About Daveda

I write for http://DefiantAmerica.com, http://aleadernotapolitician.com/ https://magamedia.org/ and http://FreeAmericaNetwork.com & Graphic Artist & Video producer. I adore journalism. Politics seems to be my preferred genre although I do not hesitate to write anything that strikes me as interesting. Researching and finding 'Breaking News' makes my blood rush. I've written seventeen books. and over that including books in conglomeration with others. Doing graphic art design has always been fun for me. Sometimes I incorporate this talent into my articles or when a special 'feature picture' is required. You can find me tweeting on: https://twitter.com/DavedaGruber You can always find my articles on the sites I write for.

Where’s Docs of 18th House Impeachment Inquiry Witness?

by Daveda Gruber:

It appears that we understand that the House had witnesses during the impeachment hearings. Lead manager Adam Schiff D-Ca., has brought up the seventeen witnesses quite a few times.

As a matter of fact, along with Schiff, other managers have brought up these seventeen witness who were interviewed during the House’s secret depositions.

Why is the eighteenth witness never brought up? Michael Atkinson, who is the intelligence community’s inspector general, has firsthand knowledge of the origins of the whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment.

The members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence interviewed Atkinson under oath. Unfortunately, they are not allowed to give any information on that deposition.

Republicans wanted that information to be heard in the Senate trail but it was denied to them.

The information in the testimony was heard by Representative John Ratcliffe, R-Tx., and the transcript of the questioning is 179 pages long and Republicans demanded that it be put into evidence.

That did not happen. The idea was rejected by Schiff It is alleged that the briefing with Atkinson was not conducted with the other two committees involved in the impeachment investigation, which are the Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees, and for that reason it did not qualify as a deposition.

You can see why Schiff got the nickname “Shifty Schiff” as he was the one who did the questioning and deciding which committee heard or did not hear testimony.

Ratcliff calls the “Q and A” period a deposition or a transcribed interview. Whatever it is described as, I’d like to see it and so would the American people.

The information allegedly holds information that could exonerate President Trump of the crimes the House determined would impeach the president.

During one of the breaks in the trial, Senator Joni Ernst, R-Ia., said House Democrats should have submitted the transcript.

Ernst said, “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.”

I believe more people should be aware of this witness and the Democrats’ need to hide what he said and that they felt so strongly not to divulge it because it was not going to help their case.

Somewhere in the basement of Congress allegedly lies possible exoneration documentation of a duly elected president but Schiff and his cohorts have them well hidden.

Every American should be disgusted over this cherry picking of witness and documents that get brought into evidence. I don’t feel badly at all that more witnesses were denied by a Senate vote.

Karma can be a bitch!

I can always be reached on Twitter. Please reach out to discuss your views with me but never tell me how or what to write. Thank you.

@DavedaGruber

Sen. Paul Blocked by Justice Roberts

by Daveda Gruber:

Holding the gavel in the Senate impeachment trial is Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts and he just made a move that blocked a question from Senator Rand Paul R-Ky., that would have revealed the whistleblower.

The impeachment proceedings against President Donald J. Trump started its journey with a whistleblower filing a complaint.

Roberts had allegedly initially sought to block even general questions of the intelligence community whistleblower but then Republicans threatened a vote rebuking Roberts on the record.

Roberts then allegedly backed down and decided to disallow mentioning the whistleblower’s name but not other information.

It is alleged that Paul’s voice raised and his displeasure was noted by reporters and Senators.

Paul said, “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.”

Paul may have not been satisfied with this. He did try to force the matter during the question and answer session that began on Thursday afternoon.

On Thursday afternoon, early into the proceedings, Roberts refused to read the first question presented in writing by Senator Paul.

Paul tweeted out this:

Under the Constitution Roberts presides over the impeachment trial. His authority is not defined. Democrats may even attempt a motion that would give Roberts the unprecedented power to approve or reject witnesses.

Whistleblowers are protected under federal law from retaliation in the workplace but does not ensure their anonymity.

Mark Zaid, the attorney for the whistleblower, in 2017 stated that a “coup” had started against the president from within the administration, and that CNN’s coverage would play a “key role” in the effort.

