Powerful, wealthy people commit crimes all the time. And I would point to Trump and Rudy as being "vicious, unprincipled and scorched earth" instead. After all who is preaching that one side hates America? Who is fighting like hell to stop any investigation into their actions into Ukraine? Documents and testimony that you would think an innocent party would want released is being blocked by Trump.
Powerful, wealthy people commit crimes all the time. And I would point to Trump and Rudy as being "vicious, unprincipled and scorched earth" instead.
That's because you're a Media Matters-level far-left liberal partisan, who grazes daily on the lying leftist-media propaganda that is fed to you, because despite the facts otherwise, you desperately want to believe that Trump and Republicans are evil. When it is in truth your side (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Strobe Talbott, Bernie Sanders...) that openly worships truly evil Bolshevik radicals like Mao Tse Tung, Che Gueverra, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chaves, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, and has repeatedly criminally acted on that Bolshevik ideology to circumnavigate Constitutional freedoms and checks and balances and free elections, to seize power by liberal-fascist undemocratic means.
The truth is, with the microscope Donald Trump has been under for 3 years, it's astonishing that the Democrat/Left hasn't been able to manufacture even a false case against him. The fact that obessive investigation of Trump has NOT revealed any crimes or scandals despite the best and most vindictive efforts, reveals Trump to be more clean than you would like to believe. That If you or I were subjected to the same scrutiny, they would have found some technicality or perjury trap to imprison us and destroy us a long time ago.
On Wednesday (Nov 27th) on Lou Dobbs, K.T. McFarland (who also served as an assistant defense secretary under the Reagan and G.H.W. Bush administrations, and briefly served in the early weeks of Trump's presidency for Flynn), discussed how she was approached by two FBI agents in a very similar way that Michael Flynn was destroyed. "Oh, you don't need a lawyer..." the FBI agents said. "Oh, you don't need access to Defense Department files to refresh your memory, we just have a few simple questions for you..."
PERJURY TRAP questions.
Lucky for her, she went out and got the very best lawyer she could before answering, to avoid being similarly entrapped, deceived, smeared and criminally charged, just as Flynn was. As she put it, if she hadn't gotten that lawyer and protected herself from manufactured charges, she would "be wearing an orange jump suit now."
Just as Flynn is.
There is absolutely no reason Flynn should be in jail now, was tricked into a perjury trap by the FBI, tricked into not consulting a lawyer, he was shaken down and bankrupted, forced to mortgage his house to pay for his legal defense, and then the FBI threatened to indict and imprison his son as well, if he didn't finally take the plea.
And his new attorney Sydney Powell is well on her way to having that plea thrown out and freeing Flynn. I would like to see Comey, McCabe, Weissmann, and Strzok subjected to the same treatment for their abuse of the system, imprisoning an innocent man, many innocent men, just to get a political victory and hurt Trump. That whole corrupt self-serving top floor of the FBI belongs in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
And those FBI abuses go back to at least the Enron, Arthur Andersen, Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby and IRS/Lois Lerner cases. Let the punishment fit the crime. For imprisoning people these FBI officials knew to be innocent, hiding exculpatory evidence, shaking down the innocent (Republicans) and deliberately sabotaging the cases and setting free the guilty (Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton), these bastards belong in jail. Jail for crimes they actually committed, vs. imprisoning people they knew to be innocent just to get a conviction. That would still not even be letting the punishment fit the crime. Far more merciful that what they unleashed on the executives of Arthur Andersen and Enron, some of whom, innocent men, they caused to die in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Convictions overturned unanimously 9-0 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Originally Posted By: M E M
After all who is preaching that one side hates America? Who is fighting like hell to stop any investigation into their actions into Ukraine? Documents and testimony that you would think an innocent party would want released is being blocked by Trump.
Your side is accusing Trump and Republicans of "hate", ironically as the Democrats themselves stoke hate at Trump and his supporters.
And I've cited at length the evidence that Democrats are more loyal to globalism than the United States, and that Democrats undermine securing our borders, undermine stopping illegal immigration, undermine national security. And Democrats are the party of attacking our nation's founders, our history, calling America racist and inherently unfair (Bernie Sanders, Michelle Obama, Stacy Abrams, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to name just a few examples). And Democrats are the party that tried to de-fund our troops on the battlefield in Iraq in 2006 to force W. Bush to bring them home. The party of John Kerry, who threw his Vietnam medals (or someone else's it turned out, for pure anti-American show) who falsely called Vietnam war veterans rapists and war criminals. The party of Senator Dick Durbin (D-MI) calling U.S. soldiers in Iraq "comparable to Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags and the Pol Pot regime." The party that hates police. The party that frees cop-killers. The Party of Senator Ted Kennedy, who met with the Russians in 1987 and tried to convince them not to make a nuclear arms reduction agreement with Reagan. The party that was warned about the threat of communist infiltrators in the 1940's, who ignored that advice, and allowed the Russians to infiltrate our government and steal the technology to make a nuclear bomb.
You tell me, M E M: Which party hates America based on that overwhelming evidence?
Trump is cooperating with investigators and hiding less behind executive privelege than either Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton before him. Where Trump is exercising executive privelege, he is protecting the office of the presidency itself, so as not to set a precedent that will cripple future presidents.
You hold an incredible double-standard, M E M. There is no crime that Trump is indicted for, or even specifically charged with (as compared to the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, who special investigations showed both guilty of actual crimes, Mueller's report on Trump did not). The Democrats are indulging in a Stalinist-like trial, where the Democrat-contrived rules don't even allow Trump to properly defend himself. It's all a show for the Democrat base, to smear Trump. But while the Democrat and Republican bases haven't moved politically, the independents polled have gone from 48% in support of impeachment to 34%, a double digit majority now [b]opposing[/i] impeachment. It's over, and moderate Democrats are looking for an exit ramp. I doubt at this point that Pelosi will even hold a House vote for impeachment. The blatant unfairness of these hearings has blown up in the Dems' faces, and I think, assured Trump's re-election.
But Trump's inevitable re-election was always in place, this was just the Dems' desperate attempt to do a hail-Mary to block it, to smear Trump and lower his numbers just enough to prevent his re-election. It failed, and it backfired. And Democrats will now even more assuredly lose, as they richly deserve to.
Democrats have played their last vicious and desperate hand. To the division and detriment of the nation. I have never been so enraged by the overt deceit, malice, and politics of personal destruction of the Democrats. From Brett Kavanaugh to Nicholas Sandmann, to this. I wouldn't risk going to jail to do it, but these malicious Democrats, stoking division just for their short-term gain, destroying the country and the rule of law, deserve a death like Hitler or Mussolini or Benedict Arnold. Killed in the streets. I would be delighted to turn on Fox or CNN and see that someone else had made them die screaming. What the Democrats have done is so vile, so divisive, so treasonous, that is the punishment they truly deserve.
But I'll settle for them being voted out of office, and ceasing to have any majorities. That will be sufficient.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
All that hatred whipped up for Trump is so sad. I hope at some point you look at what he's done to this country and stop worshipping him. Trump could be providing the documents and testimony that would be his defense WB. Instead he's trying to block it. You would never tolerate that from a democrat. And instead of thoughtful responses you rant out your hatred for your fellow Americans. I didn't withhold foreign aid to try to shakedown a country that is fighting our enemy. Nor did I use a charity so fraudulently that I had to pay huge fines. Those are things corrupt bad people do. Open your eyes, I'm not your enemy
All that hatred whipped up for Trump is so sad. I hope at some point you look at what he's done to this country and stop worshipping him. Trump could be providing the documents and testimony that would be his defense WB. Instead he's trying to block it. You would never tolerate that from a democrat. And instead of thoughtful responses you rant out your hatred for your fellow Americans. I didn't withhold foreign aid to try to shakedown a country that is fighting our enemy. Nor did I use a charity so fraudulently that I had to pay huge fines. Those are things corrupt bad people do. Open your eyes, I'm not your enemy
You're delusional. Trump has overseen the best economy in over 50 years. The lowest unemployment ever recorded for blacks, hispanics, women, and people under 30. Trump has negotiated trade deals with Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Japan and Central America. Trump has overseen record gains in the stock market. Trump, for someone allegedly stoking "hate", has a record level of support among black voters, up from 8% on election day 2016 to, by one poll last week, 34%.
