The first public installment of the “Impeach Trump 2019” spectacle took place on Wednesday, and this is not like the impeachment hearings of old. It’s completely partisan, rigidly controlled by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. To construct a false narrative, Schiff, in a painfully obvious contortion, makes sure that only certain aspects of this complex story are acknowledged to exist. In fact, that’s why the committee had to come back later, after dismissing the witnesses and cameras: to consider a motion to subpoena the “anonymous whistleblower” (who, as we’ve noted, isn’t a whistleblower under federal law but known Democrat operative/spy Eric Ciaramella, spelled C-I-A-R-A-M-E-L-L-A, pronounced “CHAR-a-mel-ah, as in “CHAR-lie”). That motion was, not surprisingly, tabled, by party-line vote. Aw, too bad we didn’t get to find out his ("or her") name.

Anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows that one reason Schiff can’t allow questions about the whistleblower is that HE and HIS STAFF would be shown to be lying about their contacts and “collusion” with this very person. We all know who it is! We just can’t talk about him! And, of course, we can’t hear from anyone with whom he's spoken.

The fact that the very person who is RUNNING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY is the one whose staff first had contact with the person who sparked the impeachment inquiry is like something out of a political thriller. You can’t make this stuff up. (Or, if you can, you really should start writing political thrillers.) Absurdly, Schiff currently maintains he doesn’t know this person's name; either he is brazenly lying or he has carefully tiptoed around the name when speaking with his staff, so as to preserve technical deniability on that one point.  But he knows.

We knew Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe would knock it out of the park on questioning, and they did. But let's also acknowledge New York Rep. Elise Stefanik for her skillful line of questioning; she has a no-nonsense way of cutting right to the chase. We should be proud of all the Republicans’ efforts to get the facts out there for the American public. Imagine how much more effective they would have been if they could have asked certain central questions without being silenced by Adam Schiff. It would have been a total take-down.

Of course, that’s why Schiff ran the hearing as he did. If he didn’t, we might have Republican committee members asking about things like this…

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-real-mystery-about-caramella-and-vindman/

As I was listening on Wednesday, I kept thinking, “These false allegations against Trump are being presented as if they were a shocking abuse of power. What if this were President Obama? Wouldn’t this just be seen as his rightful exercise of power? I think we all know that, YES, it would.”

Consider that Obama’s terrible Iran deal was so important to him, he secretly put millions of dollars in cash on a plane and had it flown over, thinking we'd never know. Can you imagine the hysteria if President Trump had even been accused of contemplating doing that? Bribery! Secrecy! Treachery! Back-channel diplomacy! Impeachment!  Yet the very real Obama story just went away.

The two “star witnesses” in Wednesday’s testimony had no direct evidence whatsoever of any Trump “quid pro quo” --- of course, that won’t matter to Democrats, who just move the goal posts --- and Jordan easily pointed out that all they had was hearsay and opinion. “Ambassador, you didn’t listen in on the call, did you…?” (No.) “You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?” (No.) “You’ve never met the President?” (No.) “You had three meetings, again, with Zelensky and it didn’t come up?” (No. “And in two of them they’d never heard about it [withholding aid], as far as I know.”)

None of this would be allowed in a court of law, and for good reason: it would mean a defendant could be almost effortlessly railroaded. “I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this,” Jordan said of the hearsay.

https://www.westernjournal.com/jordan-star-witness-taylor-seen-church-prayer-chains-easier-understand/

Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said later, “Single hearsay’s unreliable, double hearsay’s a joke, triple hearsay’s a farce, and quadruple hearsay’s is slapstick and buffoonery. And yet that’s what we heard today; George Kent said he believed there was a quid pro quo, because he heard it from Taylor who heard it from Tim Morrison who heard it from [Ambassador] Gordon Sondland. Where did Sondland get it? Oh, he ‘presumed’ there was a quid pro quo, even though the President told him [Sondland] directly, ‘I want nothing; there’s no quid pro quo.’”

“Cross examination is the engine of truth,” Jarrett said, “and we learned today why, because Jordan and Ratcliffe and [Michael] Turner eviscerated this chattering class of diplomats whose only currency seems to be innuendo, rumor, speculation based on multiple hearsay. That’s not evidence; it’s junk...” Likewise, Sen. Lindsay Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has vowed there will be no impeachment trial based on hearsay evidence and/or an anonymous accuser. “What they’re doing in the House is a danger to the presidency itself,” he said, adding that any trial in the Senate would HAVE to expose the “whistleblower” –- and all his connections –- so that the President could confront his accuser.