Years before the Ukraine call in question in this impeachment trial, Zaid has openly solicited intelligence to help him get rid of Trump.

Zaid has acknowledged that the whistleblower had contact with a prominent Democratic presidential contender. There have been reports that alleged that he had served closely with former Vice President Joe Biden when he was in office.

I’m still watching this circus and it’s getting more and more disturbing. How many clowns can there be in D.C.? Too many, I believe.

I can always be reached on Twitter. Please reach out to discuss your views with me but never tell me how or what to write. Thank you.

@DavedaGruber

Nadler Will Not be at the Entire Senate Trial

by Daveda Gruber:

It appears the Representative Jerrold Nadler, D-NY., has personal issues that come before a Senate trial.

Nadler has chosen to be with his wife Joyce Miller, in New York and did not travel back to Capitol Hill.

Nadler is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and is one of the managers who were placed into the impeachment trial in the Senate by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, but he chose to stay and support his wife who is suffering from pancreatic cancer.

Miller was diagnosed with the disease in December. Nadler has also missed a day of preparation of the articles of impeachment on Dec. 17, 2019  for what was called a family emergency.

Nadler said, “On Monday, I will be in New York with her to meet with doctors, determine a path forward, and begin her treatment. I am sorry to miss some of the Senate impeachment trial, which is of critical importance to our democracy.

He went on to say, “I plan to return to Washington late Monday and appreciate the support of my colleagues and staff as I take this time to be with my wife and begin the long fight against her cancer. She has undergone surgery and is taking further steps to address the spread of the cancer.”

Pancreatic cancer can move through the body quickly and in some cases is considered to be fatal. Miller was diagnosed with the disease in December.

Nadler and Miller were married in December of 1976 while the couple were students. Nadler had just been elected to the New York State Assembly and Miller has held positions on several New York City and New York state government boards. She has also taught at Columbia University in Manhattan.

I am not one to judge others but I can tell you that if a member of my family had been diagnosed with a potentially fatal disease, I’d stay by their side.

I’m sure that most people hope that Nadler can spend some quality time with his wife during this difficult period.

I guess Nadler will let his wife face the bulk of this treatment for this horrible form of cancer mostly on her own.

Nadler is due back in Washington late Monday.

I can always be reached on Twitter. Please reach out to discuss your views with me but never tell me how or what to write. Thank you.

@DavedaGruber

Did President Trump Commit a Crime?

by Daveda Gruber:

Many of those who are watching or paying attention to the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump have formed some sort of opinion as to how all the research, time and money will come together and turn out in the end.

So far, we who have some intelligence have noticed the lack of first hand information given by witnesses. That seems to be clear.

The other thing we seemed to have noticed is repetition by the left, especially by Adam Schiff, D-Ca., the lead manager.

Unfortunately, the Democrats seemed to have carefully planned that the words or talking points that they wanted to be heard by the public, were heard at prime time hours.

The mainstream media do play a big role in putting information into people’s heads. People don’t have to understand what a TV is telling them, as long as they get the general drift of the information. If every time they look at the screen viewers are being told that President Trump did horrible things, they start to get brainwashed into thinking that he must have done something bad.

The charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, which are the charges that the House impeached Trump on in December have no fact and actually seem vague, to say the least.

There have been no impeachable offenses mentioned. There is no treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors to be found by sane and intelligent human beings.

I didn’t see criminal-like conduct being alleged except in outright lies made by Schiff. I did also see that there were at least four managers, who voted against military aid to Ukraine in the past, get themselves in a tizzy about Trump allegedly withholding military aid that was not, in fact, held back.

I saw managers show and read from the transcript of the now famous, Ukraine phone call but it was never referred to in its entirety ony select sections were read to the public at large out of context.

On Monday, we will start to hear the president’s defense team try to explain this whole mess. I started briefly on Saturday but TV rating are not good on Saturday afternoon and I’m relieved that the president’s team had that figured out.

After the defense finishes its response to the hours on end of testimony that truly has no actual substance, there will be voting.

