that you believe that was – he was evincing President Trump’s interests, correct?
SONDLAND: My contact with Mr. Giuliani began, as I said, very late in the process, after August 1, when I was first introduced to him by a text from Ambassador Volker. So, we had already begun those discussions, I believe, with the Ukrainians prior to August 1, so everything was being funneled through others, including Mr. Volker.
CASTOR: You testified that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president, correct?
SONDLAND: That’s our understanding, yes.
CASTOR: But how did you know that? Who told you?
SONDLAND: Well, when the president says, “Talk to my personal attorney,” and then Mr. Giuliani, as his personal attorney, makes certain requests or demands, we assume it’s coming from the president. I’m not testifying that I heard the president tell Mr. Giuliani to tell us, so if that’s your question.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0XDCKRpLk4E" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Giuliani <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/giuliani-slams-gop-impeachment-lawyer-demands-apology/">responded</a> to Sondland’s testimony with the following: “I came into this at Volker’s request. Sondland is speculating based on VERY little contact. I never met him and had very few calls with him, mostly with Volker. Volker testified I answered their questions and described them as my opinions, NOT demands. I.E., no quid pro quo!”

Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani Responds To Those Who Say Trump Might Scapegoat Him: ‘I Have Insurance’

Gordon Sondland

The Ukraine whistleblower who initially reached out to Democratic committee staff on the House Intelligence committee went to the intelligence community’s watchdog on October 8 to explain the nature of that contact.
CBS News’ Catherine Herridge <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-impeachment-ukraine-whistleblower-schiff-committee-contact-intel-watchdog-documents-say/">reported</a> on documents obtained by the outlet that show the whistleblower reached out to the intelligence community’s Inspector General (ICIG) to explain that he or she reached out to a Democratic staffer on the House Intelligence committee but was directed to reach out to the ICIG, which the whistleblower had not heard of at the time.
The document showed that the whistleblower was told: “&#8217;Do it right, hire a lawyer, and contact the ICIG.&#8217; So that is what the COMPLAINANT did. At the time, COMPLAINANT did not even know what the ICIG was.&#8221;
The whistleblower then claimed to the ICIG that he or she did not check the box for reaching out to congress or a congressional committee because, “[b]ased on getting guidance on a procedural question, and that no substance of the actual disclosure was discussed, COMPLAINANT did not feel, based on the way the form question was worded, that it was necessary to check that box.&#8221;
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html">reported</a> on October 2 that the whistleblower had previous contact with committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. At the time, Schiff spokesman Patrick Boland told media outlets: “Consistent with the Committee&#8217;s longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel. At no point did the Committee review or receive the complaint in advance.&#8221;
The whistleblower made contact with Schiff’s staff prior to filing his or her complaint claiming President Donald Trump demanded a quid pro quo from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. The whistleblower claimed Trump demanded Ukraine officials investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter. The transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky showed Trump merely asked Ukraine for a “favor” &#8212; to investigate whether Ukraine played a role in the Democrat-led conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Trump then mentioned Joe and Hunter Biden. Joe Biden had bragged about getting a top Ukraine prosecutor fired. That prosecutor was looking into the company that provided his son Hunter with a lucrative board position without any previous experience with energy companies.
Schiff claimed for weeks prior to the Times’ October 2 reporting that he didn’t know the identity of the whistleblower and that neither he nor his staff had “spoken directly with the whistleblower.” The Washington Post gave Schiff <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/washington-post-fact-checker-gives-adam-schiff-four-pinnochios-for-misleading-about-contact-with-trump-whistleblower">four pinocchios</a> for his claims, since the Times made clear that Schiff’s staff did speak with the whistleblower directly.
It should also be noted that even though Schiff originally said he would call the whistleblower to testify during the impeachment hearings &#8212; which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced before any evidence other than the knowledge of the whistleblower complaint was revealed &#8212; Schiff now refuses to call the whistleblower, saying his or her testimony is not necessary. Schiff’s decision changed after it was reported his staff was contacted by the whistleblower.