In other words, Democrats, be careful what you wish for.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/470407-graham-senate-trial-must-expose-the-whistleblower

Early in Wednesday’s proceedings, Ratcliffe asked for a point of order on whether members could object to leading questions and hearsay, as he had already seen ample opportunity to do that while Democrats had had the floor. (Schiff essentially ignored him and looked like an absolute prig.) Later, he asked both witnesses straight-out, “So, in this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach Presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call? Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?” (Uncomfortable silence.) “Shout it out,” he continued. “Anyone?” (Nada.)

Some Democrat members, notably Joaquin Castro, asked incredibly leading questions to get witnesses to agree that certain behavior would be bad, but the perceptive among you will have noticed he offered no actual evidence of said behavior. Those are the clips that will run over and over on MSNBC.  But once you catch on to this tactic, it’s so freaking obvious. The “crime” is always in their interpretation --- what they choose to believe the President’s intention was.

And that’s why the Republicans are going to have to get even tougher, to keep true-believer Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) from being able to impeach the President according to their own interpretations of what the President did. Look who’s helping them now, on-air as a newly-hired NBC news analyst…

Top Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann offers impeachment advice to Democrats

But a few Democrats are apparently so shaken by their side’s tactics that they are considering leaving the party. I’ll close with a note of optimism about the human race, brought to us by Rep. Andrew McCarthy in an interview Wednesday with Sean Hannity. “I’ve had a couple; I had a Democrat come to me today and tell me he even questioned about whether he should stay a Democrat or he should re-register. He said, ‘This is not the party that I know...these individuals and the direction that they’re going is totally wrong.’”

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Comments 51-60 of 60

  • Joseph Trokey

    11/14/2019 10:33 AM

    It is indeed pitiful to watch what are supposed to be adults that are so desirous to hold onto their egotistic power bases. It is not hard to see they have no desire to be servants to our country.

  • amber sampo

    11/14/2019 10:33 AM

    This demonstrates the evil corruption that has consumed the democrats', the democratic party, this shames the USA that an injustus by these democratic crooks is allowed.
    God is in control and will deal with this, defeat this evil.

  • William Jaques

    11/14/2019 10:27 AM

    This was a sad day for Americans. I watched the proceedings in it’s entirety. To see the people we have entrusted to run our great nation. Act like elementary school bullies to get what they want. The truth means nothing to them. Just sack Trump at any cost. President Trump is our elected president. What they are doing is just short of treason. Actively trying to undermine him at every turn.

  • Joe Broadway

    11/14/2019 10:25 AM

    When trump wins another 4 years the Democratics will lose it. Needless to say Satan is active in the US government.

  • Steve Turman

    11/14/2019 10:24 AM

    When George Soros passes away A.Shiffty will legally change his entire given name to his father in-laws and carry on with their insane wealth driven behavior. I do not like laws written by someone who does not understand how Americans really live from day to day and especially this waste of tax dollars that is going on now. There must be a really big prize wait for him to go to these lengths of looking stupid in front of the entire world.

  • Bonnie Causey

    11/14/2019 10:22 AM

    Yesterday there was a woman on the panel started to make a comment/ask a question and Schaffer’s cut her off. Why was he allowed to do that and why did he do it? I haven’t heard or seen anyone question this.

  • marida binsted

    11/14/2019 10:19 AM

    I can't understand why this sham can't b stopped. We all live in the United States of America and are reduced to watching a bunch of garbage orchestrated by some of the Democrats who should be ashamed of their actions.Have everyone of the lost their mind? They were elected to run this country according to the constitution and have done nothing this past year. Shame on them.

  • Roger Davenport

    11/14/2019 10:16 AM

    Truths will stand the test of time lies will be revealed Prov.12:19

  • Jerry Korba

    11/14/2019 10:13 AM

    If ever drain the swamp position is not understood The schiff show is every reason why that should happen and if the Left has any members with a tiny bit of integrity they need to sprint away from this toxic swamp. The little tyrant Shitff needs to be put in a restraint outfit he is committing party suicide oh forget that let him keep doing what he is doing roll on Shitff you are doing a service for this country exposing what WEENIES the Left truly are the 2 witness you have are the perfect examples of what you people are. Insecure WEENIES!!!!!

  • Helen Corey

    11/14/2019 10:08 AM

    Amen.

