December 24, 2019
They're just figuring out to do this NOW???!!!
U.S. Immigration Begins Flying Mexican Deportees Deeper Into Mexico
I cannot believe our government is that stupid. This was clearly designed to not stop invaders from coming.
The magnetic North Pole has been in motion, and has just crossed the Prime Meridian! and is now in the east.
Will this screw up Santa Claus? Will the old fat guy crash his sleigh, or misdeliver gifts?
Don't know about him, but I won't lose money betting on the U.S. Postal Service mucking it up!
December 23, 2019
Yep - George Soros was behind the screed against Donald Trump at Christianity Today. Soros has been stealthily making inroads in the Evangelical Community. In fact, Soros money is at the root of Jim Wallis and Sojourners as well.
According to the Washington Times:
Soros-tied Open Society money and grant dollars have not only flowed by the hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Sojourners, AAE reported. But Soros-tied Open Society money and grant dollars have been flowing to the Sojourners for some time.
"Soros Funding of Sojourners Is Only the Tip of the Iceberg,” wrote National Review in August of 2010.
"George Soros Funding Jim Wallis and Sojourners,” wrote Crisis Magazine that same month and year, which went on to report:"The funding from Soros’s foundation, The Open Society, was revealed by Marvin Olasky in World magazine.”
‘Lest the significance goes unrecognized: The Sojourners is a far-left group that masquerades as a Christian outlet, bent on doing God’s work, but that far more often seems to do nothing but Democrats’ will.Wallis, who drapes himself in the mantle of Christ, lied repeatedly denying he receives money from Soros before finally admitting it. Lying is a Sin.
Evangelicals were at the core of the Reagan election, and helped push Bush 43 over the top as well. Trump probably couldn't have won without them. So they are a natural target.
For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.
And Many false prophets will arise and mislead many.
December 22, 2019
Documents show George Soros promoted civil unrest with an eye towards a declaration of martial law in the U.S.
According to the Conservative Daily Post:
Internal documents appearing to belong to Friends of Democracy– George Soros’ son’s activist group – describe an acceleration of civil unrest to justify the rollout of martial law nationwide.
According to the docs, the group sought to use the protests over the death of Freddie Gray as a detonator for larger violent demonstrations in the Baltimore area.
"Do not worry about violent action, we have secured limited protections from friendly BWI officials and LE to permit some aggressive activity,” the memo states.
Dates mentioned in the documents, Saturday April 18, 2015 and April 25, coincide with Baltimore riot dates.
The organization also points out an "ideal post-action objective” would be "civil unrest that leads to deployment of martial law-like policies for BWI, creating a feedback loop.” In other words, a domino effect that would spread nationwide.
Events described in the documents have actually been observed nationwide by Antifa and from other Soros-funded orgs.
A full-page ad in the New York Times last November, secured by the George Soros-backed Refuse Fascism, similarly called for a "revolution” to upend the Trump/Pence regime.These documents are as yet unverified. And this information was first broken by a rather disreputable source - Alex Jones' Infowars. Take it with a grain of salt.
But it makes sense; certainly Soros blew 33 million dollars to gin the Ferguson incident up into major rioting. There is no reason to do that if you don't have your eye on something bigger.
George Soros ought to be impeached and have his citizenship removed.
Lisa Page provides a smoking gun showing a plot to take out Trump. IG Horowitz couldn't find his own rear end if he was sitting on it.
Page e-mails Shows Direct Evidence of CNN Leak of Crown Material Aka Steele Dossier
The Trump Administration is going after the Obama "abortion surcharge" hidden in most Obamacare policies.
According to Conservative Angle
So what is the abortion surcharge?
A July letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azarsigned by 25 senators and 103 House members explained that the health insurance law as written requires that federally subsidized health plans that cover elective abortions should charge a separated minimum $1 "abortion surcharge” every month and deposit it into a separate account for abortion procedures. The dual intent was to prevent taxpayer money from directly covering abortion procedures while creating transparency about which insurance plans cover abortions.
