Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: Pelosi Has To Protect Hillary Clinton

  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 Pelosi Has To Protect Hillary Clinton

    Television mouths talking about calling Joe and/or Hunter Biden as witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial is the sweetest piece of media misdirection I have seen in a long time. In addition to media mouths the liars in both parties are going nuts trying to figure out a way to keep Hillary Clinton from testifying. Remember that Hillary Clinton started the whole thing more than three years ago when she ordered and paid for the Steele Dossier.

    I am betting that Diarrhea Mouth Pelosi and Pencil Neck Schiff never realized they were putting Hillary in jeopardy when they were executing their ill-conceived “Impeach Trump” scheme. As it stands now, Pencil Neck has become a bit player in a comedy, while Pelosi has a tiger by the tail of her own making that she dare not let go.

    NOTE: Pelosi is refusing to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The imperial speaker of the house decided that dictating which witnesses the Senate can call is her best course of action. Pelosi coordinated her next move with Senator Vomit Schumer. Together, they demanded a fair trial. Schumer is going along because he thinks he sounds intelligent on television regardless of what he is saying, while Pelosi’s stratagem is twofold:

    1. Salvage her overrated reputation as a brilliant politician.

    2. Clean up the mess she made when she put Hillary Clinton in the hot seat.

    Pelosi’s blunder got lucky. Lying senators from both parties have no qualms about calling a former vice president and a former secretary of state as witnesses, while the Senate will never shit on its own front steps by putting two former senators under oath in a public trial.

    Parenthetically, I was right when I said:


    p.s. President Trump is foolishly calling for a Senate trial. If I had Trump’s ear I would tell him “Joan of Arc had a better chance of acquittal in a rigged trial than you.”

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...03#post3368703

    I am wrong if Trump gets his witnesses in a Senate trial. Best of all, there is no way Hillary Clinton testifying under oath can backfire.



    The US House of Representatives has impeached President Donald Trump, setting the stage for the third-ever Senate impeachment trial.

    Here's what you need to know about that.

    Why is there a trial?

    A trial in the Senate will follow the vote to impeach the president in the House, as decreed in the Constitution.

    The House's articles of impeachment level two accusations against the president: that he solicited a foreign country to help him politically and that he obstructed Congress. The Republican president has denied any wrongdoing, calling the inquiry a "witch hunt".

    Mr Trump is accused of withholding millions in military aid to Ukraine and a White House meeting with Ukraine's president as bargaining chips to push Ukraine into investigating his Democratic rival Joe Biden. Democrats say this amounts to an abuse of presidential power.

    As the White House refused to allow staff to testify during impeachment hearings in the House, Democrats have also accused Mr Trump of obstructing Congress.

    What's involved?

    The Constitution is admittedly vague when it comes to impeachment - simply mandating that the House has the "sole power of impeachment", acting as grand jury and bringing charges. The Senate is given "the sole power to try all impeachments" and convict a president of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours".

    There are general rules largely based on President Andrew Johnson's trial, but ultimately, Republican leader [Two Senators] Mitch McConnell and his Democratic counterpart Chuck Schumer will have to determine the guidelines for evidence, witnesses, duration and arguments.

    While Mr McConnell has the final say over the format as the Republican Senate leader, he could find his options limited if Democrats pressure moderate Republicans to vote with them on any changes to the rules. At any point, senators can call for votes on trial procedures that would need a simple majority to pass.

    After lawmakers hear from both sides - House prosecutors and White House counsel - and any witnesses, they will be given a full day to deliberate before a vote on conviction is held.

    A two-thirds majority is required to convict and oust Mr Trump. Given that Republicans control the 100-seat chamber with a 53-47 majority, the president is widely expected to be acquitted.

    Who's who?




    Consider da judge if you are looking for a laugh. Hillary Clinton has another ally in:


    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
    will preside over the trial in the Senate, but the senators ultimately will act as both judge and jury.

    Justice Roberts is there to make sure the trial adheres to the predetermined rules, but if any vote during the trial ends in a tie, he has the final say.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will also select a group of Democrats to act as impeachment managers - essentially prosecutors for the House. These lawmakers will present the lower chamber's case for impeachment to the Senate.

    Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler would be the most traditional choices, US media report, though it is unclear who else might make the cut.

    During Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, Republicans had 13 such managers; staunch Trump ally Lindsey Graham was one.

    Mr McConnell, the majority leader, will ultimately have sway over the format and guidelines of the trial.

    He sparked condemnation from Democrats over recent comments to Fox News, saying: "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel.

    There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can."

    Will senators get to ask questions?

    Senators can ask questions of witnesses or counsellors, but only by submitting them in writing to Justice Roberts.

    Witnesses may not necessarily appear on the Senate floor. They can be interviewed by a committee of lawmakers with footage of the testimony aired during the trial instead.

    Democrats want several senior White House officials to testify, including acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and ex-adviser John Bolton.

    But there may not be any witnesses at all if Republicans decide they would rather keep the trial short, despite Mr Trump's calls for the Bidens and the whistleblower who sparked the Ukraine inquiry to appear.

    Speaking on the senate floor on Tuesday, Mr McConnell suggested as much, saying the senate's duty is to "act as judge and jury to hear a trial, not to rerun the entire fact-finding investigation".

    "We do not need jurors to start brainstorming witness lists for the prosecution," he added.

    Mr Clinton's trial had no live witnesses.

    Will Trump give evidence?

    While the president could choose to appear before the Senate himself, it is much more likely he will have White House lawyer Pat Cipollone speak on his behalf.

    Mr Cipollone, like the impeachment managers, will be able to question witnesses and deliver opening and closing statements.

    US media report Mr Trump may also bring some House conservatives onto his defence team, like Ohio congressman Jim Jordan or John Ratcliffe of Texas.

    Will Biden or his son have to testify?

    That will depend on what Mr McConnell chooses for the trial format. US media report Republicans are still debating if it is worth it to summon the Democratic former vice-president and his son as the president wants.

    Mr Biden has dismissed calls for his testimony, telling NPR it is an attempt by the president to "divert attention" from the accusations against him.

    "This is a Trump gambit he plays," Mr Biden said. "I will not yield to what everybody is looking for here. And that is to take the eye off the ball."

    How long might this all take?

    After the House presents the articles of impeachment to the Senate, they must consider them in session every day, except Sunday, until the final decision.

    Mr Schumer has offered a tentative schedule for the trial, which would be the first order of business in the new year. In total, he has suggested some 126 hours of proceedings.

    18 December - House votes on articles of impeachment

    6 January - Start of Senate trial, guidelines and other housekeeping measures finalised

    7 January - Swearing in of senators as jurors and Chief Justice Roberts

    9 January - House prosecutors and White House counsel each have 24 hours to present arguments

    The trial is likely to take weeks but how many is anybody's guess. Democrats will hope it is all done by the time the 2020 primary elections begin in February.

    Trump impeachment: What you need to know about the Senate trial
    19 December 2019

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50813696
    Last edited by Flanders; 12-20-2019 at 05:02 AM.
    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 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Pelosi & Company took it on the lam:

    The developments Thursday as Congress left town mean that the step of sending the impeachment articles to the Senate could wait until the week of January 6, when the House reconvenes. Pelosi has said that the resolution to name impeachment managers needs to be approved before the articles could be transmitted. And she’s said that she needs to understand what the Senate trial will look like before naming the House managers who will prosecute the case before the senators.

    Pelosi is stalling until she knows what John Durham’s Report says:

    Pelosi was careful Thursday not to say at her news conference that Democrats must get a “fair” trial before transmitting the articles. That’s a different tone than Wednesday night when Pelosi suggested that they needed to have a fair trial before deciding whether to submit the articles to the Senate.