The charges against the president will either be dismissed because of insufficient evidence or witnesses will be called.

It would take four Republican senators to join the Democratic minority voting  to seek witnesses. Republicans in general don’t want witnesses.

Honestly, if there is no case, you don’t call witnesses. But if there are witnesses, who would they be? Well that depends if the Democrats get their own way and after a hypothetical decision is reached to call witnesses, Democrats will want those who may help their case.

But then GOP leaders should want witnesses too, in that case, and if played right, this game of chess could abstractly be played to give better odds to one side over the other.

Which side will have the edge? We’ll all have to wait and see but from the short the Saturday preview, I did notice a professionalism from the right, mostly I noted Jay Sekulow’s demeanor as apposed to fair facts that were simply non-existent in the voices of Adman Schiff, Jerrold Nadler D-NY., et al.

This coming week should be interesting and possibly even gratifying. Let’s see how this chess game pays out.

I’m love to hear your opinions. You can always find me on Twitter.

@DavedaGruber

Oklahoma Bans State-Funded Travel to California

by Daveda Gruber:

Planning a trip to California? If you live in Oklahoma, the trip may be a problem for you depending on the circumstances.

Republican Kevin Stitt is serving as the 28th Governor of Oklahoma since January 2019. He founded and is a former chairman and CEO of Gateway Mortgage Group. He was elected governor in 2018 when he defeated Democratic nominee and former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

The governor has banned all state-funded travel to California. This comes after the state of California placed a similar ban on travel to Oklahoma.

On Thursday the ban was announced in an executive order and it bars all non-essential travel by state employees to California.

There are exceptions to the new law as follows:

Business recruiting trips

College sports games

Trips by schools to participate in out-of-state programs

Stitt said, “Enough is enough. If California’s elected officials don’t want public employees traveling to Oklahoma, I am eager to return the gesture on behalf of Oklahoma’s pro-life stance.”

California imposed travel bans and in 2018 Oklahoma was added after Oklahoma passed a law that allows adoption agencies to deny placement services to same-sex parents.

San Francisco, last year, extended the ban to states with restrictive abortion laws which included Oklahoma.

California’s blacklist also includes the states of Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas and Mississippi.

In September California declared that it added Iowa to the list of states on its travel ban list because of the state’s prohibition against funding gender-transition surgeries under Medicaid.

The restrictions do not end here. California list of states under the travel ban include Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas and Mississippi.

So now, depending on your political beliefs, you can’t travel to certain states? Really? Well, yes if it is government funded.

If you’re driving, who is going to stop you? Even if you’re on another mode of transportation is someone standing at each entry point of all the states that I have mentioned? No, not it wasn’t government funded.

But this brings me to another point. Will states be labeled RED or BLUE depending on personal beliefs that are not necessarily political, but to them, morally important?

Contact me on Twitter to give me your views. I’d love to hear from you!

@DavedaGruber

Will the Kill Switch Option be Used in Impeachment Trial?

by Daveda Gruber:

Is it better to have a short impeachment trial or a longer drawn out impeachment trial? All this will depend on what the immediate evidence that is presented includes.

It has been reported that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell R-Ky., is working on finalizing a rule to be included that would be a safety valve to be able to dismiss the articles of impeachment after some evidence is presented.

Senator Ted Cruz R-Tx., has made statements that the Senate trial could last six to eight weeks or longer  if it is decided by Senators to hear from additional witnesses.

Hearing from additional witnesses could interfere with the campaigns of Senators. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. They could very well be pulled off the campaign trail.

It appears that GOP Senators consider that this is not to their advantage.

Republicans have said they supported affording Trump the opportunity to cut the trial short.

Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley R-Mo., said he would be “very, very surprised” if McConnell’s resolution didn’t include that kind of kill switch.

Hawley said in reports, “I am familiar with the resolution as it stood a day or two ago. My understanding is that the resolution will give the president’s team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss at a meaningful time.”

Hawley tweeted:

Democrats are upset that McConnell has been holding the final resolution with the rules and not giving information until McConnell deemed his entire resolution fit for the Senators and the public to see.