The first public installment of the “Impeach Trump 2019” spectacle took place on Wednesday, and this is not like the impeachment hearings of old. It’s completely partisan, rigidly controlled by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. To construct a false narrative, Schiff, in a painfully obvious contortion, makes sure that only certain aspects of this complex story are acknowledged to exist. In fact, that’s why the committee had to come back later, after dismissing the witnesses and cameras: to consider a motion to subpoena the “anonymous whistleblower” (who, as we’ve noted, isn’t a whistleblower under federal law but known Democrat operative/spy Eric Ciaramella, spelled C-I-A-R-A-M-E-L-L-A, pronounced “CHAR-a-mel-ah, as in “CHAR-lie”). That motion was, not surprisingly, tabled, by party-line vote. Aw, too bad we didn’t get to find out his ("or her") name.

Anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows that one reason Schiff can’t allow questions about the whistleblower is that HE and HIS STAFF would be shown to be lying about their contacts and “collusion” with this very person. We all know who it is! We just can’t talk about him! And, of course, we can’t hear from anyone with whom he's spoken.

The fact that the very person who is RUNNING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY is the one whose staff first had contact with the person who sparked the impeachment inquiry is like something out of a political thriller. You can’t make this stuff up. (Or, if you can, you really should start writing political thrillers.) Absurdly, Schiff currently maintains he doesn’t know this person's name; either he is brazenly lying or he has carefully tiptoed around the name when speaking with his staff, so as to preserve technical deniability on that one point.  But he knows.

We knew Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe would knock it out of the park on questioning, and they did. But let's also acknowledge New York Rep. Elise Stefanik for her skillful line of questioning; she has a no-nonsense way of cutting right to the chase. We should be proud of all the Republicans’ efforts to get the facts out there for the American public. Imagine how much more effective they would have been if they could have asked certain central questions without being silenced by Adam Schiff. It would have been a total take-down.

Of course, that’s why Schiff ran the hearing as he did. If he didn’t, we might have Republican committee members asking about things like this…

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-real-mystery-about-caramella-and-vindman/

As I was listening on Wednesday, I kept thinking, “These false allegations against Trump are being presented as if they were a shocking abuse of power. What if this were President Obama? Wouldn’t this just be seen as his rightful exercise of power? I think we all know that, YES, it would.”

Consider that Obama’s terrible Iran deal was so important to him, he secretly put millions of dollars in cash on a plane and had it flown over, thinking we'd never know. Can you imagine the hysteria if President Trump had even been accused of contemplating doing that? Bribery! Secrecy! Treachery! Back-channel diplomacy! Impeachment!  Yet the very real Obama story just went away.

The two “star witnesses” in Wednesday’s testimony had no direct evidence whatsoever of any Trump “quid pro quo” --- of course, that won’t matter to Democrats, who just move the goal posts --- and Jordan easily pointed out that all they had was hearsay and opinion. “Ambassador, you didn’t listen in on the call, did you…?” (No.) “You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?” (No.) “You’ve never met the President?” (No.) “You had three meetings, again, with Zelensky and it didn’t come up?” (No. “And in two of them they’d never heard about it [withholding aid], as far as I know.”)

None of this would be allowed in a court of law, and for good reason: it would mean a defendant could be almost effortlessly railroaded. “I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this,” Jordan said of the hearsay.

https://www.westernjournal.com/jordan-star-witness-taylor-seen-church-prayer-chains-easier-understand/

Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said later, “Single hearsay’s unreliable, double hearsay’s a joke, triple hearsay’s a farce, and quadruple hearsay’s is slapstick and buffoonery. And yet that’s what we heard today; George Kent said he believed there was a quid pro quo, because he heard it from Taylor who heard it from Tim Morrison who heard it from [Ambassador] Gordon Sondland. Where did Sondland get it? Oh, he ‘presumed’ there was a quid pro quo, even though the President told him [Sondland] directly, ‘I want nothing; there’s no quid pro quo.’”

“Cross examination is the engine of truth,” Jarrett said, “and we learned today why, because Jordan and Ratcliffe and [Michael] Turner eviscerated this chattering class of diplomats whose only currency seems to be innuendo, rumor, speculation based on multiple hearsay. That’s not evidence; it’s junk...” Likewise, Sen. Lindsay Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has vowed there will be no impeachment trial based on hearsay evidence and/or an anonymous accuser. “What they’re doing in the House is a danger to the presidency itself,” he said, adding that any trial in the Senate would HAVE to expose the “whistleblower” –- and all his connections –- so that the President could confront his accuser.