    McConnell says Senate trial talks at ‘impasse’ as Congress leaves town
    Posted 6:19 pm, December 19, 2019,
    by CNN Wire

    https://wreg.com/2019/12/19/mcconnel...s-leaves-town/

    Diarrhea Mouth will never send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate if Durham’s Report says Hillary Clinton can be indicted for the Steele Dossier:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    I am wrong if Trump gets his witnesses in a Senate trial. Best of all, there is no way Hillary Clinton testifying under oath can backfire.
    Last edited by Flanders; 12-21-2019 at 01:53 PM.
    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

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    661
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 232 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 42 Times in 34 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Television mouths talking about calling Joe and/or Hunter Biden as witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial is the sweetest piece of media misdirection I have seen in a long time. In addition to media mouths the liars in both parties are going nuts trying to figure out a way to keep Hillary Clinton from testifying. Remember that Hillary Clinton started the whole thing more than three years ago when she ordered and paid for the Steele Dossier.

    I am betting that Diarrhea Mouth Pelosi and Pencil Neck Schiff never realized they were putting Hillary in jeopardy when they were executing their ill-conceived “Impeach Trump” scheme. As it stands now, Pencil Neck has become a bit player in a comedy, while Pelosi has a tiger by the tail of her own making that she dare not let go.

    NOTE: Pelosi is refusing to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The imperial speaker of the house decided that dictating which witnesses the Senate can call is her best course of action. Pelosi coordinated her next move with Senator Vomit Schumer. Together, they demanded a fair trial. Schumer is going along because he thinks he sounds intelligent on television regardless of what he is saying, while Pelosi’s stratagem is twofold:

    1. Salvage her overrated reputation as a brilliant politician.

    2. Clean up the mess she made when she put Hillary Clinton in the hot seat.

    Pelosi’s blunder got lucky. Lying senators from both parties have no qualms about calling a former vice president and a former secretary of state as witnesses, while the Senate will never shit on its own front steps by putting two former senators under oath in a public trial.

    Parenthetically, I was right when I said:


    p.s. President Trump is foolishly calling for a Senate trial. If I had Trump’s ear I would tell him “Joan of Arc had a better chance of acquittal in a rigged trial than you.”

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...03#post3368703

    I am wrong if Trump gets his witnesses in a Senate trial. Best of all, there is no way Hillary Clinton testifying under oath can backfire.



    The US House of Representatives has impeached President Donald Trump, setting the stage for the third-ever Senate impeachment trial.

    Here's what you need to know about that.

    Why is there a trial?

    A trial in the Senate will follow the vote to impeach the president in the House, as decreed in the Constitution.

    The House's articles of impeachment level two accusations against the president: that he solicited a foreign country to help him politically and that he obstructed Congress. The Republican president has denied any wrongdoing, calling the inquiry a "witch hunt".

    Mr Trump is accused of withholding millions in military aid to Ukraine and a White House meeting with Ukraine's president as bargaining chips to push Ukraine into investigating his Democratic rival Joe Biden. Democrats say this amounts to an abuse of presidential power.

    As the White House refused to allow staff to testify during impeachment hearings in the House, Democrats have also accused Mr Trump of obstructing Congress.

    What's involved?

    The Constitution is admittedly vague when it comes to impeachment - simply mandating that the House has the "sole power of impeachment", acting as grand jury and bringing charges. The Senate is given "the sole power to try all impeachments" and convict a president of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours".

    There are general rules largely based on President Andrew Johnson's trial, but ultimately, Republican leader [Two Senators] Mitch McConnell and his Democratic counterpart Chuck Schumer will have to determine the guidelines for evidence, witnesses, duration and arguments.

    While Mr McConnell has the final say over the format as the Republican Senate leader, he could find his options limited if Democrats pressure moderate Republicans to vote with them on any changes to the rules. At any point, senators can call for votes on trial procedures that would need a simple majority to pass.

    After lawmakers hear from both sides - House prosecutors and White House counsel - and any witnesses, they will be given a full day to deliberate before a vote on conviction is held.

    A two-thirds majority is required to convict and oust Mr Trump. Given that Republicans control the 100-seat chamber with a 53-47 majority, the president is widely expected to be acquitted.

    Who's who?




    Consider da judge if you are looking for a laugh. Hillary Clinton has another ally in:


    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
    will preside over the trial in the Senate, but the senators ultimately will act as both judge and jury.