Ukraine Whistleblower Reached Out To Intel Watchdog To Explain Contact With Schiff Staff

From the very first, I deemed the Ukraine Affair nothing but the latest Acme Impeachment Machine of the Wile E. Coyote Democrats. So for the most part it has turned out to be. We watch catatonic as Deep State mediocrities discuss their precious feelings about third-hand information while the media declares each Hamlet-like meditation a “bombshell,” and Never Trumpers gravely scratch their chins.
Trump’s approval ratings rise. Support for impeachment falls. It’s a waste of time and money in service of obscuring the real scandal: Obama’s FBI/CIA spying operations against the Trump campaign.
But for all that, and in spite of the largely worthless testimony, a more realistic picture of the Trump Administration has emerged. It was outlined in an impressive letter from Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — a letter brought to my attention by Daniel Henninger’s latest column in the Wall Street Journal.
Johnson, a famously straight shooter, wrote the letter in answer to queries from Congressmen Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes. The congressmen wanted to know if Johnson, who has become involved in Ukrainian affairs through his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had any “firsthand information&#8230; about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine.”
Johnson makes it clear that he views “this impeachment inquiry as a continuation of a concerted, and possibly coordinated effort to sabotage the Trump administration that probably began in earnest the day after the 2016 election.” His direct dealings with Americans working on Ukraine, including Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, convinced him that “a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their ‘turf.’”
He notes Vindman’s testimony that an “&#8217;alternative narrative’ pushed by… Rudy Giuliani, was ‘inconsistent with the consensus views’ of the relevant federal agencies and was ‘undermining the consensus policy.’” Johnson notes that other witnesses’ use of “similar terms such as ‘our policy,’ ‘stated policy,’ and ‘long-standing policy,’ lend further credence to the point I’m making. Whether you agree with President Trump or not…the Constitution vests the power of conducting foreign policy with the duly elected president… If any bureaucrats disagree with the president, they should use their powers of persuasion within their legal chain of command to get the president to agree with their viewpoint.”
What makes this statement so powerful is that Johnson did disagree with Trump about Ukraine and did set out to convince him to support Ukraine’s new government in order to strengthen its anti-corruption efforts and protect it from Russian predation.
But Trump repeatedly resisted Johnson’s attempts, in part because he believed Ukrainians had conspired with the Hillary campaign — which, according to a detailed account in Politico and despite Fiona Hill’s testimony, they had. As ex-envoy Kurt Volker quoted Trump during testimony, the president thought, “They are all corrupt. They are all terrible people. …I don’t want to spend any time with that.” Johnson does not recall Trump mentioning the Bidens and their dodgy dealings with Burisma, but we know from the president’s phone call with the Ukrainian president that that was also on his mind.
On top of this, Trump expressed to Johnson his long-standing opinion that the U.S. is carrying too much of the burden of foreign aid because our European partners are too happy to stick us with the bill. Johnson paraphrases Trump quoting a conversation he had about foreign aid with German Chancellor Angela Merkel: “Ron, I talk to Angela and ask her, ‘Why don’t you fund these things,’ and she tells me, ‘Because we know you will.’ We’re schmucks, Ron. We’re schmucks.”
When Johnson asked Trump if there were some sort of “arrangement” under which Ukraine would take action and receive U.S. aid — the famous quid pro quo — Trump’s reaction was “adamant, vehement and angry.” The president cursed and said, “No way. I would never do that.”
All of this sounds totally Trumpian and totally with constitutional bounds. It’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with the president’s point of view, or to feel he is too isolationist in his instincts overall. As I say, Johnson did disagree and worked hard to change Trump’s mind. But in the end, the remedy for a president’s misguided policy is to campaign against him.
The hysterical overreaction by the anti-Trump “resistance,” and their Never Trump chorus, clearly indicates that Trump’s election represents an unwelcome intrusion by We, the People into the comfortable, ever-expanding, undemocratic and anti-democratic power of an increasingly unconstitutional Deep State.
Thomas Jefferson famously wrote: &#8220;The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.&#8221; Trump — by accident, by intention or, as I suspect, by the hilarious whim of a mirthful God — is impeding that progress. And the powers-that-be just can’t stand it.

