reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Democrats recently passed a resolution granting Adam Schiff significant authority in the impeachment process. Schiff has attempted to impeach the president three times, initially claiming treason and collusion with Russia, which was proven false. He then focused on obstruction of justice, but Bob Mueller's findings did not support that claim. Now, a new impeachment effort involves a whistleblower who had prior contact with Schiff's staff, yet the details remain undisclosed. Schiff has not released the inspector general's sworn testimony that would confirm these interactions. Essentially, if there were a trial, the individual who introduced questionable evidence should not be the one deciding its validity.

We've learned that the Intelligence Community's Inspector General can't provide any information about contacts between the majority and the whistleblower before his involvement. The only way to obtain that information is from the majority themselves. They are fact witnesses in the same investigation they are running. Nowhere else in America can you be both a fact witness and the prosecutor in an investigation, especially one to remove a president. It's entirely inappropriate. Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the process.

The inspector general for the intelligence community cannot provide information about the contacts between the HPSCI majority and the whistleblower before his involvement. The only source for this information is the HPSCI majority, who are fact witnesses in the investigation they are conducting. It is unprecedented for anyone in the U.S. to be both a fact witness and the prosecutor in an investigation, especially one aimed at removing a president from office. This situation is entirely inappropriate, and Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from leading an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding their contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.

The inspector general for the intelligence community cannot provide information about contacts between the Hipsey majority and the whistleblower before his involvement. The only way to obtain that information is from the Hipsey majority themselves, who are fact witnesses in the investigation they are running. It is claimed that nowhere else in the United States can someone be both a fact witness and the investigator, especially in an investigation to remove a president. Therefore, Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses about contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.

Yesterday, Democrats gave Chairman Schiff more authority in the impeachment process. But Schiff has already tried to impeach the President three times, first accusing him of treason with supposed evidence of Russian collusion, which turned out to be false. Then, he pushed for impeachment based on obstruction of justice, relying on Bob Mueller, who later admitted his analysis was based on a nonexistent legal standard. Now, we're on impeachment effort number three, involving a whistleblower who initially met with Schiff's staff. The details of that meeting haven't been released, and Schiff won't release the Inspector General's testimony confirming the contacts between him and the whistleblower. It's like having someone who planted fake evidence ruling on its admissibility.

The speaker questions the appointment of a special counsel, suggesting that it may give him the power to charge in different locations. They mention that the special counsel previously claimed to have the authority to do as he pleased, but whistleblowers contradicted this, stating that he was unable to do so. The Justice Department denied the whistleblowers' claims. However, the speaker believes that the recent move implies that the whistleblowers may have been correct. They express concerns about the political implications raised by Republicans.

Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in Congress in 250 years. He repeatedly said he knew nothing and would protect certain information. Yet, he led the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the Senate. He was conflicted because he was part of the hoax that brought Charmela in, manufacturing false accusations and pushing them out to the world. It's not surprising, given his history of lying. But he lied to set up a presidential impeachment. He should be investigated for lying about his interactions with Charmela, the whistleblower whose information started a presidential impeachment.

Speaker 0 claims Kash Patel lacks the character and integrity to be FBI director, asserting his only qualification is a willingness to cross moral, ethical, and legal lines when others refused. They state Patel is a sycophant who will misuse the bureau's resources and weaponize it against political opponents instead of protecting public safety. Speaker 1 alleges Adam Schiff is the "worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred and fifty years" and met with a whistleblower, Charmela, while publicly denying knowledge of the situation. They claim Schiff led the impeachment trial of President Trump after manufacturing false accusations with Charmela. They assert Schiff lied to set up a presidential impeachment and should be investigated for his interactions with Charmela. They state Schiff, who manufactured evidence with Charmela, was the prosecutor in the case against Trump, which is a conflict of interest.

The speaker clarifies several points regarding a whistleblower. They state they do not know the whistleblower's identity, have not met or communicated with them, and committee staff did not write or coach the complaint. The committee staff also did not see the complaint before it was submitted to the inspector general, nor did the committee receive it until the night before the acting director of national intelligence. The speaker asserts that the theory of collusion between the whistleblower and the intel committee staff to initiate impeachment is a "complete and total fiction." The speaker notes the whistleblower complaint's remarkable accuracy, corroborated by subsequently gathered evidence. They also affirm their staff acted with complete professionalism and express gratitude for their hard work.

The inspector general for the intelligence community cannot provide information about contacts between the "Hipsey majority" and the whistleblower before the whistleblower's involvement. Therefore, that information can only come from the "Hipsey majority" themselves. These individuals are fact witnesses in the same investigation they are running. It is claimed that nowhere else in the United States can someone be both a fact witness and the investigator, especially in an investigation to remove a president. It is asserted that Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.

