Bombshell report: Schiff may have hidden 'potentially exculpatory' evidence from Trump's lawyers

[TigerGrowls]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/schiff_hid_evidence_michael_atkinson

'We should be allowed to take a look at that'

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
GIANCARLO SOPO

According to President Donald Trump's legal team, Democrats are concealing the testimony of a major witness the House questioned during its investigation into the Ukraine matter.

Alex Swoyer and S.A. Miller at the Washington Times reported that House Democrats are refusing to disclose the testimony of Michael Atkinson, the intelligence agency inspector general with firsthand knowledge of the origins of the whistleblower complaint that resulted in Trump's impeachment.

'It raises credibility issues'
At least one Republican who was present during Atkinson's testimony says the reason why Democrats are not sharing the information is because it does not advance House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's impeachment case against the president.

"The reason it hasn't been released is it's not helpful to Adam Schiff. It is not helpful to the whistleblower," Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) said. "It raises credibility issues about both of them."

The Times also noted that the evidence may be "potentially exculpatory" for the president. However, members of the House Intelligence Committee who conducted the interview are not allowed to disclose the details of the discussion, as it could reveal potentially sensitive intelligence information.

Should be part of the Senate record
Republicans on the committee believe that Atkinson's testimony should be part of the Senate trial record.

"It addresses the issue about contacts between Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower, and what the inspector general knows about that. So those are material facts that should be talked about, but Adam Schiff has prevented that," Ratcliffe told The Washington Times.

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst agrees with Ratcliffe and maintains that House Democrats should have submitted the transcript to the Senate for its impeachment trial.

"We should be allowed to take a look at that, but again they have stated numerous times in their brief they had overwhelming evidence — it would be so clear to everyone — and I haven't seen that yet," she said.

 

[orangelvis]

I am hoping for the unfettered ability to call in witnesses and documents for both sides. The truth will set us free, absolve Trump, uncover the coup, and finally impose justice on the real traitors.

 

[nytigerfan]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/schiff_hid_evidence_michael_atkinson

'We should be allowed to take a look at that'

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
GIANCARLO SOPO

According to President Donald Trump's legal team, Democrats are concealing the testimony of a major witness the House questioned during its investigation into the Ukraine matter.

Alex Swoyer and S.A. Miller at the Washington Times reported that House Democrats are refusing to disclose the testimony of Michael Atkinson, the intelligence agency inspector general with firsthand knowledge of the origins of the whistleblower complaint that resulted in Trump's impeachment.

'It raises credibility issues'
At least one Republican who was present during Atkinson's testimony says the reason why Democrats are not sharing the information is because it does not advance House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's impeachment case against the president.

"The reason it hasn't been released is it's not helpful to Adam Schiff. It is not helpful to the whistleblower," Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) said. "It raises credibility issues about both of them."

The Times also noted that the evidence may be "potentially exculpatory" for the president. However, members of the House Intelligence Committee who conducted the interview are not allowed to disclose the details of the discussion, as it could reveal potentially sensitive intelligence information.

Should be part of the Senate record
Republicans on the committee believe that Atkinson's testimony should be part of the Senate trial record.

"It addresses the issue about contacts between Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower, and what the inspector general knows about that. So those are material facts that should be talked about, but Adam Schiff has prevented that," Ratcliffe told The Washington Times.

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst agrees with Ratcliffe and maintains that House Democrats should have submitted the transcript to the Senate for its impeachment trial.

"We should be allowed to take a look at that, but again they have stated numerous times in their brief they had overwhelming evidence — it would be so clear to everyone — and I haven't seen that yet," she said.

So in your view, withholding documents and testimony means you are definitely guilty of a crime?

 

[orangelvis]

So in your view, withholding documents and testimony means you are definitely guilty of a crime?

When you are the prosecutor...yes! Comey and McCabe are about to find out exactly how criminal it is.
When you are the POTUS, you have Privileged, internal conversations and internal documents that are protected by the Constitution and SCOTUS Precedent. Obama and Holder know this very well. See Fast and Furious, IRS-TEaParty abuse, etc.; not to mention virtually every other POTUS in the history of our country.

To the point of the OP. Republicans who were present at the "secret deposition" of M Atkinson in Schiff's SCIF, have repeatedly said that his testimony raised many issues regarding Schiff's relationship to the WhistleHoaxer. The IIG, gave testimony that contradicts PencilNeck's claims. Radcliffe elaborates this here at the 3:30 mark.

 

[nytigerfan]

When you are the prosecutor...yes! Comey and McCabe are about to find out exactly how criminal it is.
When you are the POTUS, you have Privileged, internal conversations and internal documents that are protected by the Constitution and SCOTUS Precedent. Obama and Holder know this very well. See Fast and Furious, IRS-TEaParty abuse, etc.; not to mention virtually every other POTUS in the history of our country.