As I've linked multiple times, the Heritage Foundation cited that Trump in his first year alone enacted 64% of his campaign agenda, a higher ratio of kept promises than any president in possibly all of U.S. history (next closest, Ronald Reagan at 53%).
Trump has reformed prisons and allowed many guilty of minor crimes to leave jail early and have a second chance. And with the demand for labor and increased business so high, these paroled inmates have far more opportunies for jobs and better futures.
So... the "hate" you cite is all from your side, desperately trying to destroy Trump, slandering him at every opportunity baselessly, despite all that he's done that is right. Democrat leadership slanders Trump as a racist to try and divide the country for their own political gain, stoking violence against Trump and his supporters. Your side wants to create an economic collapse and create a self-fulfilling prophecy of economic downturn, hurting millions of Americans, just to damage Trump.
Your side wants to impeach Trump, based on no evidence, despite FOUR investigations that have cleared him, an impeachment attempt polarizing and damaging the country for Democrats' own political gain, just to prevent Trump's re-election. Which current polls already indicate is seen by a majority of voters as a malicious deception, that has already failed.
If any of the current 2020 Democrat candidates ever managed to win, they would enact policies that would bring about national suicide: open borders, green new deal, open borders, government insurance for illegals, federal bailout of student debt, free tuition. At the debates, every candidate raised their hands in support of these things, not one sane alternative candidate in the bunch. Because of the slander, intimidation and violence your party has enacted over the last 11 years, and especially the last 4 years, I no longer see the Democrats at the leadership level as a group of people I respectfully disagree with. I see them for what they are, as the party of hate, the Bolshevik party, a cancer that has to be removed.
Even in the cases of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats merely pretended to be moderates who cared about the needs of middle class Americans, but in both cases campaigned on deliberate deception, a Trojan Horse for radicalism. And Barack Obama is basically giving advice now to the 2020 Democrat field to hide their true intentions, so they can win an election and then implement their deceitful agenda. Your party is evil to the core, and they are a danger to all of us.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
WB when you post stuff like this..."Democrats have played their last vicious and desperate hand. To the division and detriment of the nation. I have never been so enraged by the overt deceit, malice, and politics of personal destruction of the Democrats. From Brett Kavanaugh to Nicholas Sandmann, to this. I wouldn't risk going to jail to do it, but these malicious Democrats, stoking division just for their short-term gain, destroying the country and the rule of law, deserve a death like Hitler or Mussolini or Benedict Arnold. Killed in the streets. I would be delighted to turn on Fox or CNN and see that someone else had made them die screaming. What the Democrats have done is so vile, so divisive, so treasonous, that is the punishment they truly deserve. ..." and than go on about an entire political party having all the hate just simply isn't credible. Nor is Trump cooperating with the impeachment inquiry. The documents and testimony that I think we both know wouldn't clear him but further damn him he's illegally withholding. Trump is earning his impeachment.
Impeaching Trump btw is a lot more popular by the public than Clinton's or even Nixon's up till when he resigned.
As I said, independents have dropped in support of impeachment from 48% to 34% in just one week.
The only ones who poll over 80% in support of impeachment are partisan Democrats, who rather than being persuaded by evidence, simply leap at any contrivance that would allow Democrats to attack Trump.
AGAIN: There is no evidence to warrant an impeachment. The only reason the polls ever had that high a level of support for impeachment is because of biased public hearingss that didn't allow Republicans to call witnesses, for Republicans to even be able to cross-examine Democrat witnesses, or for Republicans to present exculpatory evidence. And even of what was permitted to appear in hearings, it was behind closed doors, and Democrats unetically leaked to the press ONLY the portions that supported their lying narrative.
Since Democrats' lying narrative has been exposed, support for impeachment has been in continuous decline.
Democrats are a party whose very existence is dependent on selective omission of the facts and complete deception. When people see brief glimpses of what the Demcorats are really about (hating cops, hating America, protraying our soldiers as thugs and Nazis, amnesty for illegals, freeing rapists when they could just turn them over to ICE, HEALTH CARE for illegals, on and on) Democrat voter support drops like a stone.
It's only by race demagoguery and other hate and fear tactics that Democrats turn public support away from Republicans. (That and RINOs like Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio, who campaign as conservatives, and then don't follow through on what they promised to get elected. The Republicans who don't support Trump's agenda are the ones who generally lose. Because Trump is doing what was promised to voters, whereas the RINO's are not.)
WB when you post stuff like this..."Democrats have played their last vicious and desperate hand. To the division and detriment of the nation. I have never been so enraged by the overt deceit, malice, and politics of personal destruction of the Democrats. From Brett Kavanaugh to Nicholas Sandmann, to this. I wouldn't risk going to jail to do it, but these malicious Democrats, stoking division just for their short-term gain, destroying the country and the rule of law, deserve a death like Hitler or Mussolini or Benedict Arnold. Killed in the streets. I would be delighted to turn on Fox or CNN and see that someone else had made them die screaming. What the Democrats have done is so vile, so divisive, so treasonous, that is the punishment they truly deserve. ..." and than go on about an entire political party having all the hate just simply isn't credible. Nor is Trump cooperating with the impeachment inquiry. The documents and testimony that I think we both know wouldn't clear him but further damn him he's illegally withholding. Trump is earning his impeachment.
I stand by what I said. My words are not hate, they are a reaction to OVER A DECADE of unrelenting hate by Democrats.
Again, Trump is hiding less behind executive privelege than either Nixon or Bill Clinton. But there are some things that he has to withold, to protect the confidentiality of the inner workings of the White House. Otherwise he would show his hand and lose the ability to wage high-stakes negotiations with other countries.
Show me another president who unclassified personal communications like the Trump/Zelensky July 25th phone call. No president EVER!
And a second earlier phone call released in full after that. You and other maniacs on the Left read evil intent into everything Trump says or does, and absolutely refuse to give him credit for anything, despite that he is quantifiably the most effective president in over 50 years on a wide span of issues.
What did Obama do in 8 years? Virtually nothing. Obamacare, that's it. And even with that, the Democrats had to cheat to get it passed. And even with that, a majority of Democrats who voted for it have been removed from office. And Republicans gained over 1,000 seats in federal and state elections since then. On top of that, Obama is the king of racial demagoguery, and across the board in poll after poll, his 8 years are seen as the time when racial division escalated in the U.S. Obama was elected as a racial healer, the "post-racial" president, who instead threw acid on the wounds, and ripped this country open along race and class lines.
Obama failed on every front, whereas Trump is succeeding, the most effective president in over 50 years. So the Democrats rely on hate and smear tactics to try and hide his success. But despite over 3 years of 93% negative coverage (according to Media Research Center, that reached 96% anti-Trump liberal propaganda during the impeachment hearings) Trump is still polling with greater support than Obama. Under Obama, the news media were the wind at Obama's back. Under Trump, the media are enemy agents trying to destroy Trump at every turn with whatever made up "unnamed source" or unconfirmed half-baked rumor thay can summon, no matter how many times it blows up in their faces, no matter how many times they destroy their own credibility by doing so.