"Unfortunately, in an exercise of executive overreach, the Obama Administration undermined Section 1303 by interpreting ‘separate’ to mean ‘together’ in subsequent regulatory guidance,” the lawmakers wrote. "Blatantly disregarding congressional authority, the guidance stated that simply sending a single notice about the surcharge or itemizing the abortion surcharge on monthly bills would satisfy the requirement under Section 1303.”
"Pursuant to the law,” a Center for Medicare news releasefrom Friday explains, "this rule will ensure that taxpayers do not contribute funds to pay for coverage of abortion services for which funding isn’t allowed by law, and will alert consumers that their health plan covers abortion services, allowing them to make fully informed decisions about their coverage.”No wonder the Democrats have gone nuts. Abortion is the cornerstone of their secular religion, the sacrament that binds.
Sun Tzu admonished generals to seize that which the enemy holds dear. Mr. Trump has certainly done that here.
Impeach him? They would love to crucify him slowly on the Trump Tower sign.
The supervising judge of the FISA court has resigned her position just days after strongly rebuking the FBI for their abuses of FISA warrants.
According to Infidel Blogger's Alliance:
On Tuesday Rosemary Collyer, the presiding judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), rebuked the FBI under Director James Comey for the abuse of the FISA Court.
"The FBI’s handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above,” Collyer wrote.
"The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable,” she added.Interesting that she is now stepping down, no?
And Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed an Obama appointee to fill her position!
What do they have on Roberts?
BTW - Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious Malthese professor instrumental in setting up George Papadopoulis, former junior foreign policy to the Trump Administration to put the whole FISA wiretap into motion, has been proclaimed by Italian prosecutors as assumed deceased. This after two years of diligent searching for the fellow.
Looks like Iran has a moleor three in Congress
From Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
Omar, Lee, and Grijalva wrote a letter demanding Trump end sanctions on Iran.Tody's letter by @Ilhan, @RepBarbaraLee & @RepRaulGrijalva was probably drafted by Iran's mullahs.— M. Hanif Jazayeri (@HanifJazayeri) December 17, 2019
They're objecting to "the designation of Iran's Central Bank under terror authorities".
PS: @NIACouncil helped draft the text
PPS: Iran's ppl support sanctions on their oppressors pic.twitter.com/G74e6n8TsG
In particular,Rep. Barbara Lee hired an Iranian spy:
Read it all.
Much has been made about Trump supposedly colluding with the Russians. It now seems the Democrats are colluding with Iran. Nice.
I prefer to warm them in a pan of hot grease, but I suppose that will do!
Keep Your Chicken Warm with this Cozy Sweater Made Especially for Them
Hat tip: Ginny B.
December 21, 2019
By the way, THIS is why you MUST vote Trump in 2020:
The U.S. Senate has confirmed 185 of Trump's judges to the bench.
-133 District Court judges
-50 Circuit Court judges
-2 Supreme Court justices
It has been a good year for judicial confirmations. 20% of the District
judges are now Trump nominees and over 20% of the Circuit judges. The
2nd, 3rd and 11th Circuits have flipped to Republican-appo
Trump's had 50 Circuit judges confirmed in less than THREE years. By comparison Obama had 55 in EIGHT years.
Both W. Bush and Obama had 325 Federal judges confirmed in eight years. Trump has over half that number in less than three years.
Man Gets 15-Year-Prison Term for Burning LGBTQ Flag! Who Needs Free Speech?
While this will probably get overturned by the Courts as unconstitutional, the fact that the Left even tried it is chilling.
A CIA analyst has been sentenced to 7 days in jail for hacking a neighbor's e-mail. The e-mailer was looking into accusations that Robert Mueller was accused of sexual misconduct.
Mark Tolson, 60, pleaded guilty in September to a single misdemeanor charge of computer fraud and abuse for his unusual effort last fall to derail eccentric Washington lobbyist Jack Burkman’s attempt to obtain information to be used in sexual misconduct allegations against Mueller.
Tolson admitted he unlawfully accessed Burkman’s emails in October 2018, after the conspiracy-minded lobbyist announced plans to hold a news conference to air sexual harassment allegations against Mueller.
After snooping through Burkman’s account, Tolson sent screenshots of the messages and offered the password to an unspecified journalist, court filings say.
