Few impeachment updates - day before D day

[jimnyc]

Not really sure how long the whole thing will last. If you read the Dems side, he's cooked 10x over with facts and evidence. The Republicans side think it's much of lies and smoking rooms and mirrors. Gonna be quite the show!

--

Dems last gasp to smear Trump

"Anonymous" and House impeachment are the real collusion

If you are paying attention to the Washington circus that is the impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s handling of the much maligned Ukraine call, this is what real collusion looks like: A media largely committed to advancing the goal of Democrats to severely damage or remove him from office, a series of at first private testimonies by people who appear to have similar motives and connections to Democrats and/or anti-Trump forces, and now a new book by “Anonymous,” which claims the president has a bad attitude and is difficult to work with.

Where to start?

“Anonymous” is a self-admitted coward. He, or she, apparently still works within the administration. A true patriot would resign and go public so their accusations could be tested. Writing a book like this while still on the public payroll is more than cowardly; it is also an attempt to disregard, disrespect and dishonor the people who voted for Donald Trump.

Next comes the testimony starting Wednesday of carefully selected “witnesses” before Rep. Adam Schiff’s “intelligence” committee (now there’s a play on words).

These testimonies are designed to advance the left’s narrative about Ukraine, but only the narrative that fits their agenda and not the one featuring a real quid pro quo involving Joe Biden and his overpaid son, who held a directorship with a Ukraine energy company while his father was vice president and involved in U.S. policy on Ukraine. At the time, the elder Biden urged Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, with the threat of withholding U.S. aid.

Rest - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/11/democrats-last-gasp-to-smear-trump/


Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem

House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news reports.

Vindman has not yet been scheduled to appear before the Democrats' public impeachment hearings. When that happens, he will undoubtedly again play a prominent role. But there will be a difference. The public now has a transcript of Vindman's deposition. And those who have taken the trouble to read the 340-page document will have a different picture of Vindman's testimony than the one presented in early media reports.

Yes, Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump, speaking with Zelensky, to bring up the 2016 election and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be. And that raises questions about how it will play when Vindman goes before the world in a public impeachment hearing.

Here are four problems with the Vindman testimony:

1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer. Vindman seemed to be an important fact witness, the first who had actually been on the July 25 call when Trump talked to Zelensky. But the White House weeks ago released the rough transcript of that call, which meant everyone in the secure room in which Vindman testified, and everyone on the planet, for that matter, already knew what had been said.

Indeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president. As one of a half-dozen White House note-takers listening to the call, Vindman testified that he tried unsuccessfully to make a few edits to the rough transcript as it was being prepared. In particular, Vindman believed that Zelensky specifically said the word "Burisma," the corrupt Ukrainian energy company that hired Hunter Biden, when the rough transcript referred only to "the company." But beyond that, Vindman had no problems with the transcript, and he specifically said he did not believe any changes were made with ill intent.

"You don't think there was any malicious intent to specifically not add those edits?" asked Republican counsel Steve Castor.

"I don't think so."

"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

"Yes," said Vindman.

Once Vindman had vouched for the rough transcript, his testimony mostly concerned his own interpretation of Trump's words. And that interpretation, as Vindman discovered during questioning, was itself open to interpretation.

Rest - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-democrats-have-a-col-vindman-problem


Yes, a fair impeachment inquiry would question Hunter Biden (And Joe Biden too, andd ANYONE else connected to any BS with Ukraine during the past few years prior to Trump, Biden AND Hillary crap.)

After weeks of conducting hearings in private, the House impeachment *inquiry is going public this week. But if the Democrats stage-managing this affair have their way, there will be one *element of their presidential-misconduct allegations that won’t be part of the show: Hunter Biden.

Democrats believe that the vice-presidential son’s Ukraine shenanigans are irrelevant to impeachment. They want the hearings to be entirely focused on their accusation that President Trump threatened to withhold American military aid to force Kiev to investigate a political rival.

They say that questions about what Hunter did or didn’t do, and what his father knew and when he knew it, are just a conspiracy theory floated by Trump and his followers to confuse the American people.

But even if you buy the Democrats’ premise that Trump’s *request was not merely inappropriate but illegal and a crime so terrible that it justifies impeachment, this makes no sense.