KLAVAN: A True Picture Of Trump Emerges From Otherwise Worthless Hearings

Alexander Vindman

On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) threw down the gauntlet on the Joe Biden-Hunter Biden-Ukraine issue, firing off a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting call summaries or transcripts between Biden and former Ukraine president Petro Poroshenko.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today, Chairman <a href="https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LindseyGrahamSC</a> sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting documents related to contacts between Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden, other Obama administration officials and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. 
MORE: <a href="https://t.co/aSw27OMIej">https://t.co/aSw27OMIej</a>
&mdash; Senate Judiciary (@senjudiciary) <a href="https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1197624678128459793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Graham wrote, “Today, I sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting documents related to contacts between: Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden, other Obama administration officials and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today, I sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting documents related to contacts between:
➡️ Vice President Biden ➡️ Hunter Biden ➡️ other Obama administration officials and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
&mdash; Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) <a href="https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1197629617999425543?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As <a href="https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/11/21/sen-lindsey-graham-sends-letter-requesting-call-transcripts-between-joe-biden-and-ukraines-president/">Twitchy</a> noted, “Rasmussen reports that a recent poll showed that 46 percent of Americans think the current House hearings should be expanded to look into the Bidens and their dealings with Ukraine — something Rep. Adam Schiff has warned Republicans is out of the scope of President Trump’s impeachment hearings.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Poll Tested: 46%
We didn&#39;t have to &#39;bribe&quot; our U.S. national likely voter respondents for fully 46% of them to tell us that the current House hearings should be expanded to look at the Ukrainian involvement of Hunter &amp; Joe Biden.
Crosstabs &amp; story below.
CC: <a href="https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LindseyGrahamSC</a> <a href="https://t.co/AjREboQIww">https://t.co/AjREboQIww</a> <a href="https://t.co/40oGbdWXGY">pic.twitter.com/40oGbdWXGY</a>
&mdash; Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) <a href="https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1196902156936372224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In his letter, Graham stated that he wants:
<blockquote>All documents and communications, including call transcripts or summaries, related to the Vice President’s phone calls with President Poroshenko on February 11, 18, and 19 and March 22 of 2016, especially with respect to whether Vice President Biden mentioned the Prosecutor General’s investigation into Burisma. 
All documents and communications between the Vice President and his office and President Poroshenko and his office after the raid on Mr. Zlochevsky’s home on February 2, 2016, until the dismissal of the Prosecutor General on March 29, 2016. 
All documents and communications related to a meeting between Devon Archer, a business partner of Hunter Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry on March 2, 2016.</blockquote>
Earlier this month, Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, rejected the idea proposed by House Republicans for Joe Biden&#8217;s son Hunter Biden to testify in the  impeachment inquiry targeting President Trump.  As <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/schiff-rejects-gop-calls-hunter-biden-testify-says-impeachment-inquiry-wont-probe-sham-claims-1470839">Newsweek</a> reported, &#8220;Current ranking member Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, in a letter to Schiff on Saturday, asked for Biden, the anonymous whistleblower and several others to testify as part of the impeachment probe, which will move from closed-door depositions to public hearings next week.&#8221; Nunes wrote, &#8220;We expect that you will call each of the witnesses listed above to ensure that the Democrats&#8217; &#8216;impeachment inquiry&#8217; treats the President with fairness, as promised by Speaker Pelosi. Your failure to fulfill Minority witness requests shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.&#8221;
Newsweek added, &#8220;In addition to Biden and the whistleblower, House Republicans also asked for several other testimonies in an open settling, including from Devon Archer, an American businessman who served with Biden on the board of Burisma Holdings; Nellie Ohr, former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS; and David Jale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.&#8221;
Schiff huffed, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-gop-asks-for-hunter-biden-and-whistleblower-to-testify-in-impeachment-probe/2019/11/09/a6751cc6-02fe-11ea-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html" rel="nofollow">The Washington Post</a>:
<blockquote>This inquiry is not and will not serve as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigations into the Bidens or 2016 that the President pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit or  facilitate the President&#8217;s effort to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm. The Committee is evaluating the Minority&#8217;s witness requests and will give due consideration to witnesses within the scope of the impeachment inquiry, as voted on by the House. As we move into the open hearing phase of the inquiry, the Committee is mindful that we are engaged in a sober endeavor rooted in the Constitution to determine whether the President of the United States engaged in misconduct that warrants impeachment by the House.</blockquote>