Tolson’s wife, Sarah Gilbert Fox, facilitated the illicit access by providing Burkman’s email password, which she had obtained for work she’d previously done for him.Just 7 days and a fine of $500 for this sort of abuse of power? And he was not forced to divulge which journalists received this information? And his wife got off? This was in no way an isolated incident.
The Judge in the case was a Clinton appointee.
If this fellow got caught, I guarantee you there are a hundred CIA hackers rummaging around in private citizens' files who do not. This is serious as a heart attack, folks.
We fought a Cold War to stop people from doing this sort of thing to us. Now it is considered perfectly acceptable.
Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Bleat, has invited Donald Trump to give his State of the Union report on February 4, one day after the Iowa Caucus.
This is interesting; first off, if Mr. Trump is guilty of the alleged crimes they have impeached him for, why invite him to the House chamber? Trump could as easily deliver his address by letter; it's been done before. Pelosi said she is "honoring the Constitution". Right. When was the last time she cared about the Constitutionality of anything?
In fact, she disinvited Trump in 2019 when the government was "shut down" (actually, only about twenty percent of it was closed.) So why not then but now?
The conventional wisdom is that this will hurt Senate Democrats running for President in the primaries. But so what? Pelosi has no dog in that fight. Remember, we're talking about the primaries, not the general election.
Of course, the Iowa Caucuses doesn't affect the Republicans, who are clearly going to run Trump again.
So why do it?
Not sure, but it may be that they don't want Trump speaking to the nation before the caucus so as not to hurt any of the candidates. Trump will probably come ot corking in that SOTU, and he will probably be quite combative with the Democrats who impeached him. Pelosi probably wants to avoid any undue influence by the Orange Peril, so wants Iowa done first.
What danger is there from Trump at SOTU? Well, it could be very damaging to one Mr. Joseph Biden of Delaware. The party clearly wants to steer clear of the radicals, and Biden is there apparent best bet. They can't afford to have Trump remind everyone that Biden is a crooked creep. So Pelosi is setting this a day after the Iowa caucus, to jumpstart his campaign.
Those are my thoughts anyway. There may be other reasons that become apparent in due course.
This from Ginny B.
Hong Kong Protesters are Declaring "I Won't Kill Myself" Just in Case They Disappear[.link]
The Trump Administration is pressuring 69 countries (no joke there!) to decriminalize homosexuality.
From Christianity Today:
Openly gay U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft, and State Department Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Robert Destro, participated in a special meeting Wednesday sponsored by the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
The three joined other diplomats in criticizing U.N. member states that criminalize homosexuality and same-sex relationships as LGBT individuals across the globe are at risk of being imprisoned or sentenced to death.
In a tweet Wednesday, Craft stressed that "no person should be harmed, tortured or killed because of their sexual orientation.”
"[Y]et at least 69 countries criminalize homosexuality,” she wrote. "Our event today at the [United Nations] showed our commitment to defending human dignity & partnering with #LGBTQ groups to decriminalize homosexuality.”
The meeting comes as the Trump administration vocalized its intent earlier this year to launch a campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality.
"Individual men and women around the world have faced — and continue to face — punishment and even death, specifically because of their sexual orientation,” Craft was quoted as saying by Fox News. "This is a wrong we should seek to right, and it is a wrong I am personally committed to helping right.”While I believe homosexuality is a serious moral issue and a scourge on our modern society (and this "orientation" need not be obeyed, any more than does an "orientation" toward sexual congress with a child or an animal or a dead body or whatnot) I also do not believe the State has any right to make it a legal matter, and that we should support decriminalization. This is a victimless crime, after all, or at least not something that directly victimizes anyone. Compulsion is a poor motivator for moral behavior. Just look at Islamic countries where homosexuality and other sexual acts are strictly forbidden; they happen anyway, and people are sometimes put to death over them. Remember ISIS throwing homosexuals off the tops of buildings? That is the greater moral evil.
Look the main reason anyone should oppose homosexuality is that it destroys their eternal souls. It is not good for society, but who asked society to stick their noses in it anyway? In the end the reason to try to prevent homosexual behavior is to help the very people that criminalization will punish. That makes no sense, and it will not lead to any kind of repentance.