How can the House examine this matter without probing Trump’s motivation for requesting that Ukraine investigate the Bidens?

Biden’s younger and wayward son was being paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to be on the board of a Ukrainian energy company — despite having exactly zero qualifications for the post other than his last name. It is also a matter of record that President Barack Obama tasked Joe Biden with managing US relations with Ukraine at the time. We also know that “Ukraine’s energy sector — the country’s crucial geopolitical engine — was a central point of contention between the Obama administration and Kiev,” as The New York Times reported last week.

Rest - https://nypost.com/2019/11/11/yes-a-fair-impeachment-inquiry-would-question-hunter-biden/

[jimnyc]

Here we go, for and against, right from the best news agency in CNN!

--

The case for and against impeaching President Donald Trump

Washington (CNN)Thousands of pages of transcripts are piling up, and top minds from both political parties are preparing their best strategy as the impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump moves into a new phase Wednesday with the first public hearings.

A clearer picture of Trump's dealings with Ukraine has finally emerged after weeks of testimony from key witnesses. At the heart of the inquiry is whether Trump used the powers of his office to pressure Ukraine to help his reelection by announcing investigations into his political opponents.

Trump could become the third president in American history to be impeached. The United States Constitution says the sitting President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Democrats and Republicans will fight in the coming weeks over whether Trump crossed that threshold.

CNN spoke to legal experts and analysts from both sides of the political spectrum to break down all the evidence, and to tally up the strongest points for and against impeaching Trump.

The case for impeaching Trump:

Trump solicited election meddling from Ukraine

Democrats believe this might be the slam dunk against Trump. The whistleblower said it first, and it has been corroborated by multiple witnesses: "The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 US election."

Trump made the request directly to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This is clear from the rough transcript of their July 25 phone call, which was released by the White House.

After an exchange of pleasantries, Trump said the US had been "very good to Ukraine" but the relationship was not "reciprocal." Zelensky thanked Trump for providing Ukraine with military assistance and said he was almost ready to purchase additional anti-tank missiles from the US.

Trump responded, "I would like you to do us a favor though," and asked Zelensky to investigate a conspiracy theory that would help him undermine the Russia investigation. Later in the call, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading 2020 rival.

Diplomats appointed by Trump later told Ukrainian officials that Zelensky needed to publicly announce the probes, which is very rarely done in legitimate criminal investigations. This strongly suggests the plan was designed to maximize political damage to Biden's presidential campaign and was not motivated a by a sincere effort to root out corruption, as Trump claimed.

"The Ukraine situation encapsulates almost exactly what impeachment was created to address," said CNN legal analyst Michael Gerhardt, who was called as a nonpartisan expert witness on impeachment during the Clinton hearings.

"When the Framers talked about impeachable offenses, they mentioned the President engaging in a corrupt relationship with a foreign power."

There was a quid pro quo for a White House invite

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a quid pro quo as "something given or received for something else." Multiple witnesses have testified that the Trump administration tried to establish a quid pro quo with Ukraine to secure investigations into Biden and the Democrats.

"I think it's very likely that the Democrats will be able to show that there were conditions to presidential actions on Ukraine," said CNN legal analyst Ross Garber, a leading expert on impeachment. "Then the question becomes, were those conditions legitimate or illegitimate?"

One element of the allegedly improper arrangement included withholding a White House invitation from Zelensky. The clearest evidence of this comes from a text message sent by Kurt Volker, who was Trump's handpicked envoy for Ukraine, to top Zelensky aide Andrey Yermak.

Volker texted Yermak right before Trump called Zelensky. He said: "Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow."

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the White House's National Security Council, listened in on the Trump-Zelensky call. He later testified that based on the "vast" power disparity between the two leaders, Trump's request would have been interpreted as "a demand" and that Zelensky would need to "fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting."

There was a quid pro quo for US military aid

In addition to dangling the White House visit, the Trump administration froze $391 million in military and security assistance to Ukraine, which is still at war with Russia and Kremlin-backed militias. Weeks later, US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Yermak that the money likely wouldn't be released until Zelensky announced the investigations.

