|
Sunday, October 13, 2019, on "Face the Nation."
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well I want to get to the other big topic and that is the impeachment inquiry that you are leading. Do you see this widening?
REP. SCHIFF: Well we're keeping our focus right now on the president's coercion of an ally, that is Ukraine, to create these sham investigations into his political opponent. We have discovered in very short order not only the contents of that call but also the preparatory work that went into that call. The effort to condition something the Ukrainian president deeply sought and that was a meeting with the president to establish that this new president of Ukraine had a powerful patron- the president of the United States. It was of vital importance to Ukraine was being conditioned on digging up dirt on the Biden's.
[OCS: In a classic case of “projection,” Schiff has accidently defined the modus operandi of the Clinton/DNC/Fusion GPS dossier scheme to “create these sham investigations” into a political opponent.
Notice how Schiff is maneuvering away from the “innocent” telephone call to the broader contexts of “preparatory work that went into that call.” However, it is well-known that President Trump hates pre-call briefings and refuses to read briefing papers. He normally ignores suggestions and “wings it” as he goes along – sometimes even putting Ivanka on the phone to speak with world leaders. So if Schiff is relying on the “process” to provide some form of justification for his sham investigation, he again will face great difficulty.]
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you see that as the quid pro quo--
REP. SCHIFF: Well--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --not just the military aid?
REP. SCHIFF: First of all, there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo, but it is clear already I think from the text messages that this meeting that the Ukraine president sought was being conditioned on their willingness to interfere in the U.S. election to help the president. That is a terrible abuse of the president's power.
[OCS: What! Adam Schiff is now backing away from his original charge that there was a “quid pro quo” expressed in the telephone call? I guess Schiff and his committee members have realized that the “Emperor has no clothes” and now have to engage in some form of face-saving cover-up involving obfuscation, distraction, and deflection.
The text messages most likely referenced were exchanges between Kurt Volker and various parties in preparation for the call. Like almost everything else that Adam Schiff does, cherry-picked messages were selectively leaked to the media and Volker’s actual testimony, which provides context and possible exculpatory evidence, withheld in their classified status.
Almost all diplomatic messages, especially those between heads of state are made for a purpose – and many may be coercive in nature. Therefore, they must remain secret and not leaked to the media for dissection and possibly nefarious purposes. Whether a matter is an “abuse of power” depends on your agenda, partisanship, and worldview. One man’s “abuse of power” can actually be little more than a pleasant exchange of greetings with a guarded tone.]
Now whether that abuse goes further that is the withholding of military aid also as leverage. There's certainly strong indications that that is true as well. And we're going to get to the bottom of it. But here you have a president of the United States abusing his power to the detriment of our national security and doing so to get yet another foreign country to intervene in our election it's hard to imagine more of a corruption of his office than that.
[OCS: There is no evidence that any military aid was withheld or that the Ukrainians were aware of the status of any current or future aid packages.
Notice how Schiff tries hard to make this telephone call a matter of “national security” when it was mostly a congratulatory call on winning the Ukrainian presidential election.
As for intervening in an election, that is what the Obama Administration did and the cadre of miscreants and traitors are about to be exposed in a number of official reports – unless they can oust the President of the United States and change-out the heads of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It is hard to believe that the Democrats are not guilty of currently interfering in the 2020 presidential election with this sham inquisition.]
MARGARET BRENNAN: When will you begin to hold public hearings? So, the polling that CBS has done has shown that Americans really are not clear on what to think about this impeachment inquiry over the past two weeks of work you've done.
REP. SCHIFF: Well, actually, you know, I think that the public attitudes have swiftly moved in strong support of the impeachment inquiry. And you know what we were trying to do is do a methodical and yet with a sense of urgency investigation of these matters.