It should also be pointed out that the Bible states:
And such were some of you.
We have all sinned, all fallen short. If we are to punish homosexuals, we also have to punish adulterers, people who have sex outside of marriage, people who like the sauce, or like money, or what have you. You would have a short list of people NOT in jail using this criterion.
But it doesn't make it morally approvable. That is where we must draw the line.
We can hate the sin and love the sinner. Unfortunately the homosexual lobby has craftily made the act unseverable from the person. They did this (and it was quite successful) to make it impossible to condemn the act without condemning the person. "I'm gay, it's who I am" is a common phrase among gay people. They claim their very identity is inextricably tied to their sexual behavior, so reject one and you reject all. The end result is that just saying you disapprove of homosexuality on moral grounds makes you a hater and evil.
It was a very clever trick.
But we aren't who we have sex with any more than we actually are what we eat, or what we do for a living, or what we do for leisure. My diet has changed over the years; does that make me a different person? I have worked in a number of different fields over the years. Has my identity changed? I move through different hobbies; I used to make beer and wine, for instance, but don't do it any more. Have I as a person changed?
But I DID change when I accepted Christ. THAT is the big game changer. And when I did so I agreed to accept the Word of God and subordinate my own thoughts and desires.
Nobody forced me to convert. And nobody can force a homosexual to be straight for th esame reason. It must be a free choice.
Not being gay, I don't know what it feels like, but I do know that some things can be chosen. You can choose not to have sex. I do it all the time! You would be amazed at how often I don't jump some sexy young thing in the supermarket; I've learned to control my urges. Most gay people do too. Of course, swearing off of all sex is difficult, but then so too is cancer, or birth defects. It's tough but it must be endured. As a Christian I have to keep in mind that in the end there will be reward for hanging tough. We all have our crosses to bear.
So ultimately I think this is a good thing, but I do worry that it will be used, dare I say misused, by the Progressives to promote the Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyles favored by our Western Elites.
Right now homosexuality is one of the Progressive sacraments, the things used to bind people to the church of Man. Once someone walks down that road they have a hard time leaving. Abortion is another. These things stain the soul of the person, leaving them with only one option - the "community" where they feel they are accepted. Like prisoners in the penitentiary, they are "us" and, no matter the circumstances, the person will find it hard to identify with "them". It's a trap, a spiritual trap laid by Satan. And it is very effective.
In conclusion, I think this is a decent move, but we must be cautious to not let our tolerance turn to approval and celebration - which the homosexual lobby demands of us these days.
Here are some more thoughts on the Christianity Today article calling for the ouster of President Trump.
First, Jerry Falwell tweets this:
Here are a few more:
Less than 20% of evangelicals supported @HillaryClinton in 2016 but now @CTmagazinehas removed any doubt that they are part of the same 17% or so of liberal evangelicals who have preached social gospel for decades! CT unmasked! https://t.co/O7WjyZSwiW— Jerry Falwell (@JerryFalwellJr) December 20, 2019
Jack Graham, senior pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church, aSouthern Baptistmulti-sitemegachurch in Plano, Texas:
The magazine Billy Graham helped to start over 60 years ago in no way resembles its founders vision. It is increasingly liberal and out of step and out of touch with conservative Christians and churches https://t.co/IgimFdtnbQ— Jack Graham (@jackngraham) December 20, 2019
First Baptist Church of Dallas Senior Pastor Robert Jeffress:
.@CTmagazineis a dying magazine that has been "Never Trump” from the beginning. They are going against 99% of evangelical Republicans who oppose impeachment. President @realDonaldTrump is the most pro-life, pro-religious liberty, pro-Israel President in history!— Dr. Robert Jeffress (@robertjeffress) December 20, 2019
I am mindful of the First Book of Samuel Chapter 24:
Christianity Today calls for impeachment, but they don’t critique the distorted moral narrative & immoral policy agenda that created Trump. https://t.co/nUzdk1WbMU— Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II (@RevDrBarber) December 20, 2019
- After Saul returned from pursuing the Philistines, he was told, "David is in the Desert of En Gedi.” 2So Saul took three thousand able young men from all Israel and set out to look for David and his men near the Crags of the Wild Goats.