Other witnesses also said the military aid was linked to Zelensky's announcement. This includes Vindman and Tim Morrison, two officials on the White House's National Security Council who listened to the Trump-Zelensky call. It also includes Ambassador Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, who testified that "everything" Ukraine wanted relied on the investigations.

George Kent, a top State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy, testified that US military support for Ukraine was "critically important" but "partisan interest" got in the way of US policy.

"That's the most compelling argument why aid to Ukraine was in our national security interests," said CNN contributor Joe Lockhart, who was President Bill Clinton's press secretary during his impeachment. "Russia is at war with Ukraine, our ally. But President Trump put his own political interests ahead of our national security interests. That's why it rises to an impeachable offense."

.....

The case against impeaching Trump:

The process of the inquiry was fatally flawed

Trump and congressional Republicans have complained about the process from the very beginning, and they're likely to continue raising these procedural concerns until the bitter end. Trump tweeted on Sunday that his "due process" rights were being trampled.

Primary among their concerns is the fact that Trump's lawyers don't have a guaranteed role in the private depositions and public hearings, which means his legal team can't cross-examine witnesses. Republicans are also upset that they don't have unilateral power to issue subpoenas.

"They are going to say that the process was not designed to get to the truth," Garber said, noting that Clinton's lawyers were given the right to participate in his impeachment proceedings.

House Republicans recently appointed Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio to the House Intelligence Committee, which will handle the first public impeachment hearings. Jordan has been making the case that the inquiry was "completely unfair" and deprived Trump of his due process rights.

If the House votes to impeach, the few Senate Republicans who might have reservations about Trump's actions with Ukraine could still vote for his acquittal and place the blame on Democrats for tainting the investigation.

"Republicans will remind us of the incredibly high standard for impeachment, and that in the entire history of our country, no president has been found guilty of meeting that standard," Garber said. "The standard is so incredibly high, and the costs to the country are so serious."

Presidents have vast foreign policy powers

The Constitution says the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and it also gives the President the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors, with approval from the Senate. Besides that, the Constitution doesn't delineate many other foreign policy powers.

Many legal scholars agree that US presidents have capitalized on this constitutional vagueness and silence to amass substantial executive power over foreign policy and diplomacy. Some of the nations' Founding Fathers believed the President alone should wield this limitless authority.

This could be helpful for Trump, who previously claimed that Article II of the Constitution, which spells out presidential powers, "allows me to do whatever I want." His lawyers might argue that he is only person who sets US foreign policy -- not his subordinates at the State Department.

"You're taking a President and you're going after him for an abuse of authority in an area where it's almost impossible to abuse authority, because he has almost absolute authority in that area," said former Sen. Rick Santorum, a CNN contributor who was one of the Republicans who negotiated the rules for Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate. "It's just a big reach for them."

The centerpiece of the inquiry hangs on Trump's diplomatic dealings -- not a Watergate-type scandal where people clearly broke the law or lies under oath like Clinton. Trump's lawyers might argue at his Senate trial that even though Democrats don't like what Trump did with Ukraine, he is still the President, and he can handle foreign diplomacy however he wants.

Limited insight into Trump's state of mind

To prove that Trump is guilty, Democrats will need to show that he had corrupt intentions when he directed his diplomats to work with Giuliani and when he asked for the "favor" from Zelensky.

Nobody has testified that Trump explicitly told them he was pushing the quid pro quo because he wanted to weaken Biden's campaign or boost his own chances of getting reelected. Trump's defenders have said witnesses who confirmed the quid pro quo were giving their own "opinions" or making "presumptions." Two of those witnesses, Taylor and Vindman, never spoke to Trump.

"I don't know what was in the President's mind," Taylor said during his closed-door deposition.

One possibility is that Trump genuinely believes the discredited theories he and Giuliani have been promoting. That means Trump was acting in good faith when he asked Zelensky to check whether Ukraine framed Russian hackers, even though the US government firmly believes the Russian military was responsible. The Justice Department is reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation, and Mulvaney said Trump just wanted Zelensky to "cooperate" with that review.
Trump was "clearly irritated by the 2016 election" and has "heard stories for a long time" about supposed Ukrainian meddling to help Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, said former Rep. Bill McCollum, who was one of the GOP House managers for Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999.

