Today's Edition Local Missouri National World Opinion Obits Sports GoMidMo Events Classifieds Newsletters Contests Special Sections Jobs

Charlotte Schnieders

Jefferson City

Dear Editor:

Mark Zaid, the whistle-blower, Eric Ciaramella's attorney, announced impeachment on inauguration day. Two weeks later, two NSC officials overheard Ciaramella talking to NSC colleague, Misko on ways to remove Trump from office. These officials later said Lt. Col. Vindman allegedly leaked Trump's call to Ciaramella.

Ciaramella is a Democratic activist, speaks Ukrainian, worked with Brennan, DNC/Clinton operative, Chalupa, Susan Rice and Biden, who invited him to a White House meeting attended by Comey, Brennan and Clapper. All have credibility problems.

Ciaramella contacted Schiff's office, lawyered up (Zaid?) to write a secondhand hearsay complaint, against rules stating complaints "must be firsthand knowledge" or be rejected. ICIG, Atkinson clashed with DNl, Maguire and Justice Department that argued complaint didn't meet standards and shouldn't go to Congress. Was Atkinson coerced to forward complaint anyway and why his closed-door testimony as the 18th witness wasn't included in House's 28,000 evidential pages submitted for Senate trial? After filing, Schiff hired Ciaramella colleagues Misko and Grace, yet still claims he doesn't know Ciaramella!

The subpoenas received by the knowledgeable White House legal counsel were deemed illegitimate, because constitutionally to authorize their power, a vote must be taken first — Pelosi ignored this. Corrections were suggested, which House managers ignored and charged Trump with" abuse of power," which is not a crime and could have been charged on every president.

The House had a partisan trial: It didn't allow WH lawyers to read transcripts, call or interrogate witnesses or even mention Ciaramella. In call, Trump suggested EU do more to aid Ukraine and referred to "Crowdstrike" (investigated Dems server) and could reveal the $7 billion U.S. dollars Obama lost in bank owned by Burisma's owner. Zelensky and Sondland said the president wanted no quid pro quo! Zelensky didn't know Security Assistance was paused or required any investigations into the Bidens. Not one House witness could name a crime and assistance flowed to Ukraine three weeks prior to the deadline without investigations.

The House attempted to alter their constitutional obligation of complete preparation by asking the Senate to call witnesses and do the House' job, yet stated they had overwhelming evidence to convict. WH legal counsel disproved the House's case in two hours and showed this was a partisan effort to overturn the 2016 election and massively interfere with 2020 by misrepresenting the facts. You can't have a trial without a crime!

COMMENTS - It looks like you're using Internet Explorer, which isn't compatible with our commenting system. You can join the discussion by using another browser, like Firefox or Google Chrome.
It looks like you're using Microsoft Edge. Our commenting system is more compatible with Firefox and Google Chrome.
/** **/