So... if I'm angry and I would like to see the Democrats see retribution, it is a reaction to the unrelenting hate and pure evil of the Democrats. They are a threat to the country, and certainly, to their Republican opposition. It is not "hate" to react to a Democrat threat, and want to see it eliminated.
And that's not even a current or complete list. When Republicans can't even speak at colleges or booksignings without being silenced or openly attacked, when Democrat leadership in cities like Portland Berkeley or L.A. or Washington D.C. makes police just stand in the sidelines and not give protection to Republicans when they are violently attacked, when high school kids are attacked just for wearing a MAGA hat in multiple cities nationwide, when it's a career-ender just to identify as a conservative as a college professor, a teacher, a news reporter, and actor, a Hollywood tv or film writer or director, it is not "hate" to vocally respond to that. It is a reaction to unrelenting Democrat hate and intolerance, and Democrat intimdation and violence. FACT.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Off topic but if it helps I do believe history shifts out the garbage who try to build their greatness by trying to tear down others. Trump will likely be impeached on the facts. More will come out to further damn him. He won't be able to block all that evidence forever and we know enough already.
In other news not surprisingly Trump passes on having lawyers at the inquiry to participate.
Off topic but if it helps I do believe history shifts out the garbage who try to build their greatness by trying to tear down others. Trump will likely be impeached on the facts. More will come out to further damn him. He won't be able to block all that evidence forever and we know enough already.
In other news not surprisingly Trump passes on having lawyers at the inquiry to participate.
If simply citing the facts is "tearing down others".
As opposed to the daily salvo of insults and hysterical Nixon/Watergate comparisons on MSNBC and CNN and NBC. Or their calling Trump or anyone who supports him "a child". Or saying that reports written by Trump or Republican House members "must have been written in crayon".
Those are all pure insults, without the slightest citing or sourcing of facts. Lying narrative, the Democrat specialty.
And regarding Trump not having lawyers at the event, it's because House Democrats have not set up anything resembling fairness or equal protection under the law, or impartial due process, in their partisan show trial. As I've cited repeatedly, in both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, the opposition party in both previous impeachment cases bent over backward to make sure the impeachment process was beyond question impartial, open and fair. And that the impartialness, and bipartisan consensus of the process, was highly visible to the American public. As were the Special investigation reports in the Nixon and Clinton cases, that showed clear criminal action on which to pursue impeachment. The Mueller report DID NOT, showed no crime by Trump to justify an impeachment process. The Stalinist standard, begin with the Democrat desire for impeachment, and manufacture a crime to rationalize it.
In the Trump case, Democrats have been highly partisan, have never made any effort to be non-partisan, and have unashamedly made that partisan bias visible beyond question. The Republican House members and the president's attorneys were NOT able to call witnesses, NOT able to cross-examine, NOT able to present exculpatory evidence, in anything even slightly resembling fair and impartial process. It is precisely that unfairness that has made Trump's White House and attorneys uncooperative.
On the plus side, it has galvanized Republicans, and made Trump's re-election even more assured. The more Democrats pursue this, the more it hurts them politically. As I said, this deeply angers me, as it clearly angers tens of millions of other Republicans and Independents. I truly want their blood for what they've maliciously done to the country. But I'll settle for their crushing defeat and heavy losses in both houses of congress in November 2020.
Nothing could convince me more of the deep anti-Americanism of the Democrats, of their deceitfulness, of their viciousness, of their eagerness to overthrow our Constitution in pursuit of mob rule. And of their Bolshevik lust to steamroll over and destroy anyone, anything, even the country itself, that gets in their way. They are the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, Che Guevarra, Hugo Chavez, and the Jacobinists of the French Revolution all rolled into one.
And going back to the Obama administration (where admiration for this long line of communist revolutionaries and their bloody scorched-earth tactics, exulted by multiple Obama staffers) was the first tell of what was coming, the natural outgrowth of what we are seeing now:
"We agree with Mao that capitalism is a sham, and that power is mostly administered at the barrell of a gun", said Ron Bloom, one of Obama's Czars.
"Vive Le resistance!", said Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's FBI insurrectionist comrade [name redacted, at least initially]. Who participated in most of the oh-so-neutral Hillary Clinton and Trump federal investigations. ["Name Redacted"] and and Strzok, Page and like-minded insurrectionist brethren were attorneys appointed to the Mueller investigation. And their lying talking points have picked up and repeated daily by their "La Revolucion" brethren in the 93% anti-Trump liberal-Newspeak media. Also supported in FBI, in NSC, in DOJ, in State Department, in IRS.
"Viva La revolucion!" We are seeing that America-hating revolution on display every day. I expect to be disappointed by DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz's report. But I hope with "la revolucion"'s decline already, that John Durham's report is a death blow to the Democrat/Marxist revolution and their allies in the Deep State, that have already had a huge loss of public support in recent weeks.
And really, steadily been exposed and weakened over the last 3 years.
Also, the [redacted-name] "Viva la resistance!" FBI lawyer from 18 months ago (now known to be Kevin Clinesmith) is back in the news. Intitially portrayed as a low-level FBI lawyer, he was the FBI lawyer who handled FISA requests to judges, and apparently falsified documents for the FISA warrants used to request a FISA judge's surveillance of Carter Page, and through surveillance on him, surveillance of the entire Trump campaign, Trump transition team, and inaugurated Trump administration. Clinesmith apparently witheld exculpatory evidence that would have proven Carter Page's innocence of Russia collusion, that by excluding allowed the currupt FBI to get FISA surveillance approval to spy on the Trump campaign.
FOUR separate FISA warrants, over a six-month period. Falsifying evidence to a federal FISA judge is a federal crime, punishable by years in prison.
Oh, I'm sure Kevin Clinesmith was doing this all on his own, and it wasn't part of a wider conspiracy with other FBI agents and lawyers he was bemoaning Hillary's Nov 2016 election loss to and saying "Viva la resistence" to.
It's just the merest coincidence that Strzok and Page were texting along similar lines: LISA PAGE: "He isn't going to become president, right? RIGHT?!? PETER STRZOK: No. No, he won't. We will stop it."
And how the Deep State and collaboratve media are trying to re-package their lying narrative to get ahead of the Dec 9th I G report by Michael Horowitz, to excuse the inexcusable. But clearly, their motive revealed in texts was getting Trump, not protecting the country from the Russians: "Viva la resistance!"
The four witnesses yesterday (Wednesday, Dec 4th):
Johnathan Turley, George Washington University Law professor Michael Gerhardt, USC law professor Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School (and for my money the craziest of the bunch) Noah Feldman, Harvard Law School professor (a close second)
Four university academics, purportedly Constitutional law experts, only Turley am I familiar with, only Turley living up to that scholarly billing and presenting his arguments with detached objectivity. The other three were visibly unhinged from the outset, and couldn't restrain spitting contempt and insults at the president at every opportunity. And as was revealed by House Republicans, all three of the liberals on the panel have vocally expressed their contempt for president Trump since 2016, have written editorials blasting Trump and calling for his impeachment, long before there was ever a July 25th phone call with Ukrainian president Zelensky to rationalize impeachment.
Rabid liberal partisans, exposed as heavy Democrat campaign donors for years, and particularly high donations to Hillary in 2016. Who have participated in anti-Trump activism, who have written newspaper editorials calling for Trump to be impeached since 2017, who have ranted their anti-Trump/antti-conservative lunacy in videotaped appearances and programs, who in hearings today spit venom at Trump and his family, at Trump's son Baron, and who just couldn't restrain themselves for even a day to try and make some pretense of detached scholarly objectivity.