Your investigation uncovered witnesses who told you that or told your team that CIA Director John Brennan overruled intelligence officials who were objecting to the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the intelligence community assessment. How well would some of those witnesses hold up in court or in a public hearing of the House Oversight Committee? Well, these are some of the most senior intelligence officials within the CIA who came forward and spoke the truth to the House Intelligence Committee's, majority staff team that launched this investigation. They invest they they spoke to and interviewed over 20 intelligence community professionals, senior officials within the CIA, which is how they uncovered the truth of what actually happened as reported in the documents that we released yesterday.

Democrats passed a resolution giving Chairman Schiff authority in the impeachment process. Schiff has tried to impeach the President three times. The first time, he accused the President of treason and collusion with Russia, which was untrue. The second time, he cited obstruction of justice, but Mueller's analysis didn't hold up. This third impeachment effort involves a whistleblower who met with Schiff's staff. The details of that meeting haven't been released, and Schiff won't release the Inspector General's testimony confirming the contact. The speaker likens this to a trial where the person who planted fake evidence is ruling on its admissibility.

Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation because his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process. The speaker has not spoken directly with the whistleblower but would like to. Acclaimed Republican Intelligence Committee members question this.

Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in Congress in the last 250 years. He repeatedly said he knew nothing, would not discuss, and would protect information, yet he led the impeachment trial of President Trump. He was conflicted because he was part of the hoax involving Charmela, manufacturing false accusations and spreading them. It's not surprising; he's lied about almost everything, including to set up a presidential impeachment. He should be investigated for lying about his interactions with Charmela, the whistleblower who initiated the presidential impeachment.

Kash Patel is unfit to be FBI director due to his lack of character and integrity. He is a sycophant who will misuse the bureau's resources and weaponize it against political opponents. Unlike others in the Trump administration, Patel crossed moral, ethical, and legal lines. Adam Schiff is a criminal who lied about his interactions with a whistleblower named Charmela to set up a presidential impeachment of Donald Trump. Schiff met with Charmela and then led the prosecution of Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. Schiff was conflicted out of the game because he was part of the hoax. As the prosecutor in the case against Trump, that is the ultimate conflict of interest.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

The attorney general can only appoint a special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to avoid conflicts of interest. In this case, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed David Weiss, the US attorney in Delaware, who is ineligible under DOJ rules. Garland appointed Weiss because he has shown a willingness to cover up Hunter Biden's wrongdoings and protect Joe Biden. Two IRS employees have come forward as whistleblowers, accusing Weiss and Garland of obstructing justice and covering up wrongdoing. This appointment undermines the integrity of the Department of Justice.

Some suggest waiting for all witnesses and documents before proceeding with impeachment, but President Trump obstructed the investigation. He instructed his senior aides not to testify and defy subpoenas. He also told agencies not to provide relevant records, hindering our investigation.

The qualifications for a special counsel require them to be chosen from outside the US government. However, David Weiss, who is currently employed by the US government, does not meet this requirement.

What’s in the rules is that you shouldn’t prejudice an investigation when declining to prosecute. You included language that would be politically useful, which was a deliberate choice. You could have simply stated that the president did not recall the documents found at the university, a common response from witnesses. This choice was political and inappropriate. I yield back. Did the special counsel wish to respond? What you’re suggesting is that I altered my reasoning for political reasons. No, I suggest you shouldn’t shape your report for political reasons. That did not happen.

The qualifications for a special counsel require them to be chosen from outside the US government. However, David Weiss, who is currently employed by the US government, does not meet this requirement.

The impeachment inquiry is based on lies, warned by Pompeo and Lev Parnas, with no specific charges against the president. The committee proceeded despite knowing the evidence was falsified. The focus should be on why the inquiry continues.

Adam Schiff misled about classified information to target Trump, which raises concerns about his trustworthiness with sensitive data. He should not serve on any committees.

I asked a question that was disallowed during the proceedings, and I want to ask it again. Are you aware of the close relationship between House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko and Eric Chirumella while they were both at the National Security Council? There are reports suggesting that Chirumella and Misko may have collaborated to plot the impeachment of the president before formal House impeachment proceedings began. These reports claim that they were overheard discussing impeachment in January 2017, just a month into the president's term.

Speaker 0 states: "It's disruptive. It's ridiculous." "Obviously, it's to persecute an enemy, which I can't believe the FBI is being so politicized." "However, I will say, if he would have testified in the first impeachment hearing, maybe we wouldn't be here." "So there's a little bit of karma also."