In other words, Democrats, be careful what you wish for.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/470407-graham-senate-trial-must-expose-the-whistleblower

Early in Wednesday’s proceedings, Ratcliffe asked for a point of order on whether members could object to leading questions and hearsay, as he had already seen ample opportunity to do that while Democrats had had the floor. (Schiff essentially ignored him and looked like an absolute prig.) Later, he asked both witnesses straight-out, “So, in this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach Presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call? Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?” (Uncomfortable silence.) “Shout it out,” he continued. “Anyone?” (Nada.)

Some Democrat members, notably Joaquin Castro, asked incredibly leading questions to get witnesses to agree that certain behavior would be bad, but the perceptive among you will have noticed he offered no actual evidence of said behavior. Those are the clips that will run over and over on MSNBC.  But once you catch on to this tactic, it’s so freaking obvious. The “crime” is always in their interpretation --- what they choose to believe the President’s intention was.

And that’s why the Republicans are going to have to get even tougher, to keep true-believer Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) from being able to impeach the President according to their own interpretations of what the President did. Look who’s helping them now, on-air as a newly-hired NBC news analyst…

Top Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann offers impeachment advice to Democrats

But a few Democrats are apparently so shaken by their side’s tactics that they are considering leaving the party. I’ll close with a note of optimism about the human race, brought to us by Rep. Andrew McCarthy in an interview Wednesday with Sean Hannity. “I’ve had a couple; I had a Democrat come to me today and tell me he even questioned about whether he should stay a Democrat or he should re-register. He said, ‘This is not the party that I know...these individuals and the direction that they’re going is totally wrong.’”

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Comments 51-60 of 60

  • Joseph Trokey

    11/14/2019 10:33 AM

    It is indeed pitiful to watch what are supposed to be adults that are so desirous to hold onto their egotistic power bases. It is not hard to see they have no desire to be servants to our country.

  • amber sampo

    11/14/2019 10:33 AM

    This demonstrates the evil corruption that has consumed the democrats', the democratic party, this shames the USA that an injustus by these democratic crooks is allowed.
    God is in control and will deal with this, defeat this evil.

  • William Jaques

    11/14/2019 10:27 AM

    This was a sad day for Americans. I watched the proceedings in it’s entirety. To see the people we have entrusted to run our great nation. Act like elementary school bullies to get what they want. The truth means nothing to them. Just sack Trump at any cost. President Trump is our elected president. What they are doing is just short of treason. Actively trying to undermine him at every turn.

  • Joe Broadway

    11/14/2019 10:25 AM

    When trump wins another 4 years the Democratics will lose it. Needless to say Satan is active in the US government.

  • Steve Turman

    11/14/2019 10:24 AM

    When George Soros passes away A.Shiffty will legally change his entire given name to his father in-laws and carry on with their insane wealth driven behavior. I do not like laws written by someone who does not understand how Americans really live from day to day and especially this waste of tax dollars that is going on now. There must be a really big prize wait for him to go to these lengths of looking stupid in front of the entire world.

  • Bonnie Causey

    11/14/2019 10:22 AM

    Yesterday there was a woman on the panel started to make a comment/ask a question and Schaffer’s cut her off. Why was he allowed to do that and why did he do it? I haven’t heard or seen anyone question this.

  • marida binsted

    11/14/2019 10:19 AM

    I can't understand why this sham can't b stopped. We all live in the United States of America and are reduced to watching a bunch of garbage orchestrated by some of the Democrats who should be ashamed of their actions.Have everyone of the lost their mind? They were elected to run this country according to the constitution and have done nothing this past year. Shame on them.

  • Roger Davenport

    11/14/2019 10:16 AM

    Truths will stand the test of time lies will be revealed Prov.12:19

  • Jerry Korba

    11/14/2019 10:13 AM

    If ever drain the swamp position is not understood The schiff show is every reason why that should happen and if the Left has any members with a tiny bit of integrity they need to sprint away from this toxic swamp. The little tyrant Shitff needs to be put in a restraint outfit he is committing party suicide oh forget that let him keep doing what he is doing roll on Shitff you are doing a service for this country exposing what WEENIES the Left truly are the 2 witness you have are the perfect examples of what you people are. Insecure WEENIES!!!!!

  • Helen Corey

    11/14/2019 10:08 AM

    Amen.