[OCS: It should come as no surprise that the public is being spoon-fed the Democrat position by a mainstream media that is acting more like the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party than independent journalists. And, the polls are mostly conditioned on overweighting Democrat participation, especially the polls conducted by media outlets.]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Republicans say it's behind closed doors so you can cherry pick information--
REP. SCHIFF: Well--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --to be released.
REP. SCHIFF: --the- the Republicans would like nothing better because they view their role as defending the president being the president's lawyers. If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can't give away. There's a reason why investigations and grand jury proceedings for example, and I think this is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, are done out of the public view initially. Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.
[OCS: First, the House is not a criminal investigative agency and second, in no way are these proceedings analogous to a grand jury proceeding where ordinary people – not hyper-partisans with an agenda – are seated to hear one-side conduct the inquiry without benefit of counsel.]
MARGARET BRENNAN: You've been- well, the whistleblower has made these complaints and hand them- handed them over. Why push for this whistleblower to come before Congress? Because a- Republicans are calling for it and some Democrats would like to ask questions too but this information's already out there. Can't the committee do its own investigation without risking the identity of this person being--
[OCS: One wonders exactly who is making threats against a whistleblower whose identity is unknown to the public? That leaves government employees, politicians, and members of the media. Even in criminal cases involving hardened criminals, the whistleblower testifies in public – especially since it is important to establish a timeline of events, what they knew and when they knew it, and any motives that would suggest a malicious motivation behind the actions of the whistleblower.]
REP. SCHIFF: We can--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --public?
REP. SCHIFF: You know and I think initially, before the president started threatening the whistleblower, threatening others calling them traitors and spies and suggesting that you know we used to give the death penalty to traitors and spies and maybe we should think about that again. Yes we were interested in having the whistleblower come forward. Our primary--
[OCS: The President often speaks in hyperbolic terms and nothing he may have said can be legitimately construed to be a threat – with a sole exception: the mishandling of classified information and the violation of your government non-disclosure agreements.]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Not anymore?
REP. SCHIFF: Well our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected. Indeed, now there's more than one whistleblower, that they are protected. And given that we already have the call record, we don't need the whistleblower who wasn't on the call to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that. We do want to make sure that we identify other evidence that is pertinent to the withholding of the military support, the effort to cover this up by hiding this in a classified computer system. We want to make sure that we uncover the full details about the conditionality of either the military aid or that meeting with Ukraine's president. It may not be necessary to take steps that might reveal the whistleblower's identity to do that. And we're going to make sure we protect that whistleblower.
[OCS: Now that the actual transcript has been released, there is no cognizable reason for additional whistleblowers. In fact, whistleblower status may be vital to the whistleblowers who may have committed felonies in releasing classified information or participating in a conspiracy to damage the Office of the President.]
MARGARET BRENNAN: You know who was on that July 25th call? You know all the participants?
REP. SCHIFF: I can't say that I do. But we now know what took place on that call. We are bringing in witnesses this coming week from the National Security Council, other State Department officials, to find out what they can tell us about the conditionality of this vital military assistance to an ally. The conditionality of this vital meeting between the two presidents and the president's effort to dig up dirt on his opponent.
[OCS: Again, Schiff is trying to put words in the President’s mouth or impute evil intent to his actions. The act of a hyper-partisan with an anti-Trump agenda.]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Quickly, do you regret saying that we, the committee, weren't in touch with the whistleblower?
REP. SCHIFF: I should have been much more clear and I said so the minute it was brought to my attention that I was referring to the fact that when the whistleblower filed the complaint, we had not heard from the whistleblower. We wanted to bring the whistleblower in at that time. But I should've been much more clear about that.
[OCS: NO! You lied to the media and the American people. Schiff knew very much what he were saying and he can’t walk it back. Especially because Schiff is a known liar and leaker whose word cannot be trusted. One should remember Schiff made up lies about the transcript that had already been released – and read these lies into the record during official committee proceedings. Schiff later tried to walk it back as “parody” which was simply another Schiff lie.]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman thank you very much. And we will be right back. Stay with us.
|
