Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: A Hail Mary Pass For Hillary

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default A Hail Mary Pass For Hillary

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    DROP THE HILLARY CLINTON INVESTIGATIONS AND WE WILL DROP IMPEACHMENT.

    Diarrhea Mouth raised the bet when she threw in a big bargaining chip. ‘If Hillary Clinton goes to prison so does Donald Trump.’ The question is will Republicans call or fold?
    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?119861-Goodbye-To-A-Dirty-Cop&highlight=Goodbye+Dirty

    Football fans know every famous Hail Mary pass that won the game. Whoever called this play was praying for a miracle:


    As is clear from congressional angst over impeachment, the political and media left make little or no distinction between the unindictable, unrebutted acts attributed to President Trump in the special counsel report and proven or even probable crimes. Now there is a new legal argument taking shape that underscores the difference. Why this sudden, unusual concern with the presumption of innocence?

    The answer is that the argument suggests how the next Democratic administration could use the Robert Mueller report’s denial of “exoneration” to game norms that would currently restrain a future Democratic president from using the justice system to prosecute Republican predecessors. Democratic candidate and Sen. Kamala Harris has already promised that, if elected president, she’ll direct her Department of Justice to investigate Trump.

    In other words, if impeachment fails, Trump opponents may now have found themselves a longer-range tactic. If you look closely, however, this tactic requires them to acknowledge Mueller failed to do his job as a prosecutor.


    If Democrats Can’t Impeach Trump, Their Next President Will Simply Prosecute Him
    By Robin Ridless
    July 3, 2019

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/03...ply-prosecute/

    Happily, AG Barr has all the evidence he needs to sack quarterback Hillary Clinton. Not only will the receiver miss the Hail Mary pass it will be intercepted and put Hillary Clinton in jail:

    “This disturbing testimony points to an Obama administration conspiracy to hide and destroy Hillary Clinton emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Even worse, the testimony suggests Clinton’s Benghazi emails were under-classified in order to protect Hillary Clinton (and mislead Congress). Attorney General Barr needs to prioritize reopening the Clinton email investigation.

    It was U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth who ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath in the legal case brought by Judicial Watch.

    Boswell testified he knew Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry smartphones and personal emails to transmit classified material.

    But, he said, she did it anyway.

    2nd witness confirms Hillary warned about email
    Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 07/02/2019 @ 9:08 pm

    https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/2nd-witn...d-about-email/


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Finally, everything the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Justice, and Democrats in Congress did was done to make certain that Hillary would never be indicted for anything. After more than two years Democrats are still going bananas trying to keep Hillary out of jail. It is the first time I ever saw Democrats so conspicuously engage in a coverup on top of a coverup. It matters not which Democrats Hillary’s coverup destroys in the process so long as she beats the rap.
    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...vering+Hillary
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    In that case, full speed ahead.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Celticguy For This Post:

    Flanders (07-03-2019), MAGA MAN (07-24-2019)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    VIDEO

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/jul/19/donald-trump-said-he-tried-to-stop-the-send-her-back-chants-but-did-he-video

    Donald Trump claimed Thursday he tried to stop his supporters chanting 'send her back' after he assailed Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar who he's suggested should leave the US. The chant came after he recited a litany of complaints about Omar of Minnesota, who fled to the US as a child with her family from violence-wracked Somalia. Video from the North Carolina rally shows the president pausing his remarks, appearing to drink in the uproar and not admonishing his supporters as they chanted.

    Source: AP
    Fri 19 Jul 2019 15.52 BST
    Last modified on Mon 22 Jul 2019 08.52 BST

    You can be damn sure Trump will not stop his supporters from chanting:




    Now that Boris Johnson is the U.K.’s prime minister Hillary better start spending all of her time on her knees in a Catholic Church praying to Mary. Bojo has a superb relationship with President Trump. There is no doubt that the PM will order MI6 to open its files on the Steele Dossier.

    Talk about Mueller covering up for Hillary Clinton all but disappeared. Talk about the Steele Dossier will come back like a force 5 hurricane. That is not the kind of talk Hillary & Company want to hear.

    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Talk about the Steele Dossier will come back like a force 5 hurricane. That is not the kind of talk Hillary & Company want to hear.
    I should have said that Hillary & Company do not want voters to hear this:




    In some respects Boris Johnson winning the election is worse for Democrats than was Trump’s victory in 2016. PM Johnson’s action can put Hillary Clinton in jail as well as destroy the Democrat Party in 2020 if he orders MI6 to turn over ALL of the Steele files to investigators from our Department of Justice:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    There is no doubt that the PM will order MI6 to open its files on the Steele Dossier.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Alright BoJo, lets have it.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Get every bit of the truth out. Let the chips fall...