The first public installment of the “Impeach Trump 2019” spectacle took place on Wednesday, and this is not like the impeachment hearings of old. It’s completely partisan, rigidly controlled by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. To construct a false narrative, Schiff, in a painfully obvious contortion, makes sure that only certain aspects of this complex story are acknowledged to exist. In fact, that’s why the committee had to come back later, after dismissing the witnesses and cameras: to consider a motion to subpoena the “anonymous whistleblower” (who, as we’ve noted, isn’t a whistleblower under federal law but known Democrat operative/spy Eric Ciaramella, spelled C-I-A-R-A-M-E-L-L-A, pronounced “CHAR-a-mel-ah, as in “CHAR-lie”). That motion was, not surprisingly, tabled, by party-line vote. Aw, too bad we didn’t get to find out his ("or her") name.

Anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows that one reason Schiff can’t allow questions about the whistleblower is that HE and HIS STAFF would be shown to be lying about their contacts and “collusion” with this very person. We all know who it is! We just can’t talk about him! And, of course, we can’t hear from anyone with whom he's spoken.

The fact that the very person who is RUNNING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY is the one whose staff first had contact with the person who sparked the impeachment inquiry is like something out of a political thriller. You can’t make this stuff up. (Or, if you can, you really should start writing political thrillers.) Absurdly, Schiff currently maintains he doesn’t know this person's name; either he is brazenly lying or he has carefully tiptoed around the name when speaking with his staff, so as to preserve technical deniability on that one point.  But he knows.

We knew Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe would knock it out of the park on questioning, and they did. But let's also acknowledge New York Rep. Elise Stefanik for her skillful line of questioning; she has a no-nonsense way of cutting right to the chase. We should be proud of all the Republicans’ efforts to get the facts out there for the American public. Imagine how much more effective they would have been if they could have asked certain central questions without being silenced by Adam Schiff. It would have been a total take-down.

Of course, that’s why Schiff ran the hearing as he did. If he didn’t, we might have Republican committee members asking about things like this…

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-real-mystery-about-caramella-and-vindman/

As I was listening on Wednesday, I kept thinking, “These false allegations against Trump are being presented as if they were a shocking abuse of power. What if this were President Obama? Wouldn’t this just be seen as his rightful exercise of power? I think we all know that, YES, it would.”

Consider that Obama’s terrible Iran deal was so important to him, he secretly put millions of dollars in cash on a plane and had it flown over, thinking we'd never know. Can you imagine the hysteria if President Trump had even been accused of contemplating doing that? Bribery! Secrecy! Treachery! Back-channel diplomacy! Impeachment!  Yet the very real Obama story just went away.

The two “star witnesses” in Wednesday’s testimony had no direct evidence whatsoever of any Trump “quid pro quo” --- of course, that won’t matter to Democrats, who just move the goal posts --- and Jordan easily pointed out that all they had was hearsay and opinion. “Ambassador, you didn’t listen in on the call, did you…?” (No.) “You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?” (No.) “You’ve never met the President?” (No.) “You had three meetings, again, with Zelensky and it didn’t come up?” (No. “And in two of them they’d never heard about it [withholding aid], as far as I know.”)

None of this would be allowed in a court of law, and for good reason: it would mean a defendant could be almost effortlessly railroaded. “I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this,” Jordan said of the hearsay.

https://www.westernjournal.com/jordan-star-witness-taylor-seen-church-prayer-chains-easier-understand/

Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said later, “Single hearsay’s unreliable, double hearsay’s a joke, triple hearsay’s a farce, and quadruple hearsay’s is slapstick and buffoonery. And yet that’s what we heard today; George Kent said he believed there was a quid pro quo, because he heard it from Taylor who heard it from Tim Morrison who heard it from [Ambassador] Gordon Sondland. Where did Sondland get it? Oh, he ‘presumed’ there was a quid pro quo, even though the President told him [Sondland] directly, ‘I want nothing; there’s no quid pro quo.’”

“Cross examination is the engine of truth,” Jarrett said, “and we learned today why, because Jordan and Ratcliffe and [Michael] Turner eviscerated this chattering class of diplomats whose only currency seems to be innuendo, rumor, speculation based on multiple hearsay. That’s not evidence; it’s junk...” Likewise, Sen. Lindsay Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has vowed there will be no impeachment trial based on hearsay evidence and/or an anonymous accuser. “What they’re doing in the House is a danger to the presidency itself,” he said, adding that any trial in the Senate would HAVE to expose the “whistleblower” –- and all his connections –- so that the President could confront his accuser.