To the point of the OP. Republicans who were present at the "secret deposition" of M Atkinson in Schiff's SCIF, have repeatedly said that his testimony raised many issues regarding Schiff's relationship to the WhistleHoaxer. The IIG, gave testimony that contradicts PencilNeck's claims. Radcliffe elaborates this here at the 3:30 mark.

View embedded media

The republican controlled senate has the power to easily call Atkinson in for testimony, if what is being alleged here is true then it is a no brainer. hmmmmm. Wonder why they aren't doing that? Could it be that Atkinson testified that whistleblower was legit? That would put a dent in your "whistlehoaxer" narrative.

Oh, and clinton allowed witnesses to testify and released 90K documents during his impeachment trial.

 

[TigerGrowls]

The republican controlled senate has the power to easily call Atkinson in for testimony, if what is being alleged here is true then it is a no brainer. hmmmmm. Wonder why they aren't doing that? Could it be that Atkinson testified that whistleblower was legit? That would put a dent in your "whistlehoaxer" narrative.

Oh, and clinton allowed witnesses to testify and released 90K documents during his impeachment trial.

Witnesses? Woah,,,did slick willy have a group thing going when he left the stain in the oval office?

 

[orangelvis]

The republican controlled senate has the power to easily call Atkinson in for testimony, if what is being alleged here is true then it is a no brainer. hmmmmm. Wonder why they aren't doing that? Could it be that Atkinson testified that whistleblower was legit? That would put a dent in your "whistlehoaxer" narrative.

Oh, and clinton allowed witnesses to testify and released 90K documents during his impeachment trial.

The real question is why didn't Schiff call Atkinson to testify publicly during his hearings! There were 18 total people called into the SCIF; only 17 made it into the public hearing. Anyone who could believe ANYTHING Schiff has to say; at this point, is bereft of logic! As to the WhistleHoaxer, his day is coming whether he testifies in this setting or not. Even if Trump is acquitted without further testimony, there will be hearings in the SENATE!
As I said earlier itt, bring everyone with any information as witnesses! You'll watch the dems try to pick and choose who can be called; just as they did in the House Intel and Judiciary Hearings. Lets start with this guy:


Oh, and Trump allowed EVERYONE in his Whitehouse to testify to Mueller and released 1 million documents during his Russia Hoax investigation!

 

[nytigerfan]

The real question is why didn't Schiff call Atkinson to testify publicly during his hearings! There were 18 total people called into the SCIF; only 17 made it into the public hearing. Anyone who could believe ANYTHING Schiff has to say; at this point, is bereft of logic! As to the WhistleHoaxer, his day is coming whether he testifies in this setting or not. Even if Trump is acquitted without further testimony, there will be hearings in the SENATE!

Oh, and Trump allowed EVERYONE in his Whitehouse to testify to Mueller and released 1 million documents during his Russia Hoax investigation!

Again, if there is evidence from Atkinson's testimony that would somehow exonerate Trump, the senate has the power to call him to testify. They are not doing that. Instead, they are arguing that it is OK for Trump to meddle in the election if he feels that him being reelected is best for the country. That is some dangerous precedent. I sure hope it doesn't come back to bite us all in the ass when Bernie is president and taxing the shit out us 1%ers.

Trump himself did not testify. But his counsel Dan Mcgan did, and said trump instructed him to obstruct justice, an order he refused.

 

[orangelvis]

Again, if there is evidence from Atkinson's testimony that would somehow exonerate Trump, the senate has the power to call him to testify. They are not doing that. Instead, they are arguing that it is OK for Trump to meddle in the election if he feels that him being reelected is best for the country. That is some dangerous precedent. I sure hope it doesn't come back to bite us all in the ass when Bernie is president and taxing the shit out us 1%ers.

Trump himself did not testify. But his counsel Dan Mcgan did, and said trump instructed him to obstruct justice, an order he refused.

There is no evidence Trump has meddled in anything! That is the point! See my edited response above.

 

[orangelvis]

Something else you won't see in the corrupt, msm. Backs up what Rudy is stating in the video:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...tor-shokin-files-complaint-against-joe-biden/

Like I said earlier, the TRUTH will come out whether or NOT the Senate agrees to hear more testimony:

 

[nytigerfan]

There is no evidence Trump has meddled in anything! That is the point! See my edited response above.

Did you read the Mueller report?