Trump Says Islamic State Leader Al-Baghdadi Killed In U.S. Raid

BREAKING: Look Out: Lindsey Graham Wants Summaries, Transcripts Between Biden And Ukraine President

Lindsey Graham

The following is satirical.
Many of you may have noticed an annoying grinding sound going on and on in the background and yes, the impeachment hearings are still underway. According to CBS News, the latest testimony was a bombshell, although according to ABC it was really more of a bombshell, though on NBC they felt it was either a bombshell or possibly the shell of a bomb.
The bombshell testimony that was a bombshell came from Gordon Sondland who used to do something or other before he did something else. Sondland’s explosive bombshell was that he kind of assumed everyone thought that it was pretty much suspected that President Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption that might have involved Joe Biden and that someone heard a lot of people were saying that Rudy Giuliani told a guy that the president wanted a quid pro quo which is Latin for something.
The amazing bombshell continued when Sondland testified that he called the president on the phone and asked him if he really did want a quid pro quo from Ukraine and Trump said no. So that was a very explosive bombshell that exploded bombshell-like during the hearings which were bombshellian in the extreme.
There were several casualties when the bombshell exploded, including the idea that Trump was asking Ukraine for a quid pro quo. Also the idea Trump committed an impeachable offense was killed, likewise the notion that these hearings were anything besides a corrupt waste of the public’s time and money. The bombshell also destroyed that weirdly effeminate smirk on the face of Adam Schiff, which is probably just as well.
According to Norah O’Donnell at CBS, the bombshell was so explosive it was devastating, while according to NBC Anchorman Lester Holt it was so devastating it was explosive, while according to ABC Anchorman George Stephanopoulos anything was better than finding out who killed the Jeffrey Epstein story not to mention Jeffrey Epstein.
The impeachment hearings will continue with more devastating bombshells that won’t mean anything either.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachment-is-now-over-trump-highlights-key-testimony-that-strikes-at-heart-of-dems-case">Impeachment ‘Is Now Over’: Trump Highlights Key Testimony That Strikes At Heart Of Dems’ Case</a>

Explosion

Bombshell Impeachment Testimony Blows Effeminate Smirk Off Adam Schiff [Satire]