"Trump is very bright, but he doesn't read a lot, and buys into a lot of conspiracy theories," McCollum said. "Some of those theories could be correct, and he wants to find out what really happened in 2016. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. Is that in the national interest, or is it purely political? That's the rub. It'll be difficult for the Democrats to separate those two."

There's another potential argument in the ether -- that Trump was too incompetent to pull off a quid pro quo with Ukraine. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, opened the door to this argument last week, when he said Trump's policy toward Ukraine was "incoherent" and that The Trump administration was therefore "incapable of forming a quid pro quo."

Ukraine got the military assistance after all

Republicans will have political cover to vote against Trump's impeachment, or to acquit him in the Senate, because they can say Ukraine ultimately got the money, and Trump got nothing.

The White House released the congressionally appropriated $391 million aid package on September 11, after news reports revealed the unexplained holdup and after getting tipped off about the whistleblower complaint. Zelensky never bowed to Trump's demands, though it now appears he was reluctantly willing to, based on the call summary and press reports.

Trump's allies say Zelensky didn't know the aid was frozen during the July 25 call. The exact timing is unclear: News reports say Ukraine learned about the freeze in early August, but Volker's text messages and testimony from Taylor indicate Ukraine first learned from a Politico article on August 28.

"The people who were supposedly doing the quid pro quo didn't find out until months after," Santorum said. "So, how do you have a quid pro quo when no one knows that it's happening?"

If defenders of the President want to undercut some allegations of the quid pro quo, they can look to Kent, the top State Department official for Ukraine policy. He told lawmakers he saw a quid pro quo, withholding a White House invite from Zelensky until he investigated the Bidens, but that it was "not related to the security assistance," which would be much more serious.

To be clear, Democrats can impeach Trump for simply attempting the quid pro quo, if they have the votes. But Republicans are certain to make the counterpoint that despite all the bluster and the noise, this affair created a brief two-month delay that didn't damage US national security.

Rest - https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics/trump-impeachment-arguments/index.html

[jimnyc]

Ok, some more...

---

Impeachment Whistleblower May Be Abusing His Office to Enrich Himself, ICIG Complaint Alleges

The whistleblower behind the Democrats' impeachment inquiry may have violated government regulations by using his office and his access to classified information to enrich himself on GoFundMe, a new complaint alleges. Anthony Gallo, managing partner at the law firm Tully Rinckey PLLC, sent a letter to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) passing on the allegations from a source with a top-secret SCI security clearance who has served in government.

The GoFundMe fundraiser, entitled "Help the Intel Community Whistleblowers," has raised $227,537 as of Tuesday morning. According to the complaint, first reported by Fox News, the donations from roughly 6,000 individuals "clearly constitute" gifts to a current intelligence official. This may violate 5 CFR 2635.203 and other government statutes.

"I have not seen anything on this scale," Gallo told Fox News, referring to the $227,537 raised on GoFundMe. "It's not about politics for my client -- it's whistleblower-on-whistleblower, and [my client's] only interest is to see the government ethics rules are being complied with government-wide."

Earlier this year, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) warned federal government employees that they "may not accept any gift given because of the employee's official position," meaning that the gift would "not have been given had the employee not held the status, authority, or duties associated with the employee's federal position." OGE also warned that gifts may not be accepted from "prohibited sources," such as anyone whom the employee's agency regulates or anyone who has interests affected by the employee's work.

Gallo filed this complaint to ICIG Michael Atkinson, the same government watchdog who originally received the Ukraine whistleblower's complaint that sparked the impeachment inquiry. Atkinson is protecting that whistleblower's identity, even though various news reports have tentatively identified him as Eric Ciaramella.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/impeachment-whistleblower-may-be-abusing-his-office-to-enrich-himself-ig-complaint-alleges/


Prediction: No Impeachment

I'm afraid I've run out of metaphors for the "impeachment inquiry." "Clown show" — I like clowns. The ad vendors and corporate won't let me spell out "(excrement) show" without bowdlerization. "Death march," maybe.

In any case, you know what I'm talking about — the ongoing kangaroo court inquiry in which the main complainant "whistleblower" is anxious to testify until his long-time connections with the people who are pushing the inquiry, as well as his long-time connections with the corrupt inner circle Trump would like Ukraine to investigate became known — at which point he became so scary that you can't name him on Facebook, as if Eric Ciaramella were Voldemort in the children's books.

