 |
| Will not hold a Press Conference. But his DOJ has already stated nothing illegal was reported in complaint. |
To be clear, the Department of Justice Department of Legal Counsel has already issued a statement stating that they did not feel that the Inspector General Complaint had identified anything illegal. There has been nothing further from anyone that contradicts this. If the Department of Justice seriously believed it was illegal, then Barr would be pretty much obligated to appoint a special counsel to investigate it.
The idea of a "press conference" would obviously just be seen by our media as Barr behaving as Trump's "personal lawyer" and the press would have a field day demanding it was partisan. Quite obviously the Democrats would use it to further enhance the narrative that Barr is not objective and attempt to use it to taint the ongoing Inspector General internal investigation and Department of Justice criminal investigation into the 2016 election investigations of Trump.
In a different time, where the anti-Trump press didn't demand that anyone who doesn't loath the President and doesn't want to see him in jail is little more than a horrible partisan who is some sort of an apologist, the Attorney General of the United States would be in a position to do just what the President is asking. Heck, had William Barr been in a position to do something like this when he was AG for President Bush, he would have been viewed as credible and objective. But no longer.
The sad thing is that William Barr hasn't changed, but the manner in which the media is now willing to attack our previously objective departments (like the DOJ) has. If people were actually interested in the real truth, they would have taken the OLC at their word on this one. The OLC is made up of long term legal experts that do not hold political affiliation to anyone. There is no reason to question their legal expertise on this. But as Democrats continue to argue, they are not engaged in a legal process, but a blatantly partisan political one. Which makes everything (even a potential press conference) a potential political issue.
130 comments:
The Amazon Washington Post and three lowlife reporters, Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey, and Carol Leonnig, wrote another Fake News story, without any sources (pure fiction), about Bill Barr & myself. We both deny this story, which they knew before they wrote it. A garbage newspaper!.....
The degenerate Washington Post MADE UP the story about me asking Bill Barr to hold a news conference. Never happened, and there were no sources!.....
Bill Barr did not decline my request to talk about Ukraine. The story was a Fake Washington Post con job with an “anonymous” source that doesn’t exist. Just read the Transcript. The Justice Department already ruled that the call was good. We don’t have freedom of the press!
Anonymous sources are brave people who care about the Constitution and the United States of America.
You stand for Donald Trump against his perceived enemies foreign or domestic.
They are engaged in a legal process, as authorized by the Constitution of the United States.
William Barr was never put in a position to do something like this when he was AG for President Bush. If he would not have been viewed as credible and objective.
William Barr is acting as the chief lawyer for Donald J. Trump.
He swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
He should be disbarred and impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
As I understand it, Trump ASKED Barr to make a public statement at a press conference, and Barr refused, issuing instead a written statement.
Now, however, Trump is saying that he NEVER asked Barr to make the statement.
Is Trump lying?
Does Barr state that the President never asked him to make such a statement?
Forty-seven Republicans currently serve in those investigative committees alongside Democrats.
Is Trump lying? See below:
Trump Wanted Barr to Say He Broke No Laws
November 6, 2019 at 8:16 pm EST
“President Trump wanted Attorney General William Barr to hold a news conference declaring the commander in chief had broken no laws during a phone call in which he pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a political rival, though Barr ultimately declined to do so,” the Washington Post reports.
“The request from Trump traveled from the president, TO OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, and eventually to the Justice Department. THE PRESIDENT HAS MENTIONED Barr’s declination TO ASSOCIATES in RECENT WEEKS, saying he WISHED Barr would have held the news conference.”
________________
So let those ASSOCIATES and OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS appear and swear under oath that Trump passed on such a request through the WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, and never mentioned Barr's declination to ASSOCIATES, and then explain why they have told people he did.
Exactly James
Thecoldheartedtruth should have looked at the tweets are noted that the Barr has not spoken out about this once.
Scott, the President is lying about this. Barr will not make a public statement in support of the President and his accusations against the free press.
He and sleepy Joe must testify.
In the latest iteration of his increasingly frantic pushback against the impeachment inquiry in the House, President Trump on Thursday said investigators should call former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter to testify in the probe.
Trump tweeted a quote, attributed to Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., asking how Hunter Biden was qualified to sit on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company while his father was carrying out U.S. policy against corruption in Ukraine.
“A very good question,” Trump tweeted. “He and Sleepy Joe must testify!”
The impeachment hearings were triggered by allegations that the White House pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, a leading candidate to challenge Trump for reelection.
He has ordered his own staff to refuse to testify under oath in the house committee investigation.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-calls-for-hunter-joe-biden-to-testify-impeachment-164426271.html?soc_src=yahooapp
Bolton Willing to Defy White House and Testify
November 7, 2019 at 11:46 am EST
“Former national security adviser John Bolton is WILLING to DEFY the White House and testify in the House impeachment inquiry about his ALARM at the Ukraine pressure campaign if a federal court clears the way,” the Washington Post reports.
“Bolton could be a powerful witness for Democrats: Top State Department and national security officials have already testified that he was DEEPLY concerned about efforts by Trump and his allies to PUSH Ukraine to open investigations into the president’s political rivals while the Trump administration held up military aid to that country.
“The former national security adviser, who abruptly left his post in September, is expected to confirm their statements and DESCRIBE HIS CONVERSATIONS with Trump.”
___________
I'll bet they were PERFECT conversations.
CORRECTION TO ABOVE:
So let those ASSOCIATES and OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS appear and swear under oath that Trump NEVER passed on such a request through those WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, and NEVER mentioned Barr's declination to ASSOCIATES, and then explain why they have told people he did.
(The word "NEVER" added the first time it appears.).
James have you noticed that the formerly esteemed host has not responded to our questions.
All he has is the deep state conspiracy theories, that are so reminiscent of the McCarthy era.
As I understand it, Trump ASKED Barr to make a public statement at a press conference, and Barr refused, issuing instead a written statement.
Now, however, Trump is saying that he NEVER asked Barr to make the statement.
Who the fuck cares?!!?
Barr, the DOJ, and the OLC have put out a statement saying that there wasn't anything illegal brought up in the IG complaint.