    Justice Roberts is there to make sure the trial adheres to the predetermined rules, but if any vote during the trial ends in a tie, he has the final say.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will also select a group of Democrats to act as impeachment managers - essentially prosecutors for the House. These lawmakers will present the lower chamber's case for impeachment to the Senate.

    Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler would be the most traditional choices, US media report, though it is unclear who else might make the cut.

    During Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, Republicans had 13 such managers; staunch Trump ally Lindsey Graham was one.

    Mr McConnell, the majority leader, will ultimately have sway over the format and guidelines of the trial.

    He sparked condemnation from Democrats over recent comments to Fox News, saying: "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel.

    There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can."

    Will senators get to ask questions?

    Senators can ask questions of witnesses or counsellors, but only by submitting them in writing to Justice Roberts.

    Witnesses may not necessarily appear on the Senate floor. They can be interviewed by a committee of lawmakers with footage of the testimony aired during the trial instead.

    Democrats want several senior White House officials to testify, including acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and ex-adviser John Bolton.

    But there may not be any witnesses at all if Republicans decide they would rather keep the trial short, despite Mr Trump's calls for the Bidens and the whistleblower who sparked the Ukraine inquiry to appear.

    Speaking on the senate floor on Tuesday, Mr McConnell suggested as much, saying the senate's duty is to "act as judge and jury to hear a trial, not to rerun the entire fact-finding investigation".

    "We do not need jurors to start brainstorming witness lists for the prosecution," he added.

    Mr Clinton's trial had no live witnesses.

    Will Trump give evidence?

    While the president could choose to appear before the Senate himself, it is much more likely he will have White House lawyer Pat Cipollone speak on his behalf.

    Mr Cipollone, like the impeachment managers, will be able to question witnesses and deliver opening and closing statements.

    US media report Mr Trump may also bring some House conservatives onto his defence team, like Ohio congressman Jim Jordan or John Ratcliffe of Texas.

    Will Biden or his son have to testify?

    That will depend on what Mr McConnell chooses for the trial format. US media report Republicans are still debating if it is worth it to summon the Democratic former vice-president and his son as the president wants.

    Mr Biden has dismissed calls for his testimony, telling NPR it is an attempt by the president to "divert attention" from the accusations against him.

    "This is a Trump gambit he plays," Mr Biden said. "I will not yield to what everybody is looking for here. And that is to take the eye off the ball."

    How long might this all take?

    After the House presents the articles of impeachment to the Senate, they must consider them in session every day, except Sunday, until the final decision.

    Mr Schumer has offered a tentative schedule for the trial, which would be the first order of business in the new year. In total, he has suggested some 126 hours of proceedings.

    18 December - House votes on articles of impeachment

    6 January - Start of Senate trial, guidelines and other housekeeping measures finalised

    7 January - Swearing in of senators as jurors and Chief Justice Roberts

    9 January - House prosecutors and White House counsel each have 24 hours to present arguments

    The trial is likely to take weeks but how many is anybody's guess. Democrats will hope it is all done by the time the 2020 primary elections begin in February.

    Trump impeachment: What you need to know about the Senate trial
    19 December 2019

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50813696

    So, Donald Trump is the 3rd President in US history to face being impeached. I have been watching him ever since he was elected (from Australia) and I think he is one of the best Presidents America has ever had; he's tough, he's a fighter and he gets things done. I wish we had a Head of State like him. It really pissed me off when the House Democrats impeached him with a vote on party lines, because even though President Trump personally couldn't care less, they have sealed his legacy with impeachment and he absolutely did not deserve that. (And) now Nancy Pelosi is delaying sending the two Articles of Impeachment: (I) Abuse of Power and (II) Obstruction of Congress over to the Senate for trial.

    Those two Articles of Impeachment should not be going forward in any case because the Constitution stipulates: bribery, treason and "high crimes and misdemeanours" as the predicates for impeachment and President Trump has not been accused of any of these, so there is no Constitutional basis for his having been impeached (?). The whole impeachment circus has been nothing but a disgusting political stunt as far as I can see.