- 3He came to the sheep pens along the way; a cave was there, and Saul went in to relieve himself. David and his men were far back in the cave. 4The men said, "This is the day the Lord spoke of when he said[b] to you, ‘I will give your enemy into your hands for you to deal with as you wish.’” Then David crept up unnoticed and cut off a corner of Saul’s robe.
- 5Afterward, David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his robe. 6He said to his men, "The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, or lay my hand on him; for he is the anointed of the Lord.” 7With these words David sharply rebuked his men and did not allow them to attack Saul. And Saul left the cave and went his way.
The point is, Saul was not a good man or a good king, but it was incumbent upon David, the man often referred to as The Apple of God's Eye, to not rebel against God's anointed.
Which appears to be what Galli and Christianity Today has just done. Trump has not attempted to murder anyone, or to trump up charges against anyone. His guilt is in seeking justice and in injudicious tweeting. But Galli is very quick to turn on the anointed of both God and America.
David himself was a murderer and serial adulterer and was so weak with his family his son murdered his half brother (who raped his half sister). David did nothing, neither to punish the raping son nor to punish the murdering son.
God punished David for his sins with Bathsheeba with the "sword not departing from his house" and in the end David's son rebelled against him and eventually David's lieutenant had to kill the boy.
But at no point was David impeached by his political enemies.
Strange how this liberal Evangelical demands President Trump's ouster. Would he have demanded Davids?
The moral of this story is that for Christians we are supposed to support our leaders and leave it up to God to determine their morality. That is clearly what Jesus said to do. Jesus wouldn't even allow His disciples to defend him from arrest. He ordered His men to stand down when the Sanhedrin came to arrest him.
That is not to say we shouldn't be politically active, nor to say that we shouldn't demand the removal of a criminal President. We have the Rule of Law, after all, and the Law trumps the man.
There are some criticizing Evangelicals for supporting the removal of Bill Clinton and not Donald Trump. But Clinton actually committed a crime, perjuring himself in a court of law (and being convicted of that crime in court) as well as tampering with witnesses (he tried to talk Monica Lewinsky into lying before Congress, as well as had someone slash the tires of one Kathleen Willey, and kill her cat.)
Donald Trump is not alleged to have committed any crimes that violate our laws. He is basically being accused of asserting his Executive Privilege and going to court to maintain it - despite Congressional demands he not do that, and for "abuse of power" a nebulous charge which would not hold up in any court of law.
My cousin asked about how it would work if the Senate against President Trump. I gave a lengthy reply:
No. But they can hold the referral until after the next election, when they will perhaps have a favorable Senate.
The whole point is to a.bloody Trump up for the election and b.hold it in reserve in case the Democrats take the Senate and can get the result they want. It illustrates quite plainly how partisan this whole process has been. If it were about actual high crimes and misdemeanors they would go to the Senate and present their case.
Bear in mind there were articles of impeachment against Trump in June of 2017, and again on December 6 of that year. They didn't have the votes at that time.
Bear in mind the Mueller investigation - which largely cleared President Trump - was not even complete at that time. Remember, too, that before Trump was even confirmed as President by electors in the College of Electors there were Democrats who flatly refused to accept the results, and a few Electors pledged to Donald Trump were doxxed to intimate others. https://
And it should be remembered that the entire "Russian Collusion" meme was started when the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS, who hired British Mi6 agent Michael Steele, who in turn obtained Russian disinformation from the Ukrainians. THAT is the basis of all of this, and THAT was what Donald Trump wanted investigated, among other things.
In short, this whole impeachment is essentially a temper tantrum because Trump won the election. The Democrats moved forward knowing they had no chance of winning. They also did not even make a case, relying on hearsay evidence and, well, gossip. The charges are as broad as possible, so that they wouldn't have to actually make a case.