Far from detached objectivity where these three liberal scholars ever attempted to weigh the legal precedent for pursuing impeachment of Trump, their personal Democrat campaign donations, their published writings, their videotaped rhetoric at public appearances, and their bristling liberal contempt, all abundantly cited in hearings, make clear these "Constitutional legal scholars" (Turley the one exception) are rabid Democrat partisans looking for ANY pretense to impeach and remove Trump, as they clearly said in their own cited words, long before there was a Ukraine/impeachment issue.
The 5 minutes you had to see out of today's House hearings testimony:
Jonathan Turley is the ONLY one before hearings who cited a universal standard for impeachment, and in his detached politeness made the Democrats on the House Committee, and the liberal activist law professors sitting next to him, all look like fools.
Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham all had a field day ripping aaprt the stupidity of Democrats on display, with a lot of playfulness and humor. No need to be mean, it was right there for all to see, easy pickings. For all the seriousness of the issue, it was very fun to watch, more like Greg Gutfeld's program.
I think Jonathan Turley's opening statement, and later responses to questions, are a persuasive indictment of the Democrat rush to impeachment. As Newt Gingrich suggested, Republicans should bomb the airwaves with commercials made from clips of it, and that alone might stop impeachment in its tracks. Impeachment is already on its knees and painfully crawling, two weeks of commercials might be the death blow to this ill-conceived impeachment push.
Newt's a partisan shill. A turd that keeps floating up after many flushes.
Your insults are not facts, and manifest YOUR pettiness, not his.
Gingrich is a powerful strategist, who orchestrated a Republican revolution in 1994 that gave the Republicans control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years. And Gingrich's promised, and effective, legislation was all passed into law, even if much of it was obstructed and vetoed by Bill Clinton.
As opposed to the Cultural Marxist Bolsheviks who run the Democrat party, and consistently lie, even to their own base. Democrats' priority is their own power. Hillary Clinton exemplifies the Democrats, secretly in Brazil saying to her globalist donors: "It's important to have a public policy and a private policy." In other words lie to the voters, say one thing to get elected, and then pursue a different secret agenda when elected.
Which is actually the exact same strategy Barack Obama is giving to the 2020 Democrat candidates now: Don't be honest, lie to voters now, and pursue your real agenda once elected.
A party built completely on lies, deception, vicious slander of their opponents, or even their Democrat competitors. The party of slander, intimidation and violence. A party exemplified by their treatment of Brett Kavanaugh, Nicholas Sandman and the students of Covington Catholic high school. And the party of the current Stalinist abuse of power directed at Trump in impeachment hearings. And for that matter, your party's eating of their own in the cases of Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and anyone else who in the way of the Democrat-Bolshevik party line. The party that hates America, that undermines our military, that endorses attacking our founders, tearing down their statues and holidays, of delegitimizing our national history. The party that hates cops. The party of open borders, of staging armed raids and other attacks on ICE and Border Patrol, while shouting the verbatim rhetoric of Democrat House members as they unleash bullets and firebombs on ICE offices.
Based on those examples, who are the real "turds"?
Yours is literally the party that is destroying the United States from within, and enabling the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, Iranians and islamic terrorists, and enabling anyone else who would like to destroy us. Literally, these countries would have negotiated with Trump and conceded by now, but now with the impeachment deception, they now see Trump as weak, even though Trump will remain in office, and all are all hoping a Democrat candidate can defeat Trump, so they can go back to business as usual, the business of destroying America.
Biden's deals with China and Ukraine, for example, that gave his son Hunter Biden a $1.5 billion Chinese bank investment deal, marks the point where Biden went soft in his China rhetoric and commanded U.S. naval ships to stop patrolling parts of the South China Sea.
The Clinton Foundation enriching the Clintons, selling potential presidential influence and State Department access, in exchange for hundreds of millions from rogue governments, is another example of the Democrats at the highest level being corrupt to the core.
And there are certainly plently more examples. Because corruption is not something that occasionally happens in the Democrat party, it is the essence and lifeblood of what your party is all about.
And I'll point out that while Trump has been found to be using his charity fraudulently, you make accusations based on less at democrats. You can't polish turds WB, you just end up stinking yourself up.
" Jonathan Turley is the ONLY one before hearings who cited a universal standard for impeachment, and in his detached politeness made the Democrats on the House Committee, and the liberal activist law professors sitting next to him, all look like fools. " He felt differently during the Clinton impeachment so no need to try to trick me WB on him being a nonpartisan.
Jonathan Turley is the ONLY one before hearings who cited a universal standard for impeachment, and in his detached politeness made the Democrats on the House Committee, and the liberal activist law professors sitting next to him, all look like fools.
Originally Posted By: M E M
He felt differently during the Clinton impeachment so no need to try to trick me WB on him being a nonpartisan.
Jonathan Turley has been the go-to legal scholar for CNN for 15 or 20 years. Democrats **loved** Turley when he was giving a similar polite condemnation of the Bush administration over things like the Patriot Act, or waterboarding prisoners, or Abu Ghraib, or the legal basis for invading Iraq.
But now that Turley goes against liberal orthodoxy, the Democrat/Left is doing their damnedest to destroy him.
Likewise Alan Dershowitz, who condemned the Bill Clinton impeachment, and now holds the same standard, that while President Trump has done things that are questionable, they don't rise to the level of impeachment. Because of their consistent standards, they now aren't invited to the same cocktail parties, and in Turley's case, there is a flood of [liberal/Democrat] phone calls to his university demanding he be fired.
For Bolshevik Democrats, those who don't conform to their liberal orthodoxy, even their fellow liberals who dissent ever so slightly and exhibit any deviation from the liberal talking points, HAVE to be destroyed. Not merely disagreed with in a public debate, DESTROYED!
If you bothered to watch the linked opening statement above by Turley, he voted for Hillary Clinton, but still objects to the rush to judgement by Democrats, and the Democrats' lack of impartial due process, as compared to the truly bipartisan and impartial impeachment proceedings against both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
Your Democrat Bolshevik party at work. So much for free thought and an open dialogue. Anyone who doesn't voice the party line has to be destroyed.
Ironic, that these personal threats and calls for firing are directed at a highly respected Constitutional lawyer and his university that teach Constitutional law. Something the Democrat/Left wants neither taught or preserved. Viva la revolucion!
Yeah on that WB nobody should be threatened like that. It happens on both sides but it doesn't make it okay. However I would criticize Turley for having very different views when it was a democrat being impeached. Than he argued that a President didn't even need to commit a crime to warrant impeachment.
Yeah on that WB nobody should be threatened like that. It happens on both sides but it doesn't make it okay. However I would criticize Turley for having very different views when it was a democrat being impeached. Than he argued that a President didn't even need to commit a crime to warrant impeachment.
I'm glad we can agree that both sides should not unleash or threaten violence just because someone (like Turley) expresses an opinion we don't like. But all too often, Democrat leaders themselves (Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Joseph Biden... ) are the ones who are leading the way and calling for violence and intimidation against their Republkican opposition by grassroots Democrats.
But while Turley has said (in 1998) that a president doesn't have to commit actual crimes to warrant impeachment, I don't see that as being contradicted or flip-flopped in his views in the Trump case. I don't see that Turley said that Trump should not be impeached for things that don't amount to actual crimes. What Turley was openly critical of is: 1) the Democrat rush to judgement, as opposed to gradually building a case, as was done in the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, and 2) That the process against Trump is clearly partisan, and that Democrats have never tried to build a bipartisan impeachment process, never tried to establish rules that are undisputedly fair to both sides, as was the standard in the previous Nixon and Clinton impeachments.
The above editorial by prosecutor James D. Zirin bypasses the obvious to make his partisan point, that Trump is not cooperating because for Trump and his lawyers to cooperate at this stage would be to endorse a one-sided process that is obscenely unfair. If process rules were the same unanimously fair and bipartisan process as under the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, I'm sure Trump would fully cooperate. Until that fair process is established, Trump's non-cooperation is the only leverage he has to change the current rules to something truly fair.
Looking at Jonathan Turley's opinions on a wide range of issues in his Wikipedia listing, it seems to me that he is a majority of the time on the side of liberal Democrats, and in less partisan terms, against leaders of either party who overstep and intrude on Constitutional rights and freedoms.
Turley explains, against the above allegations by Zirin and other pundits, that Turley in his views is very consistent in the standard he presents, in both the Clinton and Trump cases. I was going to click and drag quote them, but that is what the link is for, to read in the full context of Turley's own argument.
Both sides [editorials by both Zirin and Turley] published in The Hill, which is how every news publication should be. As opposed to CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Politico and others, who only inadvertantly publish anything critical of or politically disadvantageous to the Democrats, and are deeply invested in advancing the Democrat political side. The unity of the liberal message convinces me that all these publications conference call daily with Democrat political leaders and/or Media Matters, because the talking points and buzz words across every libera-media channel and print source are so glaringly the same as those of the Democrat Washington leadership.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Just out of curiosity, M E M, you say "It happens on both sides but it doesn't make it okay."
Who do you see on the Republican side who is unleashing death threats or violence on Democrats (either elected leaders, or simply regular folks expressing public political opinion) for their free speech?
I don't even see equivalent acts of hate, violence and intimidation against Democrats for their stated views, or examples of suppressed free speech and public speaking appearances silenced approaching a parity 1 in 1,000, in 10,000, or even 100,000, with that unleashed against Republicans.
There's a tweet from the whistleblower's attorney to Turley saying he would gladly trade the death threats he's getting for the threats Turley is getting. Trump himself made a veiled threat to the whistleblower calling him a traitor and pointing out what used to be done to traitors. I don't see an equivalence either WB and while I'm mad at our corrupt President I certainly don't fancy visions of republicans being violently taken down because they're willing to protect the corruption like you recently posted about democrats.
As to your complaint about this not being a bipartisan impeachment, that would be nice but i really don't see any chance of that happening with republicans. Lindsey Graham originally said it would be deeply troubling if the President engaged in a quidproquo. When Sondland testified under oath that there was one Graham stated he stopped reading the transcripts. The one republican that was for impeachment was attacked for breaking ranks and is no longer a republican. Even if it somehow costs the democrats votes I think it's important to make Trump's attempts to withhold foreign aid for an investigation of his political rival an impeachable offense.
Yesterday (Dec 9, 2019, Monday) was the day DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz *finally* released his report on the abuses of FBI and DOJ officials, of top FBI and DOJ officials back-dooring in the Steele "Russia Dossier" despite its being discredited, of FBI and DOJ officials falsifying their evidence to submit unethical and illegal FISA surveillance requests, to deceitfully abuse the system, to illegally FISA-spy on Carter Page, George Papadapoulos, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort.
Horowitz laughably tried to minimize the obvious anti-Trump partisan conspiracy, and allege in his I G report that these MULTIPLE falsified FISA warrant requests were just the result of carelessness and lack of following procedure, nothing more.
William Barr, and the until now the silent John Durham, both immediately shot back that they disagreed with Horowitz's conclusions, and it's clear Barr and Durham have been familiar with the detaails of Horowitz's report for about 2 months before its release. I've expected for about a month that Horowitz would softpedal on the true facts. His job as I G is to mildly chasten DOJ/FBI with minor revelations, while mostly flying cover for and minimizing DOJ/FBI exposure, thus preserving the corruption in DOJ/FBI. Trump should fire both Horowitz and Christopher Wray immediately, if not 6 months ago.
But fortunately, it is Durham and Barr that are in position to implement real change and a purge of corruption.
It turns out that the most revealing aspect of the long-awaited Justice Department’s inspector general’s report on the origins of the Russia collusion hoax comes from Attorney General William Barr’s damning assessment of it.
In unmistakably terse language, Barr denounced “a small group of now-former FBI officials” for their “misconduct,” “malfeasance and misfeasance,” and “clear abuse of the FISA process.”
Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz, issued a 476-page report Monday that broadly examined: (1) how and why the FBI initiated an investigation of candidate Donald Trump and his campaign in July 2016; and (2) the decision to seek a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil a Trump campaign associate.
As to the first action, Barr concluded that the IG report “makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”
In plain terms, Barr is convinced that the FBI was wrong to investigate Trump and his campaign, because the evidence was conspicuously deficient. Barr noted that the FBI “pushed forward” with its investigation even in the face of “consistently exculpatory” evidence.
As to the second action, Barr condemned those same FBI officials who “misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.”
The FBI relied on Christopher Steele as its major source for information presented to the FISA Court. The ex-British spy had assembled his unverified “dossier” of hearsay information from supposed sources that were largely anonymous.
The FBI knew Steele was unreliable, yet the bureau vouched for him as credible. Evidence was concealed and the FISA Court was deceived.
Barr announced that current FBI Director Christopher Wray will implement a “comprehensive set of proposed reforms” to ensure that such egregious abuse never happens again. Wray agreed, telling ABC News that FBI officials “failed to follow our policies, neglected to exercise appropriate diligence, or fell short of the standard of conduct and performance that we expect of all our employees.”
The attorney general’s skeptical view of the IG report was shared by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut specially appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe.
Durham revealed that “last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
Durham pointed out that the IG’s investigation was limited to the Justice Department. In contrast, Durham has greater investigative authority and has developed “information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S.” Horowitz readily acknowledged this on the very first page of his report.
Barr’s harsh criticism of the FBI stands in stark contrast to the findings offered by the inspector general.
Although Horowitz identified at least 17 significant errors of omission in the FBI’s application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, Horowitz opined that the warrant application was “properly predicated.” That is impossible, given the sheer volume of mistakes –and Barr surely knows it.
Horowitz also stated: “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision.” Of course he didn’t. No one is foolish enough to confess to biased decision-making or reduce it to writing.
What’s baffling is how the IG seems to have blindly accepted the stories peddled by former FBI officials like Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and General Counsel James Baker – not to mention Steele himself. Horowitz wrote that it was not his role “to second-guess discretionary judgments.” Then why did he examine them?
Nonetheless, there are some stunning revelations in the report that should trouble all Americans about how easy it is for the FBI to open an investigation of anyone and convince a FISA judge to permit court-sanctioned surveillance.
Lies and deception were the key. The FBI relied almost exclusively on Steele’s uncorroborated “dossier,” despite Comey’s public statements to the contrary. The IG found numerous instances in which the court was given “inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported” information.
For example, the FISA Court was never told that the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for Christopher Steele to put together his “dossier” – a major omission that clearly should erode the credibility of Steele’s report.
The court was also never told that Steele had lied in the past and had serious problems with his credibility and “poor judgment;” that Steele’s primary sub-source was a “boaster” known to embellish and who later cast doubt on the “dossier”; nor that Steele had a known bias against Trump and was “desperate that he not get elected.”
The sub-source was interviewed by the FBI three times in 2017, advising agents that Steele had misstated or exaggerated his information, which came from “word of mouth and hearsay” over beers. Some of the statements had been made in jest and were just “rumors and speculation,” the unidentified sub-source said.
None of this was disclosed to the FISA Court. Instead, the FBI assured the court that the sub-source was truthful, suggesting that his information was all corroborated --when the FBI knew it was not.
In addition, the court was never told that a top FBI lawyer [Kevin Clinesmith, lawyer for FBI FISA Division, who also was exposed fortexting "Viva La Resistance!" in in Trump-hating partisan text messages to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page] doctored evidence to create a false and negative impression of Carter Page that was then used for one of the FISA warrants.
The FISA Court was also never told that a Yahoo News article cited as an independent source also came from Steele. Nor was the court told that evidence was uncorroborated and the sub-source information was unverified.
Further, the FISA Court was never made aware of exculpatory evidence that Carter Page had previously helped the U.S. government [working for the CIA]; nor was the court told of multiple exculpatory statements by Carter Page gathered by an undercover informant.
These are some – but not all – of the 17 material deceptions identified in the IG report that were made by the FBI to a succession of FISA judges over the course of four warrant applications to spy on Page. The facts were manipulated to mislead the court. Even after Steele was fired by the FBI for leaking and lying about it, the bureau continued to rely on him as its source.
These are not mere “performance failures,” as the IG describes them. Collectively, they constitute a deliberate and successful effort to violate Carter Page’s civil liberties and constitutional rights. The misuse of power was knowing and purposeful.
The FBI brazenly told the FISA Court that Carter Page was a spy. The bureau knew he was not. This was rampant, unconscionable abuse of the rule of law. Despite Horowitz’s claims, the FBI invented probable cause where none existed. The true target was Donald Trump.
Horowitz also accepted without question the FBI’s explanation that the opening of its investigation of Trump on July 31, 2016, was justified because campaign adviser George Papadopoulos heard a rumor that Russians were in possession of Hillary Clinton’s emails and might use them during the campaign. Yet, it is not a crime to hear a rumor, or even to pass it along.
Under FBI regulations, a formal investigation can only be initiated if there is a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been (or will be) committed.
Additionally, there must be specific “articulable facts” in support of that crime. Here, neither were present. This leaves a largely phony “dossier” as the only remaining evidence. Absent verification that the FBI never secured, it was no evidence at all.
This is likely the reason that both Durham and Barr have refused to accept the IG’s conclusion that the original investigation of candidate Trump and his campaign was justified. With greater investigative authority than Horowitz and the power to compel witnesses through grand jury subpoenas, they may already have developed actionable evidence of lawlessness and corruption.
There was never any credible evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian asset or that his campaign had engaged in a criminal “collusion” conspiracy with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 presidential election. This claim was a pernicious lie and the dirtiest political trick ever perpetrated.
It was, as Trump called it, a hoax and a witch hunt.
Yet, for more than two years Americans were told by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., countless other Democrats and the mainstream media mob that it was all true. Until the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller said it was not.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will question I G Michael Horowitz at a public hearing Wednesday. After reading the IG report, Graham called the FBI’s actions a “criminal enterprise” that ran off the rails.
Senator Graham is now armed with 476 pages of proof.
____________________________
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump. His latest book is the New York Times bestseller Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History
I'd further add that over a year ago, I pointed out that the FISA warrants were based on false evidence presented to FISA judges, for all 4 warrants for FISA surveillance on Carter Page.
So... based on that, the FISA judges should logically be angry that they were deceived, and should throw out the warrants as invalid. And without the warrants, all FISA surveillance used in prosecutions and plea bargains would be thrown out, as fruit of the poisoned tree.
So my question is: Where are these FISA judges? Why haven't they rescinded these warrants that were obtained based on fraudulent evidence? That is even more clear now, with I G Michael Horowitz's report yesterday. Unless...
Unless the FISA judges are part of the conspiracy, are Hillary Clinton voters, are deep state participants, who despite the FISA warrants being invalid, they want to aid the DOJ/FBI investigators against Trump, by keeping the fraudulently obtained evidence to further put the hurt on Trump.
I think it becomes increasingly difficult to keep that FISA evidence against Trump officials, based on the clearly fraudulent way these FISA warrants were obtained. And whether or not these judges rescind these fraudulent FISA warrants, the convictions against Manafort, Flynn, Papadapoulos and others become increasingly difficult to defend, and will be overturned by other judges, if these FISA judges don't do the right thing. I see the Michael Flynn conviction already crumbling that way.
Further, remember the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, about knowing a FISA court judge named Rudolf Contreras, and that Page suggested to Strzok that they all were attending a dinner party in a few days, that they could meet Contreras ex-parte and basically have a secret meeting inside the party. What if all the judges were similarly connected to all these deep state bad actors?
The longer these judges remain silent, the more I'm convinced that is the case.
And now today, the Democrats at about 9 AM finally crossed the threshold and announced they will pursue actual impeachment. They are committing political suicide, and have done, are doing, a lot of damage to the country in the process.
I caught only a part of Rep. Nadler's statement, I heard Rep. Adam Schiff's full prepared statement. It made me want to vomit, the insincerity and blatant falsehoods he was fronting. And then they quickly fled the scene, without taking any questions from reporters. Indicating they don't really believe what they are saying, and don't want to be cross-examined on it too closely.
An hour or so later, I caught Rep Kevin McCarthy's response, which expressed the verifiable facts, that easily deconstructed the whoppers by Democrats in what they are alleging.
A month ago, Steve Bannon, interviewed by Maria Bartiromo, said that Democrats were not going to turn back, that they can't at this point do so politically, even though this is the path to Democrat suicide: "They've come ashore, they've burned the boats, they're advancing inland, there's no turning back."
As to your complaint about this not being a bipartisan impeachment, that would be nice but i really don't see any chance of that happening with republicans. Lindsey Graham originally said it would be deeply troubling if the President engaged in a quidproquo.
I think Sen. Graham spoke in those words before knowing the true facts. Since Graham made that statement, Trump released the transcript of the complete July 25th Trump/Zelensky phone call, proving he did nothing wrong. And after that, Zelensky has done multiple televised interviews, maaking very clear there was absolutely no [i]quid pro quo[/b], or intimidation, or blackmail, or coercion, or extortion, or whatever new term the Democrats are ffocus-group-testing this week.
Originally Posted By: M E M
When Sondland testified under oath that there was one Graham stated he stopped reading the transcripts.
That's not accurate. Sondlan said that "In my opinion" Trump had engaged in quid pro quo. To which the Republican congressman questioning him said "And that is nothing!" And that was right after Sondland had said that Trump had said "I want nothing, no quid pro quo, I want Zelensky to do the right thing", what Zelensky had campaigned and got elected on, a promise to investigate and eliminate corruption in Ukraine.
Originally Posted By: M E M
The one republican that was for impeachment was attacked for breaking ranks and is no longer a republican.
Who was a Republican and then became a Democrat. Over his 8 previous years, Amash has increasingly become a RINO, particularly since Trump's election, where he often opposes Trump exccutive orders and legislation. He lists now as "Independent", but caucuses with Democrats, and therefore is a de facto Democrat.
I think like Marco Rubio, he fronted as a Republican, even as a Freedom Caucus/Tea Party conservative, but like Rubio, has increasingly betrayed that base, and after his initial election has morphed into a RINO. At best, a never-Trumper. He supported Rand Paul in 2016, and then endorsed Ted Cruz. I don't see where he has ever supported Trump.
Originally Posted By: M E M
Even if it somehow costs the democrats votes I think it's important to make Trump's attempts to withhold foreign aid for an investigation of his political rival an impeachable offense.
That would be more persuasive and admirable, if you ever held the Democrats to the same standard.
First, there is no solid proof that Trump did anything wrong. The "quid pro quo" allegation is so nonspecific and nebulous as to mean nothing, no specific charge, just a half-baked rationalization to impeach Trump. EVERYONE accusing Trump, from the state department staff at the Ukraine embassy, to the NSC, to Vindman, to Yovanovich, to the whistleblower/Eric Ciaramella, have all proven to be deeply committed Obama/Hillary idealogues. If Ciaramella went public, he would quickly destroy his own credibility as "the whistleblower", with his deep and vocal loyalties to Obama and Hillary, and his vocal opposition to all things Trump. Only by staying in the shadows and not fully revealed does the "whistleblower" complaint retain any public credibility. It is a campaign based completely on deception. As is the consistent Democrat way, whether the issue is impeachment, border security, illegal immigration, Obamacare, global warming, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, George Zimmerman, Benghazi, on and on. The first kneejerk impulse of the Democrat party is always deceiving the voters with an incendiary false narrative.
Second, what Democrats falsely allege Trump guilty of, is 1,000 times more evident and obvious guilt in the cases of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in their positions as public officials, but somehow you, and more broadly the Demcorat base, never think that evidence warrants investigation of them. Gregg Jarrett details the multiple specific federal laws they could be prosecuted for in his Russia Hoax book.
It is infuriating and obscene that your side wants to destroy Trump and those who served in his campaign and White House (or even those who simply support him), based on no evidence. Brett Kavanaugh. Nicholas Sandmann, and the Covington Catholic High School class. Paul Manafort. Michael Flynn. George Papadapoulos. Carter Page. Roger Stone. Jerome Cosi. Michael Caputo.
And yet turns a blind eye to actual crimes, often crimes far worse than what your side alleges about Republicans, in the cases of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Rep. Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid... And especially the crimes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their inner circles.
The double standard where you want to convict people like Trump or Brett Kavanaugh when there is no evidence, but refuse to even look at mountains of evidence for the guilt of Democrats, is just unbelievable.
The IG report is obviously a problem for Trump. While it found mistakes it also directly undercuts Trump's conspiracy theory. And I feel very badly for Horowitz because he will pay for presenting a report that contradicts Trump. Whatever Barr presents will have to be rock solid. That means if sources are from former Ukrainian officials that were kicked out for being corrupt and are now living in Russia, forget it outside the Trump cult.
And now today, the Democrats at about 9 AM finally crossed the threshold and announced they will pursue actual impeachment. They are committing political suicide, and have done, are doing, a lot of damage to the country in the process.
I caught only a part of Rep. Nadler's statement, I heard Rep. Adam Schiff's full prepared statement. It made me want to vomit, the insincerity and blatant falsehoods he was fronting. And then they quickly fled the scene, without taking any questions from reporters. Indicating they don't really believe what they are saying, and don't want to be cross-examined on it too closely.
An hour or so later, I caught Rep Kevin McCarthy's response, which expressed the verifiable facts, that easily deconstructed the whoppers by Democrats in what they are alleging.
A month ago, Steve Bannon, interviewed by Maria Bartiromo, said that Democrats were not going to turn back, that they can't at this point do so politically, even though this is the path to Democrat suicide: "They've come ashore, they've burned the boats, they're advancing inland, there's no turning back."
That has turned out to be prophetic.
Bannon isn't really a great source for that. It's garbage spin that you would reject if it was some partisan democrat presenting something similar about republicans. The truth is that Trump abused his office by holding foreign aid to an ally that is fighting Russia to get them to announce an investigation into Biden. And he isn't going to stop there. That is unacceptable to just let go. And I think history isn't going to be kind to those that acted as accomplices to his corruption.
The IG report is obviously a problem for Trump. While it found mistakes it also directly undercuts Trump's conspiracy theory. And I feel very badly for Horowitz because he will pay for presenting a report that contradicts Trump. Whatever Barr presents will have to be rock solid. That means if sources are from former Ukrainian officials that were kicked out for being corrupt and are now living in Russia, forget it outside the Trump cult.
Horowitz will pay for consistently downplaying the true facts, not even quoting them in his report and refusing to pull the trigger on what is clearly a conspiracy in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Department and other federal branches:
Quote:
LISA PAGE: Trump isn't going to be president, right? RIGHT?!?
PETER STRZOK: No. No he won't. We will stop it.
Quote:
PETER STRZOK: I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...
LISA PAGE (to Strzok): “The last thing you need [is Hillary Clinton] going in there loaded for bear,” Page continued. “You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more [DOJ] than [FBI]?”
[i.e., they thought Hillary Clinton was definitely going to be the next president, and Page was recommending they don't go after her too aggressively in their investigation, because she would be the next president, and would be angered that they as top FBI agents had pushed too hard to investigate her, that could make her "loaded for bear" (angry, seeking revenge, wanting to fire or demote the FBI agents who pushed too hard to investigate her. Keep in mind that Strzok and Page were deeply supportive of Hillary in 2016, and even they were afraid of her. ]
Quote:
PETER STRZOK: Hillary should win 100 million to zero
Quote:
KEVIN CLINESMITH: Viva la resistance!
[ Clinesmith is also the high-level lawyer in FBI's FISA division who excluded exculpatory information to make Carter Page look guilty when they KNEW he was not, just so they could get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. And then proceeded to use the same lies in 3 more FISA warrants, to spy on the elected president Trump's transition team, and then on Trump's inaugurated administration officials. ]
Keep in mind, these are the central people in multiple investigations: (1) of Hillary Clinton's e-mails, (2) in the 10-month Trump/Russia investigation, and (3) assigned as some of the 17 lawyers on Muller's special investigation. Until these texts were made public and Mueller was forced to fire them for appearances' sake.
Basically the entire top floor of both the FBI and the DOJ, all like-minded Hillary worshippers and Trump-haters, who openly supported Hillary in 2016, and openly detedted Donald Trump. More than that: Felt it their holy mission to use their power to prevent Trump from becoming president (STROK: "No, no he won't. We will stop it" ).
They exonerated Hillary Clinton, allowed her to delete 33,000 e-mails, smash computers and cel phones with records subpoenaed by both the FBI *and* the Senate and Congress, with no federal obstruction charges against Hillary and her staff, and actuually gave Mills and Abedin immunity ! FOR WHAT?!? Horowitz never bothered to ask these questions.
And these same FBI agents interviewed Hillary and Cheryl Mills, *NOT* under oath (as they tricked Flynn and Manafort and others, in perjury traps). In the case of Hillary and Mills and Abedin, Strzok and other FBI agents didn't even tape-record or transcribe the interviews!
There is a clear pattern of favoritism toward Democrats investigated and not charging them, and letting the evidence against them be destroyed and disappear. And conversely with Trump and his officials, of malicious prosecution, fabricating evidence (and hiding exculpatory evidence),employing moles and informants, of baiting traps with guys like Stefan Halper, Mifsud from Malta, using British agents and the Australian ambassadors to entrap Papadapoulos, and in multiple countries using foreign assets to entrap Trump officials in ways they could never legally do in the United States. That also extends back to overzealous prosecution of Scooter Libby (who thanks to assistant defense secretary Richard Armitage coming forward, he admitted that it was he, not Scooter Libby, who inadvertantly gave reporter Robert Novak clues to out Valerie Plane as a CIA agent, that Libby was convicted for.) And Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens who the FBI vindictively prosecuted and destroyed (whose conviction was overturned on appeal, but that didn't give him his Senate seat back, that the FBI prosecution caused his seat to be lost to a Democrat. An interesting parallel to the malicious prosecution of Trump. ) And Enron. And Arthur Andersen. And Martha Stewart. All cases overseen by the likes of Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein and Weissmann, employing the same vicious tactics used on Trump, Flynn, Manafort, Roger Stone and others. Hiding exculpaatory evidence to convict innocent men, just to win a case and/or for partisan reasons, should be a crime that puts you in federal prison. What you would do to innocent men, should be done to you as a malicious prosecutor.
So...
Fuck yes, Horowitz will be punished, for failing to report the obvious, not even quoting it in his I G report, and essentially flying cover, to continue to enable the corruption in FBI and DOJ.
Unlike Michael Horowitz and Christopher Wray, Durham and Barr intend to clean house.
I fully expected Horowitz to fly cover and softpedal the evidence. I wish he'd surprised us all and actually done his job.
Horowitz had to work with the facts not Trump's crazy conspiracy theories. Barr at this point has no credibility btw. He has proven himself a partisan that is working not for the country but for just serving Trump's political interests.
Nothing will change. People will grow more tired of political squabbles between team red and team blue. We will take a few clear strides to civil war and authoritarianism.
Both Trump and Biden probably abused their power and no one wants to take a panoramic view because that would force them to realize how similar their preferred party is to the side they regularly refer to as shit.
I would argue that things have changed. Holding foreign aid to an ally that is fighting a foe for political favors should never be acceptable. Trump will likely not be removed from office but the impeachment will historically forever mark his corruption. I would agree we are more into sides these days but basic concepts of right and wrong can't be all be dismissed because of it.
Lindsey Graham not even pretending...“I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here,”
Nothing will change. People will grow more tired of political squabbles between team red and team blue. We will take a few clear strides to civil war and authoritarianism.
Both Trump and Biden probably abused their power and no one wants to take a panoramic view because that would force them to realize how similar their preferred party is to the side they regularly refer to as shit.
See ya again in a few months to a year.
-Iggy
I have to agree.
1) That all these endless political back and forths in the national media and glacier-like progress (or illusion of it) are calculated to bore the American public, and cause the public to tune out and be indifferent to what occurs in Washington, thus giving the establishment in both parties free reign to do whatever they want without public objection, to enrich themselves at out expense. I think that is the objection to Trump from the establisment elites on both sides, because Trump is breaking their stranglehold, restoring freedoms, and bringing about real reforms and change, taking the nation off the path to inevitable authoritarian control.
2) That the elites in both parties don't want to prosecute anyone in power, because if they, say, prosecute Hunter Biden and Joseph Biden, then that exposes other candidates of both parties and their highly placed children in similar sweetheart cushy jobs with their lobbyist campaign supporters to similar prosecution, on both sides. Because Trump, his children and his staff are not part of the two-headed Washington swamp beast, that is why there is less protection given to them by the political establisment on either side.
I would argue that things have changed. Holding foreign aid to an ally that is fighting a foe for political favors should never be acceptable. Trump will likely not be removed from office but the impeachment will historically forever mark his corruption. I would agree we are more into sides these days but basic concepts of right and wrong can't be all be dismissed because of it.
Gah!
The incredible double standard of the Democrat/Left.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "witheld that foreign aid to an ally" (Ukraine) that was "fighting for its life" FOR HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY! It was Trump that began lethal military aid that is finally allowing Ukraine to defend itself now. Trump only witheld aid for something like 40 or 50 days, to make sure the U.S. was not giving funds to a notoriously corrupt country (Ukraine till then had ranked 3rd in corruption of all nations on earth!) So all Trump did was temporarily suspend aid until, if I recall, September 11th. When the aid was expected by or before September 30th. There was no delay! And then when you look at National Security Council member Fiona Hill (a clear Hillary Clinton supporter), with her elitist globalist ideology and snooty accent, who posted an editorial that she opposed ANY aid to Ukraine in a published editorial.... Or fired partisan ambassador Maria Yovanovich (another clear Obama/Hillary supporter, who threw a Hillary 2016 victory party, and used her power to advise Ukraine against corruption investigations of Soros-funded and other Democrat-friendly businesses in Ukraine, and disparaged president Trump constantly in front of Embassy staff and Ukranian officials) who likewise never pushed or made a priority of getting Ukraine U.S. military aid... Or Alexander Vindman, the same... Or any of the others who testified before Congress to slander Trump. **NONE** of them pressed for the aid, that Donald Trump **ACTUALLY PROVIDED**, that these Trump/Hillary bureaucrats never provided, and never advocated.
Trump's witholding aid for such a brief period, to verify how the aid would be used in a notoriously corrupt nation, is infinitely justifiable. Your arguments against Trump doing his job, to ensure U.S. aid is not thrown away or used for corrupt purposes, when your side NEVER DID ANYTHING to arm Ukraine, is incredible hypocrisy, and empty lying talking points.
Lindsey Graham not even pretending...“I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here,”
No morals just a lap dog protecting his master.
More lying Democrat talking points. Senator Graham is making the point that the Soviet-style "investigation" in the House impeachment hearings was one-sided and failed to give equal and fair access to Republicans and Trump attorneys to subpeona witnesses, to present exculpatory evidence, to cross-examine Democrat witnesses. As many Republicans have said in hearings and exposed, it was a kangaroo court, only intended to smear Trump, NOT to pursue and equal and impartial investigation of the facts.
Based on that inherent unfairness, and more importantly that even with that Democrat partisan bias, Democrats have failed to make any case for impeachment. That is what Lindsey Graham is saying. He would dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
The transcribed July 25th Trump/Zelensky phone call, and Zelensky's multiple televised interviews, make clear there was no "quid pro quo", no corruption, no coercion, no intimidation, no "bribery", no "abuse of power", or whatever contrived focus-group selected term the lying Democrats are using this week. Everything else the House Democrats are alleging is just smoke and mirrors, easily disproven by these bedrock facts.
1) There is nothing beyond wild Democrat speculation over the last 5 months to credibly challenge these facts. It is clearly a very friendly conversation, no coercion, no intimidation by Trump.
2) Beyond the transcript, Zelensky has made clear over and over in multiple televised interviews that he was not intimidated or pressured by Trump in any way. Democrats only imply Zelensky was pressured and intimidated by Trump, there is absolutely no evidence of that. And in point of fact, Trump's campaign on reform and eliminating corruption in the U.S. is what inspired Zelensky to campaign on a similar agenda in Ukraine, and win in a similar landslide election. Far from Trump and Zelensky ever being adversarial, or Trump ever having to coerce him. They were always on the same page, no coercion, no blackmail, no bribery, no intimidation necessary.
Nothing the Democrats have presented in the last 3 months has been more than hearsay narrative, not a shred of facts to disprove what that phone transcript of Trump and Zelensky said.
And by the wildest of coincidences, this lying "Whistleblower/Ukraine hoax" narrative was spawned by the Deep State/Left at precisely the time the last dying embers of pseudo-credibility were fading away from the Mueller report.
Almost to the day the Mueller narrative died, this new "Whistleblower/Ukraine" narrative was created. And from the same sources in the Democrat House (Adam Schiff and new staffers to his office from NSC in particular) CIA (James Brennan, Gina Haspel who re-wrote the whistlblower form to allow it to attack a president, and mysteriously no one in CIS is willing to take credit for the revisions!), the FBI and the Obama/Hillary-loyalist-populated State Department. And a zealous and willing partisan liberal media to sell their new false narrative. All these same players. Just by the wildest of coincidences.