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about Jim Jordan nailing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman during the impeachment hearing. Video and partial transcript below: 
Why didn&#8217;t Lieutenant Colonel Vindman express his concerns to his boss? Vindman was the director of European affairs on the NSC, his boss is Tim Morrison and on the NSC — why did he go to a lawyer? Why did he go around the official process? Jim Jordan, Republican congressman, as usual, nails him: 
<blockquote>JORDAN: After the call, why didn&#8217;t you go to Mr. Morrison?
VINDMAN: I went immediately, per the instructions from the July 10 incident, I went immediately to Mr. Eisenberg. After that, once I made that — expressed my concerns — It was an extremely busy week. A PCC just finished, we had the call, and then we had a deputy&#8217;s meeting which consumed all of my time. I was working extremely long days. </blockquote>
Oh, yeah? Is that right, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman? So the reason that you didn&#8217;t go to your superiors and follow the chain of command here when you wanted to change U.S. policy single-handedly, the reason that you went to a lawyer instead, but you didn&#8217;t have time to go to your boss, is because you were really busy that week?
Are you joking? This is like a freshman in college who didn&#8217;t finish his term paper on time, making an excuse to his professor. You had time to go to the lawyer, you had time to gin up this whole conspiracy, this whole impeachment hoax, which we&#8217;ve heard is a hoax based on now what, like five major witnesses called forth by Adam Schiff to testify. So you had time to do that, but you didn’t have time to go to your boss? Give me a break. 
You had time to talk to somebody, and it wasn&#8217;t even just the lawyer. He didn’t have time to talk to his boss, but he had time to talk to the lawyer and he had time to talk to somebody else in the murky, Deep State intelligence community. Jim Jordan pulls that out of him: 
<blockquote>JORDAN: So the lawyer, you not only didn&#8217;t go to your boss, you said you tried, but you didn&#8217;t go to your boss. You went straight to the lawyer, and the lawyer told you not to go to your boss?
VINDMAN: No, he didn&#8217;t tell me until —
JORDAN: Why didn&#8217;t you go to your direct report, Mr. Morrison? Your response was — this is page 102 — because Mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. And I ask you, “did Mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report? To go around Mr. Morrison,” and you said actually, he did say that I shouldn&#8217;t talk to any other people. Is that right?
VINDMAN: Yes, but there&#8217;s a whole, there’s a period of time in there, between when I spoke to him and when he circled back around. It wasn&#8217;t that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to —
JORDAN: Enough time for you to talk to someone that you won&#8217;t tell us who it is, right?
VINDMAN: I&#8217;ve been instructed not to, Representative Jordan. 
JORDAN: Here&#8217;s what I&#8217;m getting: The lawyer told you don&#8217;t talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss. But you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to Secretary Kent, and you talk to the one guy Adam Schiff won&#8217;t let you tell us who he is. 
VINDMAN: Representative Jordan, I did my job.</blockquote>
What a little weasel this guy is. I love this. So Jim Jordan says, “Lt. Col. Vindman, the lawyer told you not to talk to your boss?” Well no, he didn&#8217;t tell me not to talk to my boss — until he told me not to talk to my boss. Oh, okay. And you didn&#8217;t have time to talk to anybody, right? Yeah, that&#8217;s right. I didn&#8217;t have time to talk to anybody other than your brother, and other than the secretary, and other than the whistleblower, and other than all that, you had time to talk to them, right?
Obviously, at this point, Vindman has nothing to say so he just comes out and says, “Mr. Jordan, I did my job. No, you didn&#8217;t do your job; you did the opposite of your job. What Vindman refers to so much throughout this mindless testimony is how he did go to the bureaucrats, he did go to the inter-agency — that&#8217;s the term that keeps coming up — he did go to the federal bureaucracy. But he didn&#8217;t go to his boss, he didn&#8217;t follow the chain of command. He didn&#8217;t follow the president&#8217;s policy. 
The inter-agency, that&#8217;s the battle here. The president, the elected guys, the American people vs. the decisions of the inter-agency, the federal bureaucracy, the Deep State. This guy, Vindman, is an operative with an agenda. He&#8217;s just admitted it himself. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. 
</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Open House Impeachment Hearing in Washington