Consider: Trump has been charged with the very nebulous "abuse of power", which is entirely defined by Congress. And what did he do? If you read the transcript, he asked the Ukrainians to do "us a favor" not HIM. That is right in line with the treaty we have with the Ukrainians to combat corruption - and Trump had every reason to want to combat corruption in Ukraine, as that was the platform used to attack him. And, since Mr. Biden is on tape in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations bragging about his threat to withhold funds from the Ukrainians and how they fired the prosecutor investigating his son as a result, one seriously doubts the claim this was an abuse of power.
BTW Hunter Biden had zero experience in either oil or gas and knew nothing about the Ukraine. So why was he on the board of a Ukrainian energy company?
The second article of impeachment is Obstructing Congress, a ludicrous claim as the President is a coequal branch of government and has executive privilege - which he lawfully asserted just as Barack Obama frequently did. (BTW, everyone forgets that Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder was cited with Contempt of Congress for simply refusing to hand over subpoena'd documents. Nobody suggested Obama be impeached for that.)
In short, the Democrats have no case and they know it - which is why they want to pull this at this moment. They can keep it and bring it after the election if Trump is re-elected and they somehow win the Senate or at least split it (there are several GOP Senators who they can flip.)
I found this interesting in that the people who already believed the worst about Trump do not think that the impeachment proves what they already believed...they
Mr. Birdnow adds:
The first articles of impeachment against Trump were filed in early summer 2017. The Democrats wanted to remove him from the beginning, and we haven't forgotten that.
These charges are absolutely ridiculous, and in fact apply to Joe Biden far more than to Mr. Trump. Biden actually threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine until they shut down the probe of his son, whereas Trump may have intimated it, but never did it (and Ukrainian President Zelensky said there was no pressure, and Trump is quoted as by Ambassador Sondland as saying "no quid-pro-quo"_.)
There is no charge here. Trump has a right to Executive Privilege, which Obama asserted numerous times to prevent aids from testifying and to keep documents under wraps. (Eric Holder was cited with Contempt of Congress for withholding documents under subpoena, but nobody ever suggested Obama be impeached for it.)
And what is "abuse of power"? It is WHAT THE HOUSE DECIDES. They have decided that asking for an investigation of corruption - and Trump was personally hurt by corruption involving the Democrats and Ukraine - is somehow abuse of power. I think the public sees the House of Representatives
BTW; anybody remember how the Left was intimidating Electors, doxxing them and whatnot to flip their votes to Hillary before the EC voted? If you need proof that they will do ANYTHING to win, yo have it there.
Pajamas Media points out the hypocrisy of Jerry Nadler and the Democrats, who are demanding witnesses in the Senate trial but were happy to deny the Republicans the same courtesy during the impeachment hearings.
But, when Schiff had the Republicans list of witnesses for the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings, Schiff did not oblige, and proceeded with a blatantly partisan impeachment inquiry.You will never go broke betting on the chutzpah of the Democrats, that is for sure.
The article makes this point:
There's been a lot of talk about how Senate Republicans might proceed with the Senate trial. Rumors are swirling about Adam Schiff and his staff — and even Joe and Hunter Biden — being called as witnesses. There's also been talk of a short impeachment trial in order to get it over with and move on, particularly from Lindsey Graham, who said, "This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly,."
Schiff isn't happy about that either.
"I think we see clearly what's going on here with the comments of Lindsey Graham and others and that is they don't want the American people to see the facts," said Schiff—yes, the same guy who denied Republicans the opportunity to call their own witnesses. "They realize what's been presented in the House is already overwhelming but that there's more damning evidence to be had and they don't want the American people to see that," he added.The American People already had more than their fair share of time taken up seeing the things that Nadler now wants to rehash. And of course the Senators will have the transcripts and depositions. It serves no real purpose except as political campaign fodder.
But there is another point. I favor a long impeachment with a lot of witnesses called by the Republicans, but I have heard it said this cannot be done as the Senate acts as jurors and has to accept the case presented by the House. I have my doubts; certainly the President's lawyers have a right to call witnesses of their own. But Mitch McConnell seems stuck on this idea that it is not within the purview of the Senate to allow witnesses to be called outside of the ones who have already testified.
At any rate, Schiff wants a show that never ends. And he is on record saying he wouldn't testify if called by the Senate.
He should be careful what he wishes for.
44 queries taking 0.3552 seconds, 218 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.