    It seems that Speaker Pelosi is holding back the Articles of Impeachment before sending them to the Senate as a negotiation tactic. She says that she wants to ensure there is a fair trial in the Senate before sending over the Articles of Impeachment. I find this a bit bewildering. I mean, is she saying that she feels they did not give the President a fair trial in the House of Representatives, and she now wants the Senate to do the House's work? My understanding of the American political system is that the Senate does not pretend to negotiate with the House about how the later does its work and vice verse, i.e; the House does not negotiate with the Senate about how they do their job. It is all very unfair to President Trump who has the legal right to to a speedy trial just like anyone else. It clearly shows that Pelosi's Democrat only managed to cobble together a very weak case, and now she wants the Senate to clean up what they didn't do in the House of Representatives. But what exactly was it that President Trump had done wrong ? He committed no Federal crime of any kind - not even a parking ticket - NOTHING. He was certainly not found guilty of having committed treason, bribery, "high crimes and misdemeanours", yet the House Democrats impeached him. It's CRAZY.

    Instead Trump was impeached on very vague charges of "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" which have weakened the moral authority and Constitutional requirements for impeachment. They are, legally speaking, not a justifiable basis for impeachment. The Democrats have been screaming about impeaching Donald Trump literally since his first day in office as the 45th US President (actually, even since before this !). When I was watching the "Schiff Show" on television and I saw how farcical the whole House impeachment process was - how outrageously unfair, how bereft of due process, I actually thought to myself that Pelosi and company would do the sensible thing and shut the whole fiasco down. The whole charade just looked so ridiculous, I did not think they would have the nerve to actually go through with impeaching President Trump. The reason I was thinking this is that despite the heavy liberal/progressive/leftist bias in the political reporting from your national electronic/print media in the US (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, The"Washington Post" "The New York Times") the average member of the US public had worked out that Trump wasn't getting a fair shot in the House impeachment proceedings. This, and the fact that he (Trump) was delivering for the US on the economy, on record lows in unemployment figures, on record numbers of Americans off welfare/food stamps etc; Wall Street booming, 1000s of jobs coming back to the US from abroad, a great new trade deal with Mexico and Canada signed, cutting a tariff agreement worth billions to America with China, taking action on prescription drug pricing, delivering on North Korea and getting a LOT of other important things done as well - things that make a REAL difference to everyday peoples' lives. The Democrat elite think the American public are stupid, but they're not. And when politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, "Auntie Maxine" Schumer, Nadler and their ilk are doing something that is really wrong i.e; what they have done to Trump since day one of his Presidency - relentlessly and viciously attacked him, trying, in any way they could imagine, to destroy his administration with non-stop "witch hunts" and bogus, kangaroo courts and now impeachment, the public don't like it. So, I thought that Pelosi might realise this, when th opinion polls turned against the "Schiff Show", and pull back from the edge of the abyss. But no, she didn't, and I think Nancy and the House Democrats are going to deeply regret that.


    I am not sure what will happen next in the impeachment drama. Nancy Pelosi can not withhold the Article of Impeachment from the Senate for too long. I figure that the longer she withholds them, the more political damage she is liable to suffer. Ideally, on a personal note, when the impeachment process eventually goes to trial in the Senate, I would love see Trump have: Joe Biden; Hunter Biden; Adam Schiff and a few other bad eggs called as witnesses !! That would be sweet !!

    Dachshund
    Last edited by Dachshynddawg; 12-20-2019 at 12:07 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Dachshynddawg For This Post:

    Flanders (12-20-2019)

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    5,757
    Thanks
    3,941
    Thanked 3,338 Times in 2,286 Posts
    Groans
    827
    Groaned 633 Times in 549 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Charoite For This Post:

    Trumpet (12-22-2019)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    5,757
    Thanks
    3,941
    Thanked 3,338 Times in 2,286 Posts
    Groans
    827
    Groaned 633 Times in 549 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default


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

    Trumpet (12-22-2019)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The Trump supporters are just incandescent.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,923
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 24,835 Times in 17,266 Posts
    Groans
    5,349
    Groaned 4,601 Times in 4,278 Posts

    Default

    Rightys have moved from weird right-wing beliefs to sheer insanity. What does Hillary have to do with this impeachment? Not a fucking thing. The Reds have investigated her a dozen times and came up empty. Now she needs protection? From what.right-wing stupidity? We all do.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Nordberg For This Post:

    Trumpet (12-22-2019)

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    42,254
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,245 Times in 13,970 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,056 Times in 2,851 Posts

    Default

    They just can't get over their Hillary obsession, kinda sad how three plus years and she still defines them

    Also got to love the long rants off of right wing blog sites that Trumpkins copy and paste post as if they actually meant something, as if the whole world was talk radio

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6,560
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 2,936 Times in 2,054 Posts
    Groans
    852
    Groaned 948 Times in 862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Pelosi & Company took it on the lam:

    The developments Thursday as Congress left town mean that the step of sending the impeachment articles to the Senate could wait until the week of January 6, when the House reconvenes. Pelosi has said that the resolution to name impeachment managers needs to be approved before the articles could be transmitted. And she’s said that she needs to understand what the Senate trial will look like before naming the House managers who will prosecute the case before the senators.

    Pelosi is stalling until she knows what John Dunham’s Report says:

    Pelosi was careful Thursday not to say at her news conference that Democrats must get a “fair” trial before transmitting the articles. That’s a different tone than Wednesday night when Pelosi suggested that they needed to have a fair trial before deciding whether to submit the articles to the Senate.

    McConnell says Senate trial talks at ‘impasse’ as Congress leaves town
    Posted 6:19 pm, December 19, 2019,
    by CNN Wire

    https://wreg.com/2019/12/19/mcconnel...s-leaves-town/

    Diarrhea Mouth will never send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate if Dunham’s Report says Hillary Clinton can be indicted for the Steele Dossier:
    Not Dunham. Oh no not that. After the super duper Horowitz report how can it get any worse? Save the Dems from these investigations. Do the Reds have another double-secret guaranteed one that will jail everyone on the planet not named Trump. I remember the trouble of getting through the Barr investigation, Wasn't that powerful? The Reds never run out of them. Maybe they should ask Zelensky for another one.

  14. #10 | 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 jimmymccready View Post
    The Trump supporters are just incandescent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Rightys have moved from weird right-wing beliefs to sheer insanity. What does Hillary have to do with this impeachment? Not a fucking thing. The Reds have investigated her a dozen times and came up empty. Now she needs protection? From what.right-wing stupidity? We all do.
    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    They just can't get over their Hillary obsession, kinda sad how three plus years and she still defines them

    Also got to love the long rants off of right wing blog sites that Trumpkins copy and paste post as if they actually meant something, as if the whole world was talk radio
    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Diarrhea Mouth will never send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate if Dunham’s Report says Hillary Clinton can be indicted for the Steele Dossier:
    To jimmymccready, Nordberg & archives: If they do not get her for the Steele Dossier they can get her for:

    The case involves Clinton's abuse of classified information while she was secretary of state and the Benghazi scandal in which four Americans were killed by terrorists.

    Will Hillary be cross-examined on emails, Benghazi?
    Judge delays ruling in lawsuit probing scandals
    WND Staff By WND Staff
    Published December 20, 2019 at 8:14pm

    https://www.wnd.com/2019/12/will-hil...ails-benghazi/



    https://www.judicialwatch.org/videos...issing-emails/
    Last edited by Flanders; 12-21-2019 at 06:52 AM.
    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

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    WND? Enough said. Hillary is Snow White when compared to Trump.
    Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.


  16. #12 | 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 Gonzomin View Post
    Not Dunham. Oh no not that.
    To Gonzomin: Who will tell you what to think after the NY Times goes belly up? Better yet, after nearly a century of selling garbage the NY Times’ political agenda is finally circling the drain:


    New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty

    https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes...alter-duranty/

    After the Times is gone the Washington Post is the only thing your kind have left, and that rag is only read by federal government swamp creatures!

    Ho-hum. So, are you getting tired of all this WINNING yet? No? What’s it gonna take? – Every major stock market index – The Dow, NASDAQ and S&P 500 – once again achieved all-time record high closings on Thursday. For the NASDAQ, it was the 7th consecutive day of record closings. Not even the Democrats’ impeachment sham or the