Of course, if Ciaramella was not the whistleblower, his attorney — the one who was bragging that the "#coup" was on in January 2017 — could just say "Eric Ciaramella is not the whistleblower" instead of threatening people with meretricious legal arguments to suppress his name.

Which is "Eric Ciaramella."

In fact, one of the most curious aspects of the "inquiry" has been just who may, and may not, testify — along with the fact that the fabled Adam Schiff is the only decider of who is called to testify.

Why, it's almost as if there's something that worries the Democrats about cross-examination of the guy that was their star witness a couple of weeks ago.

(There's another mystery about that: how is it that the leaks of testimony start within minutes, but the full transcripts are released days or weeks later, if at all.)

But now consider what happens if they do prepare Articles and have them actually voted out of the House. (Which isn't actually a foregone conclusion given the polling.)

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/prediction-no-impeachment/


Only Illegal for Intel IG to Name ‘Whistleblower’: ‘No Overarching’ Identity Protection

The law does not explicitly prevent anyone other than the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) who received the complaint that triggered the impeachment inquiry from outing the identity of the so-called “whistleblower,” several mainstream media outlets have conceded in recent days.

Even left-wing mainstream media outlets—CNN, the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), and Reuters — determined that, certainly, no law prohibits President Donald Trump or members of Congress from disclosing the name of the leaker who sparked the impeachment inquiry.

CNN acknowledged on November 8, “It is true no law explicitly prevents anyone, other than the IG [inspector general] and their staff, from revealing the name of a whistleblower.”

On November 6, National Public Radio (NPR) added:


In recent days, President Trump and his allies have amplified their calls for the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry to be identified, presenting the question of whether it would be a crime for the president to unmask the anonymous whistleblower.

According to four former top federal government officials who worked in intelligence and national security [even under former President Barack Obama], the answer is no. …Similarly, if a news outlet, member of Congress or member of the public outed the whistleblower, legal experts said, no criminal law would be violated.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/11/only-illegal-for-intel-ig-to-name-whistleblower-no-overarching-identity-protection/

[jimnyc]

Hope I didn't post this already. But this is another case of nutso BS.

It's LEGAL for ANYONE to mention or discuss the whistleblowers name - 'cept for just the one person.

And with ALL of the CRAZY connections this guy has with the Democrats - how it all worked - Worked with both John Brennan and James Clapper, 2 of the biggest in the past few years trashing Trump in the news. 2 guys with some seriously high intelligence connections. Of course Ciramella is a registered democrat. Has a connection to the Russian hoax! Involved in leaks, not surprisingly. Worked for the Obama administration. Has some close connections with Adam Schiff, the other ringleader in this fiasco.

This is the star witness, a democrat that's worked with the intel agencies & has a strong connection with Alexandra Chalupa. Look that one up along with the Russian hoax. Do you really want him testifying in front of the nation? Or even maybe in front of an equal amount of republicans or lawyers that may cross examine his testimony? Having all that exposed an released?

First they claimed they and him were both anxious about testifying. Then it slowly moved to maybe appearing in private, not the public. But the information that came out about him was relentless and damning. Then they moved on to just having his testimony entered to the record via paper only. And his name not mentioned anywhere & apparently trying to prevent others in congress from even mentioning his name. Complete and total disappearance - except for any negative information this person may possess.

---

Schiff Threatens Republicans: Don't Criticize the Whistleblower During Public Impeachment Hearings or Else

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is threatening Republican lawmakers ahead of the first public impeachment inquiry hearing on Wednesday and warning that any criticism of the whistleblower could prompt an Ethics Committee investigation. Schiff is also going out of his way to protect the Biden's from scrutiny.

"As explained in my November 9, 2019, response to the Ranking Member, it is important to underscore that the House's impeachment inquiry, and the Committee, will not serve as venues for any Member to further the same sham investigations into the Bidens or into debunked conspiracies about the 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to undertake for his personal political benefit," Schiff wrote in a memo to the Committee laying out the rules for the hearing. "Nor will the Committee facilitate any efforts by President Trump or his allies to threaten intimidate, or retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously and lawfully raised concerns about the President's conduct."

https://i.imgur.com/3UTZIkq.png

Despite Schiff's assertions and threats, asking simple questions about bias or political connections of a whistleblower isn't "intimidation" or "retaliation." Further and as Matt has detailed, there is no law that prevents the name of the whistleblower from becoming public. There's certainly no law that prevents Republican members of Congress from talking about a whistleblower in broad or specific terms during congressional hearings. This is especially true given this "impeachment" inquiry was launched by a whistleblower -- who with second hand knowledge -- claimed a July 25 phone call President Trump had with Ukrainian President Zelensky was inappropriate.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/11/12/so-now-adam-schiff-is-demanding-republicans-not-mention-the-whistleblower-during-public-impeachment-hearings-n2556357

[jimnyc]

That's some seriously odd and eerie connection the last attempt to knock Trump out of office. :rolleyes:

--

Dem Operative Alexandra Chalupa Who Worked with Eric Ciaramella in Creation of Trump-Russia Hoax Says She’s “Itching” to Testify Before Schiff Show Trial

The Mueller special counsel was launched based on a fraudulent Trump-Russia dossier with links back to the Ukrainian operatives.

As we reported in December 2018, Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko was approached by DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa in early 2016.

Chalupa wanted dirt on candidate Trump and his campaign manager Paul Manafort. The Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC worked CLOSELY with the DNC operative Chalupa.

Chalupa told Andrii she wanted Russian “dirt” on the Trump campaign.

The Gateway Pundit spoke with Telizhenko on the DNC Russia-gate Scandal back in 2018.

Alexandra Chalupa was apparently hired by the DNC going as far back as 2013. According to Politico, shortly after the election:


A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party.”

According to Politico, Chalupa claimed that in October of 2015 she began investigating Trump’s ties to Russia. Why she began this investigation is completely unknown. Donald Trump had NO ties to Russia. The only thing of significance that had happened at this point was that Trump announced he was running for office. There was no apparent triggering event. Candidate Trump had very limited contact with Russia or Russia businessmen.

Lying Adam Schiff’s dungeon impeachment sham is based on this exact same scenario. President Trump asked the Ukraine’s newly elected leader to look into the beginnings of the Russia witch hunt in the Ukraine. Liberal Democrats believe this is a crime even though their bogus Mueller investigation started based on the exact same bogus actions tied to the Ukraine and Chalupa.

And now we know that the CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella worked with Chalupa in the creation of the Trump-Russia hoax.

Ciaramella worked closely with corrupt DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa back in 2015.


And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.

With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.

On Tuesday Alexandra Chalupa told The Politico that she’s itching to testify.


A longtime Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist says she’s itching to testify in the House’s public impeachment hearings to beat back Republican assertions that Ukrainian officials used her as a conduit for information in 2016 to damage Donald Trump.

“I’m on a mission to testify,” said Alexandra Chalupa, who Republicans identified as one of nine witnesses they would like to testify publicly when the House begins public impeachment proceedings this week.

Chalupa, the founder of the political consulting firm Chalupa & Associates, LLC. and a co-chair of the DNC Ethnic Council, has been at the heart of efforts by allies of President Donald Trump to draw an equivalence between Russia’s large-scale hacking and propaganda operation to interfere in the 2016 election with the actions of a small cadre of Ukrainian bureaucrats who allegedly worked with Chalupa to research former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s Russia ties.

In 2017, Chalupa told POLITICO reporters that officials at the Ukrainian Embassy were “helpful” to her effort to raise the alarm about Manafort. “If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to follow up with,” she said.

But she also downplayed the idea that the embassy was conspiring to interfere in American politics. “There were no documents given, nothing like that,” she said. “They were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It’s a political issue, and they didn’t want to get involved politically because they couldn’t.”

If Chalupa testified Republicans would eat her alive. She knows this. It is highly unlikely that Democrats will allow this anti-Trump hack to testify in their show trial.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/dem-operative-alexandra-chalupa-who-worked-with-eric-ciaramella-in-creation-of-trump-russia-hoax-says-shes-itching-to-testify-before-schiff-show-trial/