McConnell doesn’t have to publish the final version of his resolution until Tuesday but it will most likely come out today.

Sources have said that the House managers have absolutely no idea what the structure of the trial will be.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Ak., said she’s comfortable waiting to decide if more information would be needed for the Senate’s impeachment trial until after hearing arguments from House managers as well as attorneys for the president.

Murkowski wants to see senators hear the case and ask questions, which would be in writing and handed to Justice John Roberts to read aloud before making any determination whether witnesses or documents would be needed.

Democrats may try adding certain witnesses to an organizing resolution. McConnell, at that point, could move to table such a request and Murkowski said that she would support a tabling motion.
No one wants to see a re-play of the circus that went on in the House. The Senate does not want to be seen in that kind of light and most Americans, who watch these things, don’t want to see that kind of nonsense.

Law professor Alan Dershowitz is set to present an argument against impeachment during the Senate trial. There will be no need for witnesses if his presentation succeeds. Criminal-like conduct is required for impeachment and Dershowitz allegedly believes there is none.

Will this be a long trial or a short one? Only time will tell. Which would be better? It depends on if Dershowitz is correct in his explanation.

Who Said Trump Admin Broke the Law?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Thursday a legal opinion by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that President Trump’s administration broke the law when defense aid was withheld to Ukraine.

The Ukraine aid, which is the meat of the president’s impeachment trial, was allegedly withheld, according to the GAO, without the right to hold it back.

There was $214 million allocated to the Department of Defense for security assistance. It was appropriated by Congress and for that reason the administration, according to the GAO, did not have the right to hold it back because it happened to disagree with its allocation.

The opinion was in writing and said, “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. [The Office of Management and Budget] OMB withheld funds for a policy reason … not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act].”

On Thursday the OMB made it clear that it disagreed with the GAO report.

OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said, “We disagree with GAO’s opinion. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”

Now it becomes more clear as to why Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was demanding that the Senate consider additional documents as evidence in the upcoming impeachment trial.

Schumer said, “The GAO opinion makes clear that the documents we requested in our letter last month are even more needed now because GAO confirmed the president broke the law. All senators will get a chance to vote to obtain these documents next week.”

The Trump administration, through the OMB, withheld a total of about $400 million of security assistance from Ukraine last summer.

The opinion also raised constitutional concerns about the lack of cooperation from the Trump and his executive branch officials in conjunction with the GAO’s investigation.

In the opinion’s conclusion a reluctance to provide a fulsome response, on the part of the OMB and the State Department. The opinion’s author, GAO General Counsel Thomas H. Armstrong, inferred that there was interference with the GAO’s oversight role on behalf of Congress.

This is at the core of the impeachment trial that has become the focus of lawmakers. It started after Trump asked Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelensky to allegedly investigate the family of his 2020 rival, Joe Biden while the White House allegedly was withholding an Oval Office visit from Zelensky in exchange for that investigation.

That situation originally started the whispers about a “Quid Pro Quo” that soon was changed to bribery and then to abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

I believe that the OMB has got this right. What say you? I’d love to hear your opinion.

I can always be reached on Twitter: @DavedaGruber

Meet Pelosi’s House Impeachment Managers

by Daveda Gruber:

On Wednesday Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi presented the members of the House who will serve as House mangers and will be the prosecutors against President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial.

The trial is expected to begin early next week and Pelosi D-Calif., had a few things to say.

Pelosi said,  “I am proud to present the managers who will bring the case which we have great confidence in impeaching the president for his removal. The emphasis is on litigators.”

House managers will be:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo.

Val Demings, D-Fla.

Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas

Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

Schiff will be the lead manager. He led much of the impeachment committee.

Nadler’s  panel drafted the articles of impeachment.

Lofgren is no stranger to presidential impeachment proceedings, as a Judiciary Committee staffer, during former President Richard Nixon’s and former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

Pelosi tweeted this:

Pelosi insisted that the charges against the president will be a stain on his legacy, and reiterating that an “impeachment that will last forever.”

Pelosi said, “This is a very serious matter and we take it to heart in a really solemn way. It’s about the Constitution, it’s about the republic if we can keep it and [senators] shouldn’t be frivolous with the Constitution of the United States even though the president of the United States has.”

She then added, “The president is not above the law. He will be held accountable. He already has been held accountable. He has been impeached and you can never erase that.”

Here is a video of the televised announcement:

Trump must have been watching because he came back with a tweet:

Okay, I have a problems with the managers especially Schiff who is the lead manager. If the Senate, after going over all the articles of impeachment, decide to call witnesses, Schiff would be one of the witnesses that I’d like to hear from after all, he met the whistleblower, who we all know who he is, yes, it’s still Eric Ciaramella.

There are photos of Ciaramella with the Schiff family. Here is one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schiff is adamantly against calling Ciaramella as a witness and I’d like the American people to find out why.

Who’s the Current Democratic Frontrunner?

by Daveda Gruber:

Who do you think the Democratic frontrunner is at this stage of the race for the leadership of the party?

It appears that President Trump’s re-election campaign believes that the leader of the pack of Democratic contenders for the head of the party is now Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Weeks before the caucuses kick off the nominating season the polls in Iowa are showing the self proclaimed Democratic Socialist, Sanders, as the frontrunner.

Over this past weekend the Des Moines Register published results of its poll that showed Sanders leading in Iowa.

The polls shows:

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders with 20%

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren with 17%

Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 16%

Former Vice President Joe Biden with 15%

The Trump campaign has made it clear that it does not matter which candidate Trump eventually runs against in the general election.

Trump’s tweets pretty much sum up his opinion on his potential opponents. He even mentions billionaire Mike Bloomberg and Senator Cory Booker, D-NJ., who just pulled out of the race.

Here are a few tweets that are interesting:

Will Pelosi Give Up Articles of Impeachment to Senate?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Friday Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that she’ll send impeachment articles to the Senate next week.

Pelosi, even though the impeachment of President Trump was, as far as Democrats were concerned, urgent and keeping Trump in office was a security risk to the U.S. could not have been anywhere near as urgent as they made it sound.

House Democrats voted on the articles of impeachment on December 18th. Pelosi has been holding onto them since.

After trying to get the Majority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell to agree with the way she wants the trial held, Pelosi must have come to terms with the fact that she doesn’t control the Senate nor its rules.

Pelosi wrote a letter to her colleagues explaining what they should expect next.

Pelosi wrote,  “I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate. I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further.”

This past week some Democrats were making their frustrations heard over the speaker’s approach to the matter.

In any case, Pelosi is still pressing on about important new information on the Ukraine controversy which is at the heart of impeachment.

The memo reads, “I am very proud of the courage and patriotism exhibited by our House Democratic Caucus as we support and defend the Constitution.”

She added, “In an impeachment trial, every Senator takes an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.’ Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or to the Constitution. No one is above the law, not even the President.”

Well, the Constitution hasn’t been brought up by Democrats with this much reference for as long as I can remember. When it becomes a focus of the Democrats to keep citing the Constitution, you can be sure they are using it as a talking point to stress that they are doing everything in a constitutional or legal manner.

Several Democrats lawmakers have voiced their opinions and are not pleased with this delay.

Some of those who were not happy with the delay are, Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Senator Angus King, D-Maine; Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; and Senator Chris Coons, D-Del.

Pelosi made an official announcement that supported her memo.

Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, was early to jump on the delay tactic.

Grassley said in a statement of his own, “Speaker Pelosi threw the United States Congress into unnecessary chaos with this pointless delay. From the beginning, it’s been unclear what the goal of this hurry-up-and-wait tactic was or what the country stood to gain. We now know the answer was nothing.”

The Iowa senator went on to say, “We’ve had three weeks of uncertainty and confusion, causing even more division. Regardless, I will take my role as a juror seriously and review the evidence presented by both sides before making any determination.”

The next step for Pelosi will be to determine who will serve as House managers to prosecute the case against the president in the Senate trial.

The trial in the Senate may begin next week.

This whole facade will go on until Majority Leader of the United States Senate Mitch McConnell , R-Ky., either calls for a vote or the whole case gets dismissed.