That's really the focus here James.
Because the Democrats are not trying to impeach the President because some anonymous sources saying he asked Barr to make a verbal public statement (rather than a written public statement).
They are attempting to impeach him because they are "sort of" suggesting he broke the law, while simultaneously suggesting that impeachment is a "political process" so breaking the law is whatever they want it to be.
The stories here James...
Are suggesting that Barr refused to issue a public "statement" because he didn't agree with the statement that Trump wanted him to make... when in fact (even if the rumors are true) the DOJ did issue a written public statement.
So perhaps the implications were so ridiculous that the new TPM attached to this is that the President "lied" rather than the original Barr thinks he is guilty implications.
Colonel Vindman: The colonel received a Purple Heart after being injured by an improvised explosive device in Iraq. He now serves on the National Security Council.
Several officials have publicly defended the colonel since his testimony emerged. General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the colonel “a professional, competent, patriotic and loyal officer.” Michael McFaul, the former ambassador to Russia, has said he had worked with the colonel “and interacted with him in front of Russian officers. He never once said anything near what this ‘retired Army officer’ claims.”
Scott A**hole believes that they are traitors who are attempting to overturn the last election.
So let those ASSOCIATES and OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS appear and swear under oath that Trump NEVER passed on such a request through those WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, and NEVER mentioned Barr's declination to ASSOCIATES, and then explain why they have told people he did.
Well James...
That assumes that the anonymous sources are actually not full of shit.
Because if you accept the premise that the reporter/source is completely full of shit, then it actually does explain everything... doesn't it?
In fact, Occam's Razor suggests that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is the correct explanation. Given your explanation requires you to assume BOTH
- that EVERYONE else is lying...
- someone you do not know and cannot identify is the only one telling the truth even though there is zero evidence to back it up...
Isn't it simpler to follow the known evidence?
Who the f cares, says Ch untruth.
Well, as it becomes ever clearer and clearer that your President lies and lies and lies and again lies and then doubles down and triples down and quadruples down on lying, I think voters in this nation WILL care.
The CIA Moles Lawyer has been exposed.
This Bullshit on the Left must End.
Roger Amick said...
Anonymous sources are brave people who care about the Constitution and the United States of America.
no alky. like you, they're cowards.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
James have you noticed that the formerly esteemed host has not responded to our questions.
you haven't asked questions. you've made unfounded allegations that deserve no reply.
in fact, you're such a fucking asshole hack you would have us believe that ZAID'S OWN WORDS are not credible:
Blogger Roger Amick said...
The source of the words are not credible.
you're in a fucking nursing home alky. i personally know people 20 to 30 years OLDER than you who still live in their own home completely independently.
and you need a nurse. because TDS.
Yes the DOJ did issue a written public statement. Barr did not respond directly, because he knew that he would be lying.
Because if he is required to testify under oath to the house committee or even the Senate trial.
He would either lie under oath or face disbarment or maybe even impeachment.
LOL, Ch. The "anonymous" sources are becoming ever more and morfe and more known.
Even if you got your wish and the first whistleblower is forced to appear, when asked "Who told you that?" he would have to give a name.
That's how it works. :-)
CA gov Gavin newsom is Nancy pelosi's nephew
Adam schiff's sister is married to George soros' son
Executive producer of ABC news is married to susan rice
John Kerry's daughter us married to the son of an Iran mullah
There's much more. But we can see where the real collusion is.
James...
You have zero evidence that the President lied here.
Not one single person is on record or provided the slightest shred of evidence that this happened.
When someone makes an allegation, it is on them to prove it. An anonymous source with zero proof or evidence, contradicted by everyone else and all known facts...
is not proof of anything other than seriously sloppy reporting.
The fact that this is how you now view things... that people are guilty just because they are accused by an anonymous source... is "exactly" why never-Trump people have lost their way. It's not only un-American (where we are innocent until proven guilty) but it's how crazy people think.
Well, as it becomes ever clearer and clearer that your President lies and lies and lies and again lies and then doubles down and triples down and quadruples down on lying, I think voters in this nation WILL care.
pederast, if they really DID care as much as you'd like us to think, then you should be able to quite handily clean his clock on election day.
BOY O BOY THE VIDEOS AT "Deadline White House" on msnbc
are absolutely DEADLY
Barr did not respond directly, because he knew that he would be lying.
no, nursing home alky.
barr did not respond because he's under NO obligation - legal or otherwise - to do so.
try again, nursing home alky.
Roger:
You want to know why people think you are nuts?
1) The whistleblowers own attorney has tweets on his twitter account showing him talking about #coup, #resistance, and #impeachment. You suggest that this guys own tweets on this own twitter account is an "untrustworthy source".
2) But you believe an anonymous source offering zero proof, and contradicted by all known evidence... needs to be believed unconditionally.
Do see the folly here?
The True Ugly Bitterness of godless James is free flowing here.
Roger said those tweets where from someone else.
Always Wrong Roger.
Actual CHT did, making Jane and Roger look very small.
Your source of information on the lawyer for the White is the Washington Examiner.
Do you see the folly here?
Let’s begin by looking at the Democrats’ Platonic ideal of a democracy: California!
California is wholly controlled by the Democratic Party. The governor is a Democrat. The lieutenant governor is a Democrat. The attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer are Democrats. All these positions have been held by Democrats since the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was a Democrat). The state Senate is just under two-thirds Democratic, while the assembly is more than two-thirds Democratic. Both U.S. senators are Democrats, as are 46 of 53 members of Congress.
And what a paradise they’ve created! For the last several years, with a direct pipeline to the fifth-largest treasury on the planet, California has been waging war on decent people in favor of drug addicts, the mentally ill, criminals, the homeless and transgenders.
In the last century, every great thing started in California: surfing, jeans, Disneyland, tax revolts, McDonald's, movies, car culture, the Grateful Dead, right on red turns, Merle Haggard, skateboarding, Apple computer and the last two elected Republican presidents not named “Bush.”
