Schiff isn’t interested in learning the truth at all. He’s interested in getting people to agree with his assumptions. We have proof.
Investigators and scientists have something in common. Any original hypothesis you may be working from must be tested against known events.
When events offer evidence putting that hypothesis in doubt, an honest investigator revisits the hypothesis and either adjusts or discards it, depending on the nature of that evidence.
Consider how Schiff is leading the witness and trying to box him into stating or affirming particular phrases that the unwary might get tripped up into agreeing with, and ask yourself how committed Schiff is to the truth versus looking for some sort of a cudgel to whack Trump with.
In a secret interview, Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the House Democratic effort to impeach President Trump, pressed former United States special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker to testify that Ukrainian officials felt pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter as a result of Trump withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld and that they believed their relationship with the U.S. was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
When Volker repeatedly declined to agree to Schiff’s characterization of events, Schiff said, “Ambassador, you’re making this much more complicated than it has to be.”
The interview took place Oct. 3 in a secure room in the U.S. Capitol. While the session covered several topics, the issue of an alleged quid pro quo — U.S. military aid in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens and a public announcement that such an investigation was underway — was a significant part of the discussion.
“[The Ukrainians] didn’t want to be drawn into investigating a Democratic candidate for president, which would mean only peril for Ukraine, is that fair to say?” Schiff asked Volker.
“That may be true,” Volker said. “That may be true. They didn’t express that to me, and, of course, I didn’t know that was the context at the time.” (Volker has said he did not know that Trump had mentioned the Bidens on the July 25 call with Zelensky until the rough transcript of the call was released on Sept. 25.)
“Part of the other context is vital military support is being withheld from the Ukraine during this period, right?” Schiff asked.
“That was not part of the context at the time,” Volker said. “At least to my knowledge, they [Ukrainian leaders] were not aware of that.”
There was a lot more where that came from. We can’t include it all here, but we encourage you to read the rest to get the full context.
Schiff pressed Volker to agree one more time. In response, Volker tried to explain that the Ukrainians did not seem to be feeling pressure from Trump and the U.S.
“Congressman, this is why I’m trying to say the context is different, because at the time they learned that, if we assume it’s Aug. 29, they had just had a visit from the national security adviser, John Bolton. That’s a high-level meeting already. He was recommending and working on scheduling the visit of President Zelensky to Washington. We were also working on a bilateral meeting to take place in Warsaw on the margins of a commemoration on the beginning of World War II. And in that context, I think the Ukrainians felt like things are going the right direction, and they had not done anything on — they had not done anything on an investigation, they had not done anything on a statement, and things were ramping up in terms of their engagement with the administration. So I think they were actually feeling pretty good then.”
At that point, Schiff gave up. Why was Volker resisting? “Ambassador, I find it remarkable as a career diplomat that you have difficulty acknowledging that when Ukraine learned that their aid had been suspended for unknown reasons, that this wouldn’t add additional urgency to a request by the president of the United States. I find that remarkable.”
Republican cross-examination, rather than pretending they could read the mins of their Ukranian counterparts, asked a direct question about just how open and candid their relationship was. It was quite candid, was the answer.
The following exchange entirely wipes out the rationale for the line of questioning Schiff was trying to establish.
“In your conversation with Rep. Schiff, he kind of implied and wanted you to intimate that there was an agreement based on that conversation that: If you do the investigation, then you can have a meeting [with Trump] and maybe we’ll consider this military aid. If that were the case from the call, do you feel, because they had some trust in you, that they would have come to you and said, ‘Hey how do we handle this? Is this what the President of the United States is asking?’ Would they confide — would they ask you that?”
“Yes,” said Volker. “They would have asked me exactly that, you know. How do we handle this?”
Schiff rushed ahead to change those assumptions that Trump was strongarming the Ukranian President, right?
No, he did not. He is determined to find something — anything — that will destroy his hated enemy.
Which is a lot of unchecked power to hold in so few hands, don’t you think? Especially when we’ve seen how these powers have corrupted them.
The Effeminization Of The American Male
by Doug Giles
Doug Giles, best-selling author of Raising Righteous And Rowdy Girls and Editor-In-Chief of the mega-blog, ClashDaily.com, has just penned a book he guarantees will kick hipster males into the rarefied air of masculinity. That is, if the man-child will put down his frappuccino; shut the hell up and listen and obey everything he instructs them to do in his timely and tornadic tome. Buy Now:The Effeminization Of The American Male