Once again the New York Times did what it does best—suppressed a story unfavorable to Democrats. From Debra Heine at amgreatness.com:
In an exclusive report, Wednesday night, Fox News host Laura Ingraham revealed that the New York Times last May quashed a story about a White House meeting in January of 2016 between Obama administration officials—including the so-called whistleblower—and Ukrainian officials that addressed Hunter Biden’s problematic position at Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings.
Ingraham said she obtained a chain of State Department emails between NYT journalist Ken Vogel and State Department official Kate Schilling centering on the reporter’s request for comment on the story.
Hunter Biden, 49, the scandal-plagued son of Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden, is a central figure in the Ukraine scandal due to his high-paid no-show job at Burisma, a position he secured despite having no relevant experience in that field.
Democrats say the president withheld military aid from Ukraine until he could get a guarantee from the Ukrainian President Zelensky that the Bidens would be investigated. However, a document unearthed last October shows that Ukrainian officials had actually opened a new probe into Burisma months before President Trump’s July 2019 phone call with the Ukrainian president.
Some Republicans have called for Hunter Biden to testify in the Senate impeachment trial.
The Douma chemical-attack lie should be taken off taken off life support and allowed to die. From Ben Norton at thegrayzone.com:
In testimony before the United Nations Security Council, former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert Ian Henderson stated that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their findings were suppressed.
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and dissenter Ian Henderson’s UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most consequential jobs was assisting the international body’s fact-finding mission (FFM) on the ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia’s delegation that OPCW management had rejected his group’s scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
“We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred,” Henderson said, referring to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research that “provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack.”
Let’s hope that witnesses are called during the impeachment trial, especially by Trump’s defense team. From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:
You have to wonder how many Democratic senators spend the long hours of impeachment fantasizing how to end the misery of listening to Rep. Adam Schiff deliver the party’s funeral oration. Please God, hurl a lightning bolt at the podium… bring down a chunk of the fine old coffered ceiling where he stands and prates about a Russian invasion of Malibu… send a coral snake up the leg of his trousers…!
It was so bad that his California counterpart, Senator Dianne Feinstein, just up-and-split late Wednesday. Elizabeth Warren has been seen furiously doodling maps of all the primary precincts she is failing to visit in her confinement. Bernie Sanders imagines himself wielding thirty inches of re-bar upside Mr. Schiff’s skull, while Amy Klobuchar pops her third Xanax of the evening. You have no idea what mental tribulation the House impeachment manager supreme is visiting on his colleagues.
The impeachment case against Mr. Trump might mercifully spell the end of the Master Narrative the Democrats have been confabulating since 2016: that Donald Trump invited the wicked Vlad Putin to checkmate Hillary Clinton and thereby crushed the hopes and dreams of those wishing to make Ukraine the 51st state… or something like that. Because according to Mr. Schiff, there is no nation on this planet as dear to the interests of America than darling Ukraine, with its radioactive forests, decrepitating Soviet infrastructure, and dedication to liberty.
“Whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella was discussing with a colleague how Trump could be deposed shortly after Trump was elected. From Paul Sperry at realclearinvestigations.com:
Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower” who touched off Trump’s impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sean Misko: He spoke with Ciaramella about the need to “take out,” or remove, President Trump. Later he went to work for Rep. Adam Schiff’s committee.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.
“Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.
The impeachment is an attempt by the Democrats to unseat a president they probably can’t beat in an election. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:
Prior to the impeachment of Trump, not by Congress as presstitutes report but by self-interested House Democrats, during the entirety of US history there have been only two attempts to impeach a president—Andrew Johnson in 1868 and 130 years later Bill Clinton in 1998.
Clinton was impeached by House Republicans when he clearly lied under oath by denying his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. The Senate refused to convict him. Enough Senators had enough sense to know that lying about a sexual affair, even under oath, did not rise to a “high crime.” Moreover, Senators understood that few men would be inclined to embarrass their wife and daughter, or few women their husband and daughter, by admitting publicly to a sexual affair.
Andrew Johnson, a Tennessee Democrat, stood with the Republican Union of Abe Lincoln. Consequently, Lincoln chose Johnson as his Vice President in his 1864 reelection campaign. When Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson became president.
President Johnson took to heart Lincoln’s emphasis on restoring comity between North and South. Consequently, Johnson opposed the harsh, exploitative, and demeaning policies of the Republican Congress during Reconstruction. He didn’t see how the Union could be restored on the basis of dispossession of Southerners, rape of Southern women, and the infliction of general humiliation on a conquered people.
We’ll believe John Durham’s investigation will lead to something substantial when a James Comey, John Brennan, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton is sentenced to prison. Don’t hold your breath. From Sara Carter at saracarter.com:
Department of Justice appointed federal prosecutor John Durham’s expanded criminal probe into the FBI’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign is focusing on a slew of government documents that surfaced during the first several months of Trump’s presidency. The documents, which are being kept close hold, were hinted at by Attorney General William Barr in an interview he did with NBC in December and reported on by CBS News Friday.
On Friday, Catherine Herridge senior national security reporter with CBS first reported that a ‘strong paper trail’ of documents is being reviewed by Durham. Those documents span a time period from January, 2017 until May 2017, just before the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
However, Barr has already suggested at the expansive nature of Durham’s probe in December and hinted at the discoveries. And in October, 2019 reports revealed that Durham had expanded the scope of his investigation and would investigate not only the origin of the bureau probe into Trump’s campaign but also the post-election timeline.
Barr said in an interview with NBC in December, that Durham “should spend just as much attention on the post-election period” noting that the probe will not just focus on the origins of the investigation.
Barr said he asked Durham to look at the post Trump election because “of some of the stuff that Horowitz has uncovered which to me is inexplicable.”
It’s a wonder that anyone thinks this man is fit to be president. From John Solomon at johnsolomonreports.com:
Former vice president Joe Biden’s extraordinary campaign memo this week imploring U.S. news media to reject the allegations surrounding his son Hunter’s work for a Ukrainian natural gas company makes several bold declarations.
The memo by Biden campaign aides Kate Bedingfield and Tony Blinkenspecifically warned reporters covering the impeachment trial they would be acting as “enablers of misinformation” if they repeated allegations that the former vice president forced the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden worked as a highly compensated board member.
Biden’s memo argues there is no evidence that the former vice president’s or Hunter Biden’s conduct raised any concern, and that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s investigation was “dormant” when the vice president forced the prosecutor to be fired in Ukraine.
The memo calls the allegation a “conspiracy theory” (and, in full disclosure, blames my reporting for the allegations surfacing last year.)
But the memo omits critical impeachment testimony and other evidence that paint a far different portrait than Biden’s there’s-nothing-to-talk-about-here rebuttal.
Here are the facts, with links to public evidence, so you can decide for yourself.