Big political movements used to begin in California. Proposition 13’s cap on property taxes led to President Ronald Reagan and a nationwide tax revolt. Proposition 209’s ban on affirmative action was followed by Supreme Court rulings restricting the government’s ability to discriminate on the basis of race. California’s anti-crime rebellion, including a massive prison expansion and the voters’ removal of liberal lunatic Rose Bird from the state’s highest court, foreshadowed an anti-crime pushback across the country.
These days, the only California-originated idea to sweep the nation is: banning plastic straws. The state is a calamity. Its optimism and vigor are gone. Instead of “The Golden State,” California is now “The Human Excrement State.”
"I would like you to do us a favor"....
Bribery
Where's the bribery in that sentence??
Go look up bribery.
Trump Jr just went on the view and kicked ass. Lol.
Your source of information on the lawyer for the White is the Washington Examiner.
No... the actual source is "twitter" and it comes from his "twitter account". Washington Examiner is just one of many, many, many sources to write about it. They were certainly not the first, the only, or last publication to report on it.
Did you think all these people are talking about this because the Washington Examiner brought it up? Are you living in a cave somewhere?
"I would like you to do us a favor".... Bribery
Wow... mental illness!!
Are you living in a cave somewhere?
Only if it is equipped with an LPN and a hospital bed
Under the rules of The Three Socialist Stooges of CHT , The US is to give away US Tax dollars while receiving nothing.
Roger admitted he lives in Assisted living that is Federal/State Subsidized .
But he lives there "voluntary".
It's in the Constitution as bribery.
The house of Representatives has the authority to determine if he has committed bribery.
It's not an attempt to overturn the last election.
Recall that Article II, Section 4, says the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In contrast to the prescriptive definition of “treason” in Article III, Section 3, the term “bribery” is not defined there or elsewhere in the constitutional text. Some of Trump’s defenders have taken advantage of that silence by attempting to apply the standard in the modern federal criminal bribery statute, arguing that impeachment for bribery is off the table unless there is a quid pro quo. They claim that Trump’s conduct falls short of that standard because he did not explicitly link the withheld aid to the requested investigation of a political rival.
In fact, Trump’s conduct almost certainly satisfies the modern statutory standard for bribery.
historically there has been a substantial overlap between the concepts of extortion and bribery, and around the time of the Founding, the terms were often used to describe the same conduct.)
But even if Trump’s actions do not satisfy the modern criminal standard for bribery, the argument from Trump’s defenders is misplaced—because the federal statute isn’t the relevant statement of the law in the context of impeachment.
The Founders had no intent of tying the constitutional definition of bribery to federal criminal statutory law.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean
Just take away the ridiculous conspiracy theories.
The founding fathers feared the executive branch and they provided the right of the house of check the President and his abuse of power by any means.
You are living in a cage surrounded by the evil liberals that scare you to death.
The Founders had no intent of tying the constitutional definition of bribery to federal criminal statutory law, Scott.
There were no bribery laws at the time of the creation of the greatest political government document in history.
“I did not have quid pro quo relations with that man, Mr. Zelensky.”
The house of Representatives has the authority to determine if he has committed bribery.
Actually no... they don't.
According to the articles of impeachment... The Senate ultimately determines innocence or guilt. Not the House. As with your "grand jury" analogy, the House can only decide whether or not the Senate should hold a trial.
If an impeachment is like an indictment, it only allows a prosecutor to file charges. It's not a determination of any guilt or innocence...
Unless, of course, you believe that the House can just make up more rules (that don't exist anywhere) as they go?
So Roger...
I see you ran away from your claim that the "source" of the #coup, #resistance, and #impeachment (starting in 2017) from the "Whistleblower" attorney is from the "Washington Examiner"?
Are you finally admitting that he did actually tweet these things?
Or are you the only one in the country demanding that he didn't?
Bomb shell Bill Taylor, a fact witness, read a NY Times Article.
He knows less then Sgt. Schultz
The house indicts the President and the Senate trial will either convict him or not.
You really don't understand what the Constitution says about how to conduct the investigation.
The house can make up the rules.
That's Thecoldheartedtruth
I don't believe your source of information is credible.
Post the links to the tweets you claim to have.
Bribery refers to payments to individual persons.
Foreign aid is payments to an entire country.
One is corrupt and criminal the other is diplomacy.
"Roger AmickNovember 7, 2019 at 1:23 PM
I don't believe your source of information is credible.
Post the links to the tweets you claim to have." Assited Living Alky.
https://twitter.com/markszaidesq/status/826261939235979265?s=21
https://twitter.com/markszaidesq/status/826262311560216578?s=21
President Donald Trump must pay a $2 million judgment for improperly using his Trump Foundation charity to further his 2016 presidential campaign, a New York state judge ruled Thursday.
Recommended
DONALD TRUMP
Trump denies report that he wanted Barr to publicly clear him on Ukraine
The order appears to bring to an end the New York attorney general's lawsuit against the president and three of his oldest children over the now-shuttered foundation, which the attorney general said had engaged in repeated wrongdoing.
Check out Zaid Esq youtube page
Creepy are a lot of democrats pedophiles
So what?
Have you ever read the tweets by the President of the United States?
He attacks the free press and calls opponents scum!
And links to people who are threatening civil war!
oh Hillary, why Attack Pocahontas.
"Appearing Thursday at the New York Times’ DealBook conference, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton predicted 2020 White House contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) $52 trillion “Medicare for All” planwill never become law."
So the Lawyer for the CIA Mole is a pedophile , not shocked.
Roger is a simp.
You asked for links, then when they probed you dead wrong, again, you crybaby.
There you go Roger!
https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/826262311560216578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E826262311560216578&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fwhistleblowers-attorney-warned-trump-a-coup-is-coming-in-2017-tweets
Former national security adviser John Bolton is willing to defy the White House and testify in the House impeachment inquiry about his alarm at the Ukraine pressure campaign if a federal court clears the way, according to people familiar with his views.
Twitter
"Mark S Zaid to Michael Avenatti, "Hold my beer"😄
The house can make up the rules.
Not for the Senate Trial they cannot!
What good does it to for a prosecutor to get an indictment from a Grand Jury if he knows for sure he will fail in court to prove the case? According to DOJ and other law enforcement guidelines they would not charge a case that they do not feel they can win.
Like I said before, so what?
You believe that he is part of the deep state conspiracy, the overturn the last election he won.
Chief Justice Roberts is not going to be a Trumpist like you.
If the house does indite the President, the public hearings and testimony by both sides will be very interesting to say the least.
I don't believe that #cuop and other shit matters.
The evidence is overwhelming.
"I would like you to do us a favor"....
Bribery
Justice Roberts will treat it like a trial. Because that it what the impeachment process demands. What he will not do is treat it like the political event that Democrats demand that it is.
Keep in mind, in a "trial" absolutely NOTHING second hand would be introduced. Every judge tosses hearsay out as hearsay. Most of these witnesses would have about 5 minutes worth of testimony if they had to rely on what they know "first hand".
Also... you still have to realize that dozens of Republican Senators are already on record stating that "quid pro quo" is not an impeachable offense (even it it can be proven). I would suspect that at least 50 of the 53 will hold that view coming into the Trial.
What is the strategy if you Democrats and attempting to prove something that is entirely irrelevant to getting the result you want?
"I would like you to do us a favor"....Bribery
Here is the irony, Roger... Just because the House "impeaches him" under the ridiculous notion that "a favor" is bribery... because they cannot find a real crime.
How does that help when 50 plus Republicans sit there and go....
So what? Do you have anything else that is actually criminal??
In the Senate the Senators get to decide. What Pelosi and the idiot Schiff believes becomes irrelevant, moot, and completely forgettable. Boy are you going to be "angry" when the Senate demand an ACTUAL crime rather than a made up one from the House (who you insist just get to make up crimes).
Roger.
This is Jibberish.
"You believe that he is part of the deep state conspiracy, the overturn the last election he won."
Remember according to Roger this doesn't happen
Minneapolis man fraudulently signed 13 absentee ballots, charges say
FORT BRAGG, N.C. — The Trump administration announced this week Conan, the hero canine of the US raid that killed ISIS leader and austere religious scholar Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, would receive a VIP visit to the White House next week. Sources close to the canine report Conan may have other plans.
Conan, a female Belgian Malinois currently assigned to Delta Force, has reportedly expressed displeasure with early reporting from the White House and the media that identified her as both “a good boy” and using various male pronouns such as him and his.
A special operations K-9 handler who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Conan expressed concerns over the Commander-in-Chief’s demeanor towards women in special operations.
“She sees it as a dignity thing,” said the unnamed K-9 handler, “She is proud of her accomplishments, but feels the administration is failing to acknowledge those accomplishments by misgendering her.”
The White House has yet to tweet a response, but sources suggest President Trump plans “to uninvite the bitch.”
What is bribery?
A federal law, known as the bribery statute, makes it a crime for a public official like Trump to corruptly request a thing of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.
Gerald Ford, a former U.S. president, famously said while in Congress that "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
Your ridiculous idea that the FBI/DOJ and every other branch of the government, is out of get Trump removed from office, should just disappear into outer space!
Torturing the definition of bribery to the point of incoherence.
Take for example; Loading C17 transports with pallets and pallets of cash in all currencies and dominations worth billions of dollars (thing of value) to bribe Iranian officials to not enrich uranium and make nuclear bombs.
According to Roger's definition Barack Obama should have been impeached and convicted of bribery.
This is the stupidity of his position.
Make all the bullshit conspiracy theories, and look at the facts.
What is bribery?
A federal law, known as the bribery statute, makes it a crime for a public official like Trump to corruptly request a thing of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. Thecoldheartedtruth.
From what I've read is that the President will be able to request testimony, and question them for expanded time frames.
Schiff does have some control over the person's who are requested by the President or the house Republicans, but if he makes bad decisions it's going to hurt the investigation.
Did Obama request dirt on Romney?
Your attempting to distract attention from the actions of this President.
It's a talking point show!
https://time.com/5720747/jon-meacham-trump-impeachment-inquiry/
We know either Obama himself authorize and launch an illegal counter-intelligence operation or he was foolishly unaware of a rouge spying operation conducted by his minions.
I happen to believe Obama is no fool. He knew and authorized it.
What is bribery?
A federal law, known as the bribery statute
This is what happens to Roger when he's confronted with logic. His brain gets stuck in a cognitive loop repeating the same thing over and over again.
It is why he sticks to spam posts.
When he attempts to write on his own he gets confused.
The stock market is not taken impeachment seriously. The Dow Jones hit a new high.
"It's a talking point show!" Rest Home Roger
What?
Did you hear whoopie tell don Jr that Trump hasn't lowered black unemployment? That it's not fact?
Why the hell would anyone watch that show?
Diplomat Said Trump’s Policy Was ITSELF CORRUPT!!!
November 7, 2019 at 3:02 pm EST
House Democrats released the transcript of George Kent’s testimony, a senior diplomat who told the impeachment probe that President Trump’s anti-corruption campaign in Ukraine was itself CORRUPT, The Hill reports.
Kent “voiced concern about Rudy Giuliani’s contacts with Ukraine as EARLY as March of this year, which prompted a supervisor to WARN him to LAY LOW.”
WARN HIM TO LAY LOW? WHY? EVERYTHING TRUMP WAS DOING WAS JUST PERFECT!
Kent will testify publicly next week.
Gao Feng, a spokesperson for China's Commerce Ministry, said that both sides had agreed to simultaneously cancel some existing tariffs on one another's goods, according to the country's state broadcaster.One important condition for a limited trade agreement, Feng insisted, was that the U.S. and China must remove the same amount of charges at the same time.Fresh hopes for a "phase one" trade agreement prompted U.S. stock index futures to rally Thursday morning."
IF only Speaker in Name Only Polosi would put the USMC to vote .
Lol@Jane spitting mad.
Good!!
I go back to the Constitution, that is what matters most.
Lol@James spitting glad.
Good!!!!!
NYT:
Ukraine’s Zelensky Bowed to Trump’s Demands, Until Luck Spared Him
Aides to Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, decided that military aid and support for peace talks outweighed the risks of appearing to take sides in American politics.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine took office in May. His new administration quickly fell under pressure from President Trump and his allies.