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    Flanders (07-24-2019)

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    A passage from Dan Calabrese’s 2008 article presents one of Zeifman’s chief complaints about Hillary, that she supposedly “dishonestly” drafted a brief that argued President Nixon’s counsel should not be allowed to participate in the Judiciary Committee’s evidentiary hearings, even though a precedent from a few years earlier had seemingly established that a federal official facing impeachment should be allowed such representation:

    Did Jerry Zeifman Fire Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation?
    David Mikkelson
    Published 21 October 2014

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hi...ton-watergate/

    The fact that Hillary Rodham was on the Watergate Investigation Staff is the critical factor in light of this revelation:

    August 9 is the 45th anniversary of the resignation of Richard Nixon, the only president in American history to resign or be removed from office. We know what triggered his resignation. He was already on the ropes after two and a half years of Watergate revelations, but what ended any and all defense was the release of the “smoking gun” transcript on August 5. It showed that Nixon had concurred with his staff’s suggestion that they get the CIA to tell the FBI not to interview two Watergate witnesses.

    As astonishing as it may be to Americans, who have been assured that the smoking gun tape is proof positive of Nixon’s early cover-up involvement, every person connected to that particular conversation now agrees that the CIA gambit was an effort to prevent disclosure of prominent Democrats who had made substantial contributions to Nixon’s re-election campaign under assurances of absolute secrecy.

    I should know. I was there: a member of Nixon’s Watergate defense team, the third person to hear the smoking gun tape, the one who first transcribed it, and the one who termed it “the smoking gun.” Here is a much fuller explanation of what actually happened. But the bottom line remains unchanged. Nixon’s Watergate defense lawyers completely misinterpreted the tape, and their mistake ended his presidency.

    John Dean, Nixon’s principal accuser, has known of this mistaken interpretation from the very outset, but found it in his interest to keep quiet. He was, after all, the one who had suggested the CIA gambit to Bob Haldeman in the first place. Yet it was not until his 2014 book, The Nixon Defense, that he finally got around to admitting the truth. Read his full footnote, which concludes, “had Nixon known that he might have survived its disclosure to fight another day. In sum, the smoking gun was shooting blanks,” here.

    This is one heck of a revelation, albeit 40 years too late, and it is certainly not the testimony that Dean gave at the Watergate cover-up trial, when Haldeman’s liberty hung by a thread and Dean had sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

    Regardless of whether you are convinced that the smoking gun tape has been totally misunderstood (as I now do), it is uncontroverted that no one knew of any Nixon involvement on June 23 prior to the tape’s August 5 release. So, we must ask ourselves, just what was it that put Nixon down for the count, well before that tape’s release? After all, grand jurors had named him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate cover-up on March 1, 1974, and the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) had adopted its first Article of Impeachment, based on similar accusations of Nixon’s cover-up involvement, on July 27.

    The answer is an equally astonishing Watergate revelation. Special prosecutors had assured both grand jurors in February and HJC staff in July that they could prove that Richard Nixon had personally directed the payment of blackmail to E. Howard Hunt, one of the masterminds of the Watergate break-in — and that he had done so on the afternoon of March 21, 1973. As it developed, their accusation was erroneous, but (unfortunately for Nixon) it was also conveyed in total secrecy, so Nixon’s defense team had no idea the accusation had even been made — so they were not in a position to challenge or refute it.

    Here’s the backstory. Nixon had learned of Hunt’s blackmail demands from his March 21 meeting with John Dean. This is the date of Dean’s infamous “cancer on the presidency” revelations to Nixon, a day which both men agree was the first time Dean had told Nixon any specifics about ongoing cover-up efforts. While it is abundantly clear from the tape of that meeting that no decision was made to meet Hunt’s blackmail demands, prosecutors were positively thrilled when they established that a payment had been made to Hunt’s lawyer that evening.

    From the prosecutors’ point of view, their case was quite clear. Dean’s meeting with Nixon ended at noon, and the Hunt payment was made at 10 p.m. that very evening. What had to have happened in the intervening 10 hours was that (i) Nixon had to tell Haldeman to order John Mitchell, his former Attorney General and re-election campaign director, to make the payment. (ii) Haldeman had to phone Mitchell (who was then in New York). (iii) Mitchell had to relay this same instruction to his former top aide, Fred LaRue, who was acting as “paymaster” for the Watergate break-in defendants. (iv) And finally, LaRue had to make the payment to Hunt’s attorney that evening (which they had now established that he had done).

    The prosecutors’ hypothesis has remained entirely circumstantial. No one, then or in the intervening 45 years, has testified to this set of events — not Nixon, not Haldeman, not Mitchell, and not LaRue. Yet the following acts did occur: Haldeman did call Mitchell right after the Dean meeting (They both claimed that it was to invite him to D.C. the following day), Mitchell did speak to LaRue and “approve” a payment to Hunt (the only questions being who originated the call and at what particular time this conversation had occurred), and LaRue did make the payment about 10 p.m. that evening (Nixon’s lawyers mistakenly believed that this payment actually had occurred earlier that week).

