The REAL obstructors of justice: House Democrats refuse to allow key witness testimony in Intel Committee’s Russia probe because they likely will clear Trump
06/21/2017 / By JD Heyes / Comments
The REAL obstructors of justice: House Democrats refuse to allow key witness testimony in Intel Committee’s Russia probe because they likely will clear Trump

We can finally report that there most definitely is obstruction of justice occurring in the nation’s capital, and that the American people deserve to know about it.

Only, the obstruction isn’t coming from President Donald J. Trump; it’s coming from his most vociferous detractors — congressional Democrats.

In particular, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. They have purposefully delayed allowing key witnesses to testify in the panel’s probe on Russian interference or “collusion” in the 2016 presidential election, even as they claim they’re trying as best they can to get to the bottom of it.

The news site reported that about a dozen witnesses who have been attempting to appear before the panel — to clear their names more than anything else — have been blocked by Democrats, who now claim they need “more time” to prepare.

One of the witnesses is Carter Page, a one-time ancillary figure in the Trump campaign who has been accused by the disgustingly dishonest “mainstream” media as having some sort of nefarious dealings, business and otherwise, with “The Russians.” As The National Sentinel has reported, Page — along with former campaign advisors Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, who have also been implicated in allegations regarding Russian collusion — has volunteered to testify before both the House and Senate intelligence committees, and without a grant of immunity.

Of Page, one official on Capitol Hill told the WFB, “He’s the guy that many Democrats have been pointing to as the supposed mastermind and you would think they were interested in hearing his story.”


The House intelligence panel’s ranking minority member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has been irresponsibly claiming that evidence of so-called Team Trump collusion with Moscow is “more than circumstantial,” though other intelligence and congressional oversight lawmakers have insisted there is no such evidence in fact.

During an interview on Sunday with ABC News, Schiff backed off those allegations somewhat. When pressed to explain the nature of the alleged collusion, he said, as the WFB reported, “Well, I think there is evidence. I can’t go into the particulars of our closed investigation. But I also think there is also evidence of obstruction. But in both cases, I would say, whether there is some evidence doesn’t mean there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Then Schiff tipped Democrats’ hand: The goal isn’t finding evidence that isn’t there, the goal is to keep the investigation alive, because doing so keeps hope alive for their unhinged far-Left base.

“…I’m not prepared to say that there’s proof you could take to a jury,” he told ABC News. “But I can say that there is enough that we ought to be investigating.”

Despite the fact that after more than a year there has been no collusion found, and the “obstruction” charge is bogus. (RELATED: 11 months later, STILL no proof of Trump-Russia collusion; Dem lawmaker confirms)

None of this is lost on Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a member of the intelligence committee.

He said in an interview Tuesday evening with Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that he was ready to begin interviewing witnesses months ago, but that Democratic members of the committee were thwarting those efforts.

“There are only six members” on the entire intelligence committee tasked with interviewing witnesses, Gowdy said. “I was ready two months ago to start interviewing witnesses. We are slowly beginning to do that.”

And he also criticized Democrat statements like those made by Schiff as “baseless” and “reckless.”

“There are members of both the House and the Senate who [say] ‘I’ve seen evidence that is more than circumstantial, but not direct,’” Gowdy said. “There is no way it can be more than circumstantial but not direct.

“There’s no way to defend yourself against those kinds of baseless, reckless accusations,” he added.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.


Submit a correction >>

, , ,

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.

Get the world's best independent media newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.