Nov. 7, 2019 Updated 3:13 p.m. ET
KIEV, Ukraine — It was early September, and Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, faced an agonizing choice: whether to capitulate to President Trump’s demands to publicly announce investigations against his political enemies or to refuse, and lose desperately needed military aid.
Only Mr. Trump could unlock the aid, he had been told by two United States senators, and time was running out. If the money, nearly $400 million, were not unblocked by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it could be lost in its entirety.
In a flurry of WhatsApp messages and meetings in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, over several days, senior aides debated the point. Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy, but the military aid was vital to the war against Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, a conflict that has cost 13,000 lives since it began in 2014.
By then, however, Mr. Zelensky’s staffers were already conceding to what seemed to be the inevitable, and making plans for a public announcement about the investigations. It was a fateful decision for a fledgling president elected on an anticorruption platform that included putting an end to politically motivated investigations.
Elements of this internal Ukrainian debate have appeared in the Ukrainian news media and seeped into congressional testimony in the United States, as part of an impeachment inquiry undertaken after accusations surfaced of Mr. Trump’s demands.
But interviews in Kiev with government officials, lawmakers and others close to the Zelensky government have revealed new details of how high-level Ukrainian officials ultimately decided to acquiesce to President Trump’s request — and, by a stroke of luck, never had to follow through. [the article continues...]
SO MUCH FOR the GOP CLAIMS THAT THE UKRAINIANS NEVER KNEW OF A QUID PRO QUO DEMAND, LOL LOL LOL
SPEAKING OF CORRUPTIONS....
Trump Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Settle Lawsuit
“A judge ordered President Trump to pay $2 million to a collection of nonprofit organizations as part of a settlement with the New York state attorney general’s office to resolve a civil lawsuit that alleged ‘persistent’ violations of charities law that included unlawful coordination with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign,” CNN reports.
I recently wrote op-eds that ran in the Wall Street Journal and on these pages that showed median household incomes under Donald Trump have soared from $61,000 to an all-time high of $66,000 in less than three years into the Trump presidency. This is tremendous news and documents substantial middle-class prosperity in Trump’s first three years in office.
The $5,003 rise in middle-class incomes is especially impressive given that incomes only rose by $1,200 in the seven years under Obama — after the recession ended.
If the media, liberal think tanks and Democrats in Congress were truly concerned about the economic well-being of “hard-working families,” as Elizabeth Warren likes to say, they would have cheered to the rafters this amazing news of rising incomes for nearly all groups.
Instead, the left has chosen to either ignore this story altogether or to denounce these findings, which come from the gold standard of economic data, the U.S. Census Bureau.
This hostility to the good news was no doubt triggered by President Trump’s ebullient reaction. He has repeatedly tweeted out the numbers on middle class income gains and is now reciting these statistics in nearly every speech.
The income numbers are prima facie evidence that not only the rich, but the majority of middle-income households have benefited financially from the Trump economic boom. This same data also undermines the other riff from the Elizabeth Warren crowd, which is that the Trump economic boom is merely a continuation of the Obama trend. The income gains are four times higher under Trump in less than half the number of years in office.
US House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released the closed-door testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent during which he lambasted US President Donald Trump lawyer's Rudy Giuliani.
The official told lawmakers that Rudy Giuliani's attacks on the then-US ambassador to Ukraine were part of a "campaign of lies."
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/george-kent-impeachment-testimony-067428
How other officials rationalized dealing with Giuliani
Kent makes clear in his testimony that he was alarmed by the role the president’s personal lawyer was playing in trying to shape Ukraine policy — especially his efforts to work with a Ukrainian prosecutor to smear the U.S. ambassador in Kyiv, Marie Yovanovitch.
But he said that others, like Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine, thought that it was better to engage with Giuliani than to ignore him because of the influence he wielded on President Donald Trump. Volker even brushed off Giuliani’s campaign against Yovanovitch and push to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, a rival for the White House in 2020, saying, according to Kent: ”Well, if there’s nothing there, what does it matter?”
Kent, however, was worried about the precedent set, and the long-term implications. Or, as he put it: “What I understood was Kurt was thinking tactically and I was concerned strategically.”
The Trump-Zelensky call made for uncomfortable talk even among colleagues.
Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was so unusual that a National Security Council official — Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, who also has testified for the inquiry — didn’t want to get into the details with Kent. That call is now at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.
“It was different than any read-out call that I had received,” Kent told investigators. “He felt — I could hear it in his voice and his hesitancy that he felt uncomfortable. He actually said that he could not share the majority of what was discussed because of the very sensitive nature of what was discussed.”
That's nice, so they have opinions.
Kent testified that after a conversation with President Trump, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland was under the impression that Trump wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to use the words "Biden" and "Clinton" when announcing investigations into the gas company Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election.
KENT: "POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelenskyy to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton."
Q: "And in return for what?"
KENT: "That was not clear to me."
under the impression
Ya got him now, idiot
He's the best historian I've ever read in regards to the current administration.
Y JON MEACHAM
6:26 AM EST
Nearly half a century after Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic Democracy in America, another European observer crossed the Atlantic to assess the state of the American experiment.
James Bryce, the English historian and statesman, arrived in America for an extended tour in the middle of the 1880s, at a time not unlike our own. It was the height of the Gilded Age, and the country was grappling with inequalities of wealth, rising levels of immigration, rapid economic transition and questions about the United States’ role in the world. An astute chronicler–he was a practicing politician, a venerable professor of civil law at Oxford, and would later serve as the British ambassador to the U.S.–Bryce published his reflections in a two-volume work, The American Commonwealth.
Among his insights was a warning of the dangers of a renegade President. To Bryce, the real threat to the Constitution came as much from the people as from the White House. Disaster would strike American democracy, Bryce believed, at the hands of a demagogic President with an enthusiastic public base. “A bold President who knew himself to be supported by a majority in the country, might be tempted to override the law,” Bryce wrote. “He might be a tyrant, not against the masses, but with the masses.”
Now, at the end of the second decade of the 21st century, Bryce’s prophecy has come true. This is not hyperbole. The rise of Donald Trump, and the reflexive resilience of his public support, has produced a singular American moment. The start of public impeachment hearings in Congress on Nov. 13 marks the beginning of a test for the country. As the debate over impeachment and removal unfolds, the nation’s immediate and long-term future depends on whether Americans will be guided by reason rather than passion, fact rather than faith, evidence rather than tribe.
And the facts keep piling up. The U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, has now revised his congressional testimony to say that he was involved with a quid pro quo regarding Ukraine: the nation was to publicly announce an investigation into the family of Trump’s political rival Joe Biden, or the U.S. would hold up congressionally appropriated military aid. Other previously closed transcripts from key players are emerging, and even those who have refused to testify have shed light on the Administration’s dealings. Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff who has so far refused to answer a congressional subpoena, has already publicly framed perhaps the largest question of the moment when he told reporters that they should “get over” the Administration’s pressuring Ukraine. Mulvaney later tried to walk back these remarks, but the initial comments had all the hallmarks of the Trumpian vision of the world: do what you want, and dare anyone to do anything about it.
These Are the Key U.S. and Ukrainian Players in the Trump Impeachment Inquiry
President Donald Trump faces an impeachment inquiry in the wake of a recent whistleblower complaint alleging that he asked Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election
SharePlay VideoYOU MIGHT LIKE
THE HOUSE JUST VOTED FOR THE NEXT STEPS IN TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
Here we are, then, trapped in a time of demagoguery, reflexive partisanship and a Hobbesian world of constant and total political warfare. We know all the factors: the return of the kind of partisan media that shaped us in the 18th and 19th centuries; relentless gerrymandering that has produced few swing congressional districts; the allure of reality-TV programming that has blurred lines between entertainment and governance.; The Twitterdent
History may well turn on what happens in that minute. In that minute we might truly consider what this witness or that transcript is truly telling us. In that minute we might truly begin to see events in a different light. In that minute we might truly rethink our predispositions and, with Mrs. Roosevelt, arrive at a conclusion that requires us to relinquish an opinion we believed unassailable. That’s one of the reasons “hearings” are called “hearings.” We’d do well to remember that in the coming weeks and months.
In The American Commonwealth, James Bryce included a chapter titled “Why Great Men Are Not Chosen Presidents.” He was writing in an especially unremarkable era for the American presidency, the age of Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland and Harrison. The future proved Bryce wrong here; the ensuing century gave us both Roosevelts, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan. “We the People” rose to the occasion and made good and important decisions. Now we face the test anew.
Meacham, a Pulitzer Prize–winning historian, is the author of The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels
Trump will not rise to the occasion.
What’s on the menu tonight, strained split pea soup and applesauce?
Did Obama request dirt on Romney?
Nope... but he opened investigations (with Ukraine) into Paul Manafort and his DOJ and FBI opened all sorts of investigation into Trump and his campaign.
of course... when Obama does it.
It's just opening investigations.
If Trump does it.... well then...
It's digging up dirt.
Just like if Clinton hires a foreign agent to dig up dirt on Trump in Russia, it's opposition research. If Trump Jr talks to a lawyer, it's collusion.
Still doesn't change the fact that Republican Senators are not obligated to go along with what Pelosi and Schiff demand are criminal actions. Nor is anyone here (or anywhere else) going to be convinced by your definitions.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
I don't believe your source of information is credible.
Post the links to the tweets you claim to have.
i did.
a fucking day ago on multiple previous threads -
Mark S. Zaid
Verified account
@MarkSZaidEsq
Follow Follow @MarkSZaidEsq
MoreMark S. Zaid Retweeted Jake Tapper
#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyersMark S. Zaid added,
Jake Tapper
Verified account
@jaketapper
.@POTUS fires acting AG Sally Yates for "refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens" of US
6:54 PM - 30 Jan 2017
https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/826262311560216578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E826262311560216578&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsarahd-313035%2F2019%2F11%2F06%2Fthis-is-going-to-age-well-after-trumps-inauguration-whistleblower-attorney-mark-zaid-wrote-that-the-coup-has-started-impeachment-will-follow-ultimately%2F
November 6, 2019 at 5:41 PM Delete
Mark S. Zaid
Verified account
@MarkSZaidEsq
Follow Follow @MarkSZaidEsq
MoreMark S. Zaid Retweeted Jake Tapper
#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyersMark S. Zaid added,
Jake Tapper
Verified account
@jaketapper
.@POTUS fires acting AG Sally Yates for "refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens" of US
6:54 PM - 30 Jan 2017
https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/826262311560216578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E826262311560216578&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsarahd-313035%2F2019%2F11%2F06%2Fthis-is-going-to-age-well-after-trumps-inauguration-whistleblower-attorney-mark-zaid-wrote-that-the-coup-has-started-impeachment-will-follow-ultimately%2F
November 6, 2019 at 5:41 PM Delete
plus this -
Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president." Also that month, Zaid tweeted, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters."
Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," apparently referring to Trump administration employees who defy the White House. Zaid promised that the "coup" would occur in "many steps."
The tweets, which came shortly after President Trump fired then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates for failing to defend federal laws in court, are likely to fuel Republican concerns that the anonymous whistleblower's complaint is tainted with partisanship. Trump's call with Ukraine's leader, which is the subject of the complaint, occurred in July 2019.
“The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game," the Trump campaign's communications director, Tim Murtaugh, told Fox News. "It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”
Added House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy: "We should take [Zaid] at his word that this is a coordinated, premeditated plot to overturn the election."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment
November 7, 2019 at 4:39 AM
so, nursing home alky...
now that you have zaid's own words from zaid's own twitter feed including the fucking links, what's your latest dodge?
Still doesn't change the fact that Republican Senators are not obligated to go along with what Pelosi and Schiff demand are criminal actions. Nor is anyone here (or anywhere else) going to be convinced by your definitions.
cocaine mitch has announced that he's beginning the senate impeachment hearings the week before iowa.
heh.
then he'll proceed to pile-drive this entire circlejerk right into the fucking ground.
the whispering pines nursing home and bingo parlor will have the alky on suicide watch after trump beats him AGAIN.
on a side note - it looks like bloomberg is getting ready to jump in the race, concerned that the dem field just plain sucks.
i'm not sure how that can be with trump trailing in every poll.
