Why Lie About Your Spy? #CiaramellaMustTestify!

"It is as easy as lying; because it is lying."--G.K. Chesterton

Adam Schiff led with a giant whopper, a bald-faced lie that no one believes: “I don’t know the name of the Whistleblower.”

Let’s humor the Liar for a minute. That means that officially, only an unelected IG and unelected staff know the unelected CIA mole trying to remove a president. Not one elected, accountable office-holder officially knows the identity. That’s Government of the Blob, By the Blob and For the Blob.

Of course he’s lying. But why? Why would you, on your Grand Opening, voluntarily tell a transparent whopper to millions of Americans and instantly brand yourself as a pathological liar to people you need to convince?

Is it because Ciaramella was colluding with every seditionist in town? Including the White House meeting he held where he told Ukrainians to lay off Burisma or no Billion–two months before Joe Biden told them the same thing in Kiev? That according to John Solomon. It must be accurate since the State Department wiretapped him to stop the story.

And what are the odds Vindman & the Mutiny Co. were at that meeting, too?

How did that work, by the way? Did Schiff tell his staff “Now before we get started, don’t tell me his name?” Or did he meet with Ciaramella with a paper bag on his head?

Is Schiff worried about Charlie imploding? Is that why he is distancing himself? Is he trying to avoid testifying about their role together in the conspiracy? Or is it something even darker? Schiff would let him testify if he thought it would help. But he won’t let him testify because he knows it will hurt the Narrative–maybe destroy it completely.

The last two people whose testimony could sink Democrats were Seth Rich and Jeffrey Epstein. Is that why Schiff is distancing himself from Ciaramella? Is he afraid he’ll be asked to identify the body?

President Trump should consider giving the guy Secret Service protection. I’m quite serious--serious as a heart attack.

At a dude ranch in Texas.

Peachment--UPDATE: One reason people are tuning out is because The Impeachment Show has been the only thing on tv for four years now, and Donald Trump has only been president for three.

PJM: Prediction: No Impeachment

"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.)

They have to go to trial in the Republican-dominated Senate. Where Eric Ciaramella can be called for public testimony under oath. Where Alex Vindman can be challenged by a former JAG about his violations of the UCMJ. Where people can be called to testify in public what they've said in the Star Chamber: that Ukraine never knew about aid being suspended, and that the president of Ukraine denies any pressure. And where House Members can't be threatened with ethics complaints for asking inconvenient questions. 

Where what already looks like a shady investigation of a made-up crime can't be controlled.

My guess is that this will hang on until after Thanksgiving, especially if the ICIG report comes out. Then they will announce in high dudgeon that because of GOP obstruction and the risk to the (still "secret") whistleblower, along with the proximity to the election, they can't press on in the Senate where the evil Mitch McConnell will drag out the trial and thwart the will of the People.

They might even try to continue the "inquiry" into the New Year, although the risk grows every day that Republicans will start leaking seriously, or filing more ethics complains against the Democrats — or, of course, starting subpoenas in the Senate.

But an actual impeachment trial? 

They can't risk it." …….

Concur.

Mitch and his Decepticons are already warning Democrats that they are not just going to leave this flaming bag of dogshit on his doorstep, ring the bell and run away. He'll put them on trial, too. He'll shove it up TFA. We hope, anyway.

This Foaming Bucket of Democrat Diarrhea never leaves the House.

Jerry Zeifman, highly-respected Democratic Chief Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate Hearings, on his crooked staffer Bribe Me-Granny:

“She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her. Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.”

Rodham manipulated the process for her candidate Ted Kennedy. She removed documents and hid them from the public. And she even tried to deny Nixon counsel. Imagine–someone who has spent her entire life hiding behind mob lawyers! And then she lied about, naturally.

In other words, Chief Counsel Zeifman sent her packing…for everything Adam Schiff is doing today.

Scum.
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.They call it “serving at the pleasure of the President.” The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for Ukraine than O. 

Amb. Yovanovitch said she was sad about getting fired by Trump: "Poor baby. Under Obama, ambassadors were coming back in body bags. Now everyone is upset because one got fired. So what."- @JesseBWatters

Can't Keep Her Lies Straight:

#1: "[Joe Biden] nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of Burisma or Hunter Biden with me."

#2: Stefanik: "The first time you personally became aware of Burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings. And this was in the form of practice questions and answers. This was your deposition. And you testified that in this particular practice Q & A with the Obama State Department, it wasn’t just generally about Burisma and corruption, it was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma, is that correct? 

Yovanovitch: Yes, it is." 

Which statement is true, liar?

Yovanovitch claims that Amb. Sondland told her to flatter President Trump to keep her post--maybe something like "I'm still the President's wing-man, so I'm there with my boy,". Or maybe he really just told her to express support for the President and his policies. In any case, that was beneath her. How gauche. How declassee. It's simply not done!

Yet it is done. She was perfectly willing to kiss Biden's ass to get the post in the first place. She was given a script at her confirmation hearings and forced to sugar-coat Hunter Biden's corruption at Burisma to get the post. They literally put words in her mouth.

There's a phrase for that: witness intimidation. (By the way, it's not intimidation to criticize an employee's job performance--ask Billy Dale. If it is, then let's ban federal job performance reviews and do away with bonuses.)

If Yovanovitch was truly fighting corruption, she would have thrown the Bidens out of the country.

Instead of fighting corruption, she fought to hide the corruption until neither America nor Ukraine could stomach her shabby act anymore.

ps: Epstein didn't witness-intimidate himself.