In other words, Democrats, be careful what you wish for.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/470407-graham-senate-trial-must-expose-the-whistleblower

Early in Wednesday’s proceedings, Ratcliffe asked for a point of order on whether members could object to leading questions and hearsay, as he had already seen ample opportunity to do that while Democrats had had the floor. (Schiff essentially ignored him and looked like an absolute prig.) Later, he asked both witnesses straight-out, “So, in this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach Presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call? Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?” (Uncomfortable silence.) “Shout it out,” he continued. “Anyone?” (Nada.)

Some Democrat members, notably Joaquin Castro, asked incredibly leading questions to get witnesses to agree that certain behavior would be bad, but the perceptive among you will have noticed he offered no actual evidence of said behavior. Those are the clips that will run over and over on MSNBC.  But once you catch on to this tactic, it’s so freaking obvious. The “crime” is always in their interpretation --- what they choose to believe the President’s intention was.

And that’s why the Republicans are going to have to get even tougher, to keep true-believer Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) from being able to impeach the President according to their own interpretations of what the President did. Look who’s helping them now, on-air as a newly-hired NBC news analyst…

Top Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann offers impeachment advice to Democrats

But a few Democrats are apparently so shaken by their side’s tactics that they are considering leaving the party. I’ll close with a note of optimism about the human race, brought to us by Rep. Andrew McCarthy in an interview Wednesday with Sean Hannity. “I’ve had a couple; I had a Democrat come to me today and tell me he even questioned about whether he should stay a Democrat or he should re-register. He said, ‘This is not the party that I know...these individuals and the direction that they’re going is totally wrong.’”

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Comments 51-60 of 60

  • Joseph Trokey

    11/14/2019 10:33 AM

    It is indeed pitiful to watch what are supposed to be adults that are so desirous to hold onto their egotistic power bases. It is not hard to see they have no desire to be servants to our country.

  • amber sampo

    11/14/2019 10:33 AM

    This demonstrates the evil corruption that has consumed the democrats', the democratic party, this shames the USA that an injustus by these democratic crooks is allowed.
    God is in control and will deal with this, defeat this evil.

  • William Jaques

    11/14/2019 10:27 AM

    This was a sad day for Americans. I watched the proceedings in it’s entirety. To see the people we have entrusted to run our great nation. Act like elementary school bullies to get what they want. The truth means nothing to them. Just sack Trump at any cost. President Trump is our elected president. What they are doing is just short of treason. Actively trying to undermine him at every turn.

  • Joe Broadway

    11/14/2019 10:25 AM

    When trump wins another 4 years the Democratics will lose it. Needless to say Satan is active in the US government.

  • Steve Turman

    11/14/2019 10:24 AM

    When George Soros passes away A.Shiffty will legally change his entire given name to his father in-laws and carry on with their insane wealth driven behavior. I do not like laws written by someone who does not understand how Americans really live from day to day and especially this waste of tax dollars that is going on now. There must be a really big prize wait for him to go to these lengths of looking stupid in front of the entire world.

  • Bonnie Causey

    11/14/2019 10:22 AM

    Yesterday there was a woman on the panel started to make a comment/ask a question and Schaffer’s cut her off. Why was he allowed to do that and why did he do it? I haven’t heard or seen anyone question this.

  • marida binsted

    11/14/2019 10:19 AM

    I can't understand why this sham can't b stopped. We all live in the United States of America and are reduced to watching a bunch of garbage orchestrated by some of the Democrats who should be ashamed of their actions.Have everyone of the lost their mind? They were elected to run this country according to the constitution and have done nothing this past year. Shame on them.

  • Roger Davenport

    11/14/2019 10:16 AM

    Truths will stand the test of time lies will be revealed Prov.12:19

  • Jerry Korba

    11/14/2019 10:13 AM

    If ever drain the swamp position is not understood The schiff show is every reason why that should happen and if the Left has any members with a tiny bit of integrity they need to sprint away from this toxic swamp. The little tyrant Shitff needs to be put in a restraint outfit he is committing party suicide oh forget that let him keep doing what he is doing roll on Shitff you are doing a service for this country exposing what WEENIES the Left truly are the 2 witness you have are the perfect examples of what you people are. Insecure WEENIES!!!!!

  • Helen Corey

    11/14/2019 10:08 AM

    Amen.