Caliphate4vrNovember 7, 2019 at 5:48 PM
What’s on the menu tonight, strained split pea soup and applesauce?"
How does a guy that has a reported "six figure income " end up in Federal/State Subsidized Rest Home?
How does a guy that has a reported "six figure income " end up in Federal/State Subsidized Rest Home?
He’s mentally ill. The only utensils he has access to are plastic sporks
The US Senate Republicans in that 50 vote they did a week ago or so along with the Bi-Partisan Vote in the US House Against Impeachment assured Pres. Trump isn't going any where.
How does a guy that has a reported "six figure income " end up in Federal/State Subsidized Rest Home?
oh, you haven't seen the least of it yet.
since the alky was almost assuredly NOT smart enough to do a medicaid asset transfer 5 years ago. (there's a 5 year look back) if he IS collecting a nailbenders pension, ALL of it will eventually go to the nursing home. and then when the nursing home charges EXCEED his nailbenders pension, he's living in a fuicking tent on skid row.
we haven't even begun to see the worst of the alky death-spiral.
all because of TD fucking S.
The decline in Roger is like he is trying to dishonor his new liver.
Suicidal and Clinically Depressed .
looks like Mail Order kicked his ads to the gutter just in time to save herself.
https://youtu.be/7uMSl28_8Rw
All creatures know the greatest game
The crimes are bribery and extortion, the abuses of power are using presidential power for personal gain and the central offense against the state is the attempt to sabotage a national election, the event on which the legitimacy of the entire system rests.
Trump is undermining the legitimacy of our nation.
Yawn.
You really are a lonely piece of human shit.
Laughable how this is turning out against Obama/Biden
"The individual who some news outlets have alleged is the “whistleblower” in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump was reportedly the guest of former Vice President Joe Biden at a State Department dinner in October 2016."
My physical and mental health is in great condition.
I'm not a racist rodent bastard, who wants dead beaners on the border wall that the Mexicans were going to pay for!
Josh Marshall
Trump will call him scum of the earth.
On Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr (R-NC) said the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump should stay anonymous to the public.
“We protect whistleblowers,” the Republican senator told reporters, according to The Hill. “We protect witnesses in our committee.”
Unlike President Donald Trump and Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Burr said he “never” believed that the whistleblower’s identity ought to be revealed to the public.
Last week, the whistleblower’s lawyers announced that their client would be willing to answer written questions from Burr’s committee and the House Intelligence Committee.
Trump has been demanding for the whistleblower’s unmasking for months while Graham, the President’s top defender in the Senate, has vowed to force the whistleblower to testify publicly in front of his committee.
======
Another crack in the wall??
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/burr-breaks-from-trump-and-graham-says-whistleblower-shouldnt-be-exposed
“It’s like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak to find your elderly uncle running pantsless across the courtyard and cursing loudly about the cafeteria food, as worried attendants tried to catch him,” the author writes. “You’re stunned, amused, and embarrassed alql at the same time. Only your uncle probably wouldn’t do it every single day, his words aren’t broadcast to the public, and he doesn’t have to lead the US government once he puts his pants on.”
The book depicts Trump as making misogynistic and racist comments behind the scenes.
“I’ve sat and listened in uncomfortable silence as he talks about a woman’s appearance or performance,” the author writes. “He comments on makeup. He makes jokes about weight. He critiques clothing. He questions the toughness of women in and around his orbit. He uses words like ‘sweetie’ and ‘honey’ to address accomplished professionals. This is precisely the way a boss shouldn’t act in the work environment.”
The author alleges that Trump attempted a Hispanic accent during an Oval Office meeting to complain about migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.
“We get these women coming in with like seven children,” Trump said, according to the book. “They are saying, ‘Oh, please help! My husband left me!’ They are useless. They don’t do anything for our country. At least if they came in with a husband we could put him in the fields to pick corn or something.”
AD
The author argues that Trump is incapable of leading the United States through a monumental international crisis, describing how he tunes out intelligence and national security briefings and theorizing that foreign adversaries see him as “a simplistic pushover” who is susceptible to flattery and easily manipulated.
After the 2018 killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents, the author writes, Trump vented to advisers and said he would be foolish to stand up to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
“Do you know how stupid it would be to pick this fight?” Trump said, according to the book. “Oil would go up to one hundred fifty dollars a barrel. Jesus. How [expletive] stupid would I be?”
The book contains a handful of startling assertions that are not backed up with evidence, such as a claim that if a majority of the Cabinet were prepared to remove Trump from office under the 25th Amendment, Vice President Pence would have been supportive.
Pence denied this on Thursday, calling the book “appalling” and telling reporters, “I never heard anything in my time as vice president about the 25th Amendment. And why would I?”
One theme laced throughout the book is Trump’s indifference to the boundaries of the law. The author writes that Trump considered presidential pardons as “unlimited ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ cards on a Monopoly board,” referring to news reports that he had offered pardons to aides.
As he ranted about federal courts ruling against some of his policies, including the 2017 travel ban, the author writes, Trump once asked White House lawyers to draft a bill to send to Congress reducing the number of federal judges.
“Can we just get rid of the judges? Let’s get rid of the [expletive] judges,” the president said, according to the book. “There shouldn’t be any at all, really.”
AD
The author portrays Trump as fearful of coups against him and suspicious of note-takers on his staff. According to the book, the president shouted at an aide who was scribbling in a notebook during a meeting, “What the [expletive] are you doing?” He added, “Are you [expletive] taking notes?” The aide apologized and closed the notebook.
The author also ruminates about Trump’s fitness for office, describing him as reckless and without full control of his faculties.