    There is no question but that this version of presidential involvement is what Watergate prosecutors assured the grand jurors. Here is their internal analysis of Nixon’s culpability. Here is their book’s description of their discovery. Here are excerpts from their original Prosecutive Summary on Nixon. Nonetheless, it is little wonder that the grand jurors agreed to name Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator. Four months later, prosecutors told the same story to HJC staff. Here is the relevant sections from their updated Prosecutive Summary, and here is the description of how they came to share it, in secret, with HJC staff.

    Keep in mind that all of these representations were written strictly from the Special Prosecutors’ point of view. They sound authoritative and fairly reek of prosecutorial confidence. But they are completely one-sided and untested. When prosecutors’ version of events was presented in court, with their witnesses under oath and subject to cross-examination, it turned out that their facts were not provable, their timing of events was unsupportable, and the testimony of their own witnesses showed how their purported actions of President Nixon could not have occurred as they had alleged.

    One can only imagine what similar sorts of assertions and prosecutorial ideas are contained within the files of the Mueller prosecution team.

    But note the key consistency: there were no public accusations, nor could prosecutors produce a single witness to testify to their version of events. Their case was — and remains — totally circumstantial. It is a common fallacy, even deserving of a Latin description: Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc (“This followed, therefore was caused by”).

    Those of us on Nixon’s defense team remained unaware of prosecutors’ allegation of Nixon’s personal involvement. Had we but known, we could have refuted their allegation. Had Nixon but known that this was the principal allegation being made against him — that he had personally approved the payment of blackmail to Howard Hunt — he would never had resigned, since he would have known it to be untrue.

    But Nixon did resign — in the aftermath of the release of the smoking gun transcript. Three months later, when prosecutors sought to prove their allegation of Nixon’s personal approval during the course of the Watergate cover-up trial — with their witnesses having to testify under oath and subject to cross-examination — they were totally unable to do so: Fred LaRue, by that time having become a government witness and having no reason to lie, testified (i) that he was the one who had called Mitchell (and not the reverse), (ii) that he had spoken to Mitchell in the morning (and thus before Nixon even learned of Hunt’s monetary demands), and (iii) that he had taken it upon himself to pay only Hunt’s outstanding legal bills and not his requested additional funds (which would have been contrary to Nixon’s alleged instructions, had they been conveyed through Haldeman and Mitchell).

    By this time, however, the total refutation of their secret allegation concerning Nixon’s payoff instructions had become irrelevant. Nixon had resigned the previous August, and the smoking gun tape seemed to prove his early cover-up involvement in any event. Since no one knew of their allegation of Nixon’s personal wrongdoing, it was as though it had never happened, and no one could claim that Nixon had been unfairly hounded from office. The underlying facts — and their significance — have only emerged in recent years.

    Hamlet, in the opening scene of Shakespeare’s well-known tragedy, observes, “Foul deeds will rise, Though all the earth o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.”

    And such is the case today. Watergate special prosecutors, as well as John Dean, have known all this time that Nixon was driven from office by their secret, but erroneous, allegation of personal wrongdoing. Now, 45 years too late, we do, too.

    One can only wonder what is going to come out over the next 45 years about the two-and-a-half year effort to bring down President Trump. The Mueller team records, along with the FBI’s, may be sealed today, but they won’t remain so forever.

    Troubling Watergate Revelations, Too Late to Matter
    by Geoff Shepard
    August 9, 2019, 12:01 AM

    https://spectator.org/troubling-wate...ate-to-matter/

    Hillary’s part in the Watergate Investigation matters today as much as it mattered 45 years ago. One question cries out for an answer: Had an INNOCENT Nixon been given 1/1000th of the protection a GUILTY Hillary Clinton gets for committing treason where would the Party of Liars be today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Talk about Mueller covering up for Hillary Clinton all but disappeared. Talk about the Steele Dossier will come back like a force 5 hurricane. That is not the kind of talk Hillary & Company want to hear.

    The saddest part in Nixon being driven out of office by liars is that a dirty old hag came as close to the presidency as a known-liar can get.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Similar Threads

  1. The National Emergency is a Hail Mary.
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-16-2019, 06:46 PM
  2. Oregon Senator Merkley Throws Hail Mary to Stop Kavanaugh Confirmation
    By anonymoose in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-28-2018, 10:22 AM
  3. The media is supporting MS-13 hail hail Mexican SCUM
    By TheDonald in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2017, 03:49 PM
  4. Fox throws the hail mary
    By Cancel 2020.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 11:57 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-19-2011, 07:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •