Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Impeachment Inquiry Faces New Hurdles

The impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s supposed quid pro quo is getting more farcical by the day, courtesy of Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s laughably incompetent “leadership.”

Gregg Jarrett, writing an opinion piece for Fox News, explains:

At first, Schiff wanted the faux “whistleblower” who triggered the impeachment farce to testify. Then, suddenly, he didn’t. What changed? In the interim, evidence emerged that Schiff and/or his staff colluded with the “whistleblower” before the complaint was ever filed and then lied about it, earning Schiff “Four Pinocchios” from The Washington Post.

The chairman now wants to conceal his own role in engineering the pretext for impeachment and his subsequent deceit. This is why he has insisted that the “whistleblower” remain anonymous, despite no such right, guarantee, privilege, or entitlement written in the law, as I explained in an earlier column. Even though the undercover informant (reportedly working for the CIA) does not qualify for whistleblower status under the law as determined by the Department of Justice, any effort by Republicans to call him as a witness will be blocked by Schiff.

But Schiff’s machinations are more malevolent than masking the key witness. Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

For example, Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine who will testify on Wednesday, told Schiff’s committee that it was his “understanding” there was a link between U.S. security assistance and an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. How did Taylor arrive at his opinion? He heard it through discussions with other diplomats, although there is no indication that any of these individuals had direct knowledge of anything. The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported “quid pro quo.”

However, the truth is less politically convenient for Democrats. For Sondland originally testified that after a conversation with President Trump the commander-in-chief told him, unequivocally, “I want nothing … I want no quid pro quo.” Buttressing this initial claim, Sondland added that he never believed there was a precondition on military aid to Ukraine. Only later did he revise his testimony, stating, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.” 

Of course, such anecdotes are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

BONUS STORY: Schiff’s Investigatory Charade Gets EVEN Worse >>

AAN Staff
AAN Staff
The staff at American Action News are consummate professionals, who when not producing original, hard-hitting content, are scouring the internet to bring you the unfiltered news that matters to you! Our mission is to maximize your experience on our website. If we can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to let us know!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

People, Places & Things

- Advertisment -

Must Read

A New Presidential Candidate Emerges

Over the weekend, Dr. Jo Jorgensen secured the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President with 51% on the party’s final ballot. Jorgensen, 63, is a lecturer...