KNOWLES: An Operative With An Agenda

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief discusses the testimony highlights of E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland, and also outlines the only credible impeachment defense of the Trump administration. Video and partial transcript below: 
My suggestion for months at this point has been that President Trump basically wrapped up all this stuff in a ball on Ukraine, decided he didn&#8217;t really want to give aid to Ukraine anyway — because he was always a little bit split on giving more aid to Ukraine, he always felt that Europeans weren&#8217;t doing their fair share, he always wondered why the United States was spending so much time and effort in Ukraine — and he finally allowed that to cloud his judgment to the point where he said, “Okay, I’m going to withhold the military aid until I get these investigations, and investigations are everything that bothers me about Ukraine up to and including Burisma and Joe Biden.” 
Now, the way that you would establish an impeachable offense is if what you found was — the Democrats basically said this, it&#8217;s not just me saying this, this is the Democrats setting the standard — [if] they suggest that this was to get Biden. This was all about Biden, all the rest of this stuff, the CrowdStrike stuff, the 2016 election stuff, all that stuff is a ruse [and] really what Trump wanted was to go get Joe Biden. And all the rest of the stuff he’s mentioned, these other investigations having to do with corruption, these other investigations about the Ukrainian embassy coordinating with the DNC in 2016, all of that was merely a pretext for Trump to force Ukraine to go get Joe Biden — that’s the case. 
So Gordon Sondland is the person who, theoretically, could speak to that, right? Gordon Sondland is the guy who could get up before Congress [Wednesday] and he could say, “I talked to Trump. Trump said, ‘Go get the Bidens,’” and the rest of all this was a charade. [But] that isn&#8217;t exactly what Gordon Sondland said.
So people are honing in on the fact that Gordon Sondland had changed his testimony. In his original closed door testimony, he said he didn&#8217;t understand there was a quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine. Now, of course, he changed his testimony, and he suggested that there was, in fact, a quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine. [However] it is not clear exactly whether that quid-pro-quo was wrong, whether that quid pro quo was a problem &#8230;
[Sondland began his testimony] by explaining that everybody was in the loop on this, like everybody knew that Trump was basically withholding military aid in order to get investigations, whatever &#8220;investigations&#8221; means &#8230; He says everybody was in the loop, it&#8217;s not like this was a giant secret with regard to Ukraine policy. 
<blockquote>SONDLAND: He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call, no details, prior to Ukraine election on Sunday. Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow”&#8230; Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret, everyone was informed via email on July 19, days before the presidential call.</blockquote>
Okay, so not only did everybody know, says Gordon Sondland, but everybody at the State Department knew, up to and including Mike Pompeo, that President Trump was manipulating Ukraine policy in order to achieve investigations. So everyone was in the loop, Sondland is trying to say [paraphrasing]: “It wasn&#8217;t just me, it wasn&#8217;t me making up this foreign policy. Don&#8217;t try to throw me under the bus. If you’ve got a problem with the foreign policy — I was not the originator of the foreign policy, I&#8217;m not going to be the man who gets caught in the crossfire here, I was doing the will of the president of the United States.” 
Here&#8217;s Sondland explaining that everybody at the State Department knew:
<blockquote>SONDLAND: We kept the leadership of the State Department and the NSC informed of our activities, and that included communications with Secretary of State Pompeo, his counselor, Ulrich Brechbul, his executive secretary, Lisa Kenna, and also communications with Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, Mr. Morrison, and their staff at the NSC. They knew what we were doing, and why. </blockquote>
Everybody knew, right? In other words, this was not a giant secret, which you would assume at this point since half the people on the call, the July 25 phone call, made complaints. And then Sondland continues along these lines and he says, [paraphrasing] “Listen, the only reason we are even working with Rudy Giuliani was at Trump&#8217;s behalf. So if you think that I was coordinating with Giuliani&#8217;s side, some sort of side relationship with Giuliani, not going to happen.” 
Sondland is trying to achieve a couple of things with this testimony. One: He can&#8217;t say anything that overtly contradicts his closed-door testimony because then he would be charged with perjury — Republicans would charge him with perjury. Two: Gordon Sondland does not want to be the guy who is basically put out there as he was freelancing the foreign policy. 
Now listen, I don&#8217;t think that that was a credible accusation in the first place. I think that if anybody had claimed that Gordon Sondland was making up Ukrainian foreign policy on his own — the giant donor to Trump who ended up as E.U. ambassador, suddenly an expert on Ukraine and negotiating with Rudy Giuliani — that was never a credible defense for the Trump administration. Again, the only credible defense was the one that I have presented for Trump, which was an “intent-based defense.”
The “no quid-pro-quo,” [and] “it was a perfect phone call” defense was obviously crap. It was obviously crap from from very nearly the beginning. As soon as it came out that the Ukrainians had found out pretty soon after the July 25 phone call that military aid was being withheld, to say that there was no quid pro quo at all was obviously untenable. To suggest that President Trump had engaged in a perfect phone call on July 25 — obviously, it was also untenable. 
The only tenable defense is that President Trump did not have intent to go after Joe Biden specifically in advance of 2020. It was not about getting Biden, it was about all of his thoughts on Ukraine — mashed up together, thrown out there — and Ukraine was supposed to fulfill all of these concerns that Trump had, some of which were legitimate, [and] some of which were were based on bad information being provided by Rudy Giuliani. But Sondland is trying to avoid the “it&#8217;s my fault” routine. I think many in the Trump administration wanted Sondland to take a bullet here and Sondland ain’t going to do it.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. 
</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Menu