Ill say it again... it is not the prosecution's job to call witnesses if they they think that witness will damage the case they are making. It is the defense's job. The repubs were there during Atkinson's closed door testimony. If they heard a smoking gun that exonerates trump, then all the senate has to do is call him in testify. Again, they wont do that. I wonder why?

And I am not wasting my time listening the crazy Rudy (Trump's personal attorney). If you want to talk about someone who will be doing the perp walk one day.

 

[orangelvis]

Did you read the Mueller report?

Ill say it again... it is not the prosecution's job to call witnesses if they they think that witness will damage the case they are making. It is the defense's job. The repubs were there during Atkinson's closed door testimony. If they heard a smoking gun that exonerates trump, then all the senate has to do is call him in testify. Again, they wont do that. I wonder why?

And I am not wasting my time listening the crazy Rudy (Trump's personal attorney). If you want to talk about someone who will be doing the perp walk one day.

Thanks! You just made my point for me. So, basically you're admitting that the House Inquiry, led by Schiff, was already in prosecutor role. Not only was that their stance, they prevented the Repubs from calling witnesses. So, Schiff was not trying to get to the truth, he WAS building a partisan case; as prosecutor. Hey! You're catching on!
Yes, I think you should keep ignoring Rudy. It will make it more fun when I have to explain it all to you.

 

[nytigerfan]

Thanks! You just made my point for me. So, basically you're admitting that the House Inquiry, led by Schiff, was already in prosecutor role. Not only was that their stance, they prevented the Repubs from calling witnesses. So, Schiff was not trying to get to the truth, he WAS building a partisan case; as prosecutor. Hey! You're catching on!
Yes, I think you should keep ignoring Rudy. It will make it more fun when I have to explain it all to you.

How is that any different than the republicans in congress hiring their own special counsel (Ken Starr LOL) to investigate clinton for 3+ years until he found something? I am guessing you had no problem with that.

 

[appalachiatiger]

i am so glad the senate didnt entertain this coup.

20 years from now people are gonna realize how close we came to the DNC pulling off a coup in the United States.

Then the massive attempt to cover it up which fooled at least a third of the populace using their hatred of Trump as blindfolds.

 

[CU Alumnus]

i am so glad the senate didnt entertain this coup.

20 years from now people are gonna realize how close we came to the DNC pulling off a coup in the United States.

Then the massive attempt to cover it up which fooled at least a third of the populace using their hatred of Trump as blindfolds.

Honestly - I have no idea WTF happened with Ukraine.

But I do know that this whole thing had nothing to do with aid to Ukraine or anything like that. It had to do with the democrats trying to get rid of Trump by any means necessary. And in the act probably hurting their case for getting the presidency in 2020 (not as much as their choice of candidates is hurting their case, mind you). They should be focused on finding a candidate that can beat him in 2020. He's not unbeatable - but their best chance at winning seems to be suffering from dimensia or something.

I'm actually shocked Pelosi went through with it. I think she knew exactly what would happen (hell everyone else did) and, love her or hate her, she is normally smarter than that. I think it was seen mostly as either a stupid waste of time, an act of desparation, or a coup attempt.

 

[appalachiatiger]

Honestly - I have no idea WTF happened with Ukraine.

But I do know that this whole thing had nothing to do with aid to Ukraine or anything like that. It had to do with the democrats trying to get rid of Trump by any means necessary. And in the act probably hurting their case for getting the presidency in 2020 (not as much as their choice of candidates is hurting their case, mind you). They should be focused on finding a candidate that can beat him in 2020. He's not unbeatable - but their best chance at winning seems to be suffering from dimensia or something.

I'm actually shocked Pelosi went through with it. I think she knew exactly what would happen (hell everyone else did) and, love her or hate her, she is normally smarter than that. I think it was seen mostly as either a stupid waste of time, an act of desparation, or a coup attempt.

i actually think nancy pelosi is a moron.

adam schiff and jerry nadler not far behind her.

there are at least 10 maybe more DNC operatives that need jail time.

 

[CU Alumnus]

i actually think nancy pelosi is a moron.

adam schiff and jerry nadler not far behind her.

there are at least 10 maybe more DNC operatives that need jail time.

Pelosi and McConnell are both brilliant at Congressional strategy. They may be morons outside of that, but they know how to work the system. Good or bad.

 

[appalachiatiger]

Pelosi and McConnell are both brilliant at Congressional strategy. They may be morons outside of that, but they know how to work the system. Good or bad.

kidding right???

 

[Rychek4]

kidding right???

They didn't luck into millions and millions of dollars

 

[appalachiatiger]

mitch is smart bit pelosi is a moron.

 

[Rychek4]

mitch is smart bit pelosi is a moron.

I am not even a democrat but this post is irony in the best way.

This post is like learning about someone with a learning disability.