And page. They have conveniently disappeared. I dont make this up. The messages the fbi claims to have lost. Theyre from a critical, crucial time in the Russia Investigation. Here is what happened. During that five months this. Is from december 14th, 2016 to may 17, 2017. President trump claimed he was wiretapped at trump towers. We dont have what they were gossiping about at that point. January 11th buzzfeed. The russian phony dossier to get the filing against the trump campaign. January 24th now Lieutenant General Michael Flynn is interviewed by the fbi. I hope flynns attorneys are watching tonight. There was one person in the room, peter strzok, who made it clear he despises all things
destroy evidence . That doesnt make sense. According to the same reporting of the plea deal the fbi wasnt allowed to search emails after the server was public. So the fbi couldnt look at possible Obstruction Of Justice by clinton and aides. Its obvious that happened. Then here, the Washington Post rep
This from like the ivory towers of your law school but it makes actual people in this country when the president calls you dont get to interrupt me on this time. And when you suggest that you invoke the president s son name here and try to make a joke at referencing baron trump that does not lend credibility to your argument, it makes you look mean and attacking someones family. The minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we could get into the facts. To all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single Material Fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact. And you know what, that continues on the tradition we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an Impeachment Offense and mr. Kent never met with the president and fiona hill never mentioned military aid and mr. Hill was not aware of any
nefarious aid and Colonel Vindman said that bribery was invoked
And conservatives dont want to be around each other and so they have to spread out, you may not see this from like the ivory towers of your law school, but it makes the actual people in this country when the president calls you dont get to interrupt me on this time. Let me also suggest that when you invoke the president s sons name here. When you try to make a little joke out of referencing trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like youre attacking someones family. The minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we can get into the facts, to all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single Material Fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact. And you know what . That continues on the tradition that we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an Impeachable Offense. Mr. Kent never met with the
pr
pervasive. a little bit more expanded. and on july 20th, 1787, it wasn t 1789, it was in 1787, july toth, benjamin franklin is discussing impeachment of a dutch leader and he talked specifically about what he would anticipate an impeachment to look like. he said it would be a regular and peaceable inquiry and we ve taken place and if guilty then there is say punishment if acquitted then the innocent would be restored to the confidence of the public. that needs to be taken into account as well. so i look also and on may 17th, 2017, bbc article a discussion about impeachment, because president trump had fired james comey. alex whiting of harvard said it was hard to make the obstruction
alex whiting of harvard said it was hard to make the obstruction of justice case with this sacking alone. the president had clear legal authority and there was arguably proper or at least other reasons put forward for firing him. and yet what we have here is this insistence by ms. gerhart that that was impeachable. may 17th, 2017, bbc article. what i m suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here. you are not fact witnesses. you are supposed to be talking about what the law is, but you came in with a preconceived notion and bias. and i want to read one last thing here, if i can find it, from one of our witnesses here. and it s dealing with something