“I am not qualified to diagnose the president’s mental acuity,” the author writes. “All I can tell you is that normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness. He stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity. Those who would claim otherwise are lying to themselves or to the country.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/book-by-anonymous-describes-trump-as-cruel-inept-and-a-danger-to-the-nation/2019/11/07/b6b6c6f2-0150-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_anonymous-840pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans
“I am not qualified to diagnose the president’s mental acuity,” the author writes. “All I can tell you is that normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness. He stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity. Those who would claim otherwise are lying to themselves or to the country.”
Even never-Trumpers are flagging bullshit in this guy.
“Anonymous” Book: Pence Would Have Gone Along With Cabinet In 25th Amendment Move To Oust Trump
There’s a strong, strong stench of manure coming off of this claim.
And it’s not just Trumpers who think so. Journalists who are known for being well-sourced in Washington were holding their noses last night as the story circulated. “This is hilarious nonsense that Pence would support invoking the 25th amendment,” sniffed Jonathan Swan of Axios (in a tweet he’s since deleted). “What Mr. Swan said,” added Josh Dawsey, one of the WaPo reporters whom Trump dubbed a “lowlife” this morning for his work on the new Bill Barr story.
In fact, the source of the claim is upfront about having an anti-Trump agenda. It comes from the author of that mysterious anonymous NYT op-ed last year, allegedly a senior official in the Trump administration who considers himself (or herself) part of the so-called Resistance. That op-ed has now been leveraged into a book which the author is reportedly hoping will convince Americans to throw Trump out of office next fall.
Only nut jobs like Roger takes this guy seriously.
Things are not going well for team Schiff when your star witness commits perjury.
Yovanovitch communicated with Dem staffer on 'delicate' issue after complaint, emails show, despite testimony
EXCLUSIVE: Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, a key witness in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, communicated via her personal email account with a Democratic congressional staffer concerning a "quite delicate" and "time-sensitive" matter -- just two days after the whistleblower complaint that kickstarted the inquiry was filed, and a month before the complaint became public, emails obtained Thursday by Fox News showed.
The emails appear to contradict Yovanovitch's deposition on Capitol Hill last month, in which she told U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., about an email she received Aug. 14 from the staffer, Laura Carey -- but indicated under oath that she never responded to it.
The communication came "from the Foreign Affairs Committee," and "they wanted me to come in and talk about, I guess, the circumstances of my departure," Yovanovitch testified, describing Carey's initial email. "I alerted the State Department, because I'm still an employee, and so, matters are generally handled through the State Department."
Yovanovitch continued: "So, she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And, she emailed me again and said, you know, 'Who should I be in touch with?'"
The crimes are bribery and extortion, the abuses of power are using presidential power for personal gain and the central offense against the state is the attempt to sabotage a national election, the event on which the legitimacy of the entire system rests.
back to gargling josh marshall's balls, nursing home alky>
The crimes are bribery and extortion, the abuses of power are using presidential power for personal gain and the central offense against the state is the attempt to sabotage a national election, the event on which the legitimacy of the entire system rests.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/some-thoughts-on-describing-the-presidents-crimes
i think it's sweet to see you too back together again.
Yovanovitch communicated with Dem staffer on 'delicate' issue after complaint, emails show, despite testimony
she lied under oath.
i'm old enough to remember when that used to be considered a crime.
How many others are colluding with Schiff and lying under oath?
Trump will be impeached by the house, cleared by the Senate, and re-elected next year. And dems will lose the house because of all this Trump hatred.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
My physical and mental health is in great condition.
which is exemplified by your residence in a nursing home.
yeah, nothing says "i'm a picture of great physical and mental health" like residing in God's waiting room, alky.
My colleague George Neumayr and I have been studying the Obama administration’s spying on Trump for over three years. While most of the mainstream media searched desperately for a smoking gun carried by one of President Trump’s people or even by the president himself, we looked elsewhere. We looked at the politicized atmosphere within the FBI and the CIA. We even looked at British intelligence. No one else seemed interested, but we found evidence of criminal misbehavior by the former head of CIA, John Brennan, the former head of national intelligence James Clapper, and former head of the FBI, James B. Comey.
On March 23, 2018, we published the following lines, “While Brennan’s recklessness is obviously of no interest to the media, it is provoking increasing concern among government investigators, who are looking at a range of his abuses — from leaks to perjury to the outsourcing of spying on Trump to foreigners under the guise of ‘intelligence-sharing.’ ” And we went on, “A member of the intelligence community tells [us] that he was approached by FBI investigators inquiring about Brennan’s improprieties at the CIA. He was startled to hear them venting aloud about Brennan’s practice of using British intelligence officials to spy on the Trump campaign, including American contractors hired by the British who were working from the 12th floor of a building in Crystal City, Virginia, and an NSA building in San Antonio, Texas. Brennan, they fumed, was using British intelligence agents so that he could deny, if asked, that he had spied on the Trump campaign.”
Now if you will remember, President Trump claimed that the Obama administration had bugged Trump Tower. The chattering class raged about this claim for months. But we now know that Trump was right. Comey had sitting on his desk FISA warrants on Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn that gave him the power to reach into Trump Tower and intercept their communications. Seized with Trump Derangement Syndrome, the three stooges — Brennan, Clapper, and Comey — had convinced themselves that Trump, a sui generis American businessman known for his patriotism, was a plant for the Russians.
Psychologists would call such a far-fetched notion a case of projection. It was Brennan, after all, who famously voted for Gus Hall, the Soviet plant who ran for president in the 1970s.
The most perverse irony in all of this is that the American officials who bleated the loudest about “malicious actors interfering in the election” presided over a government that actually did. It was members of the U.S. government who spied upon Trump’s campaign and sought to sabotage it through entrapment schemes and criminal leaks. It was Brennan who turned to foreigners for dirt on Trump to throw the election. They failed, but not for lack of trying. Just ask Harry Reid, who has noted Brennan’s “ulterior motive” for briefing him on Crossfire Hurricane before Election Day.
In the coming days, we will learn much more about this audacious mischief, first through the report of Inspector General Michael Horowitz detailing FISA abuses, then through Durham’s findings, which could result in a raft of indictments. Brace for impact, lefties. It is going to be a bumpy year ahead.
https://spectator.org/the-bell-is-about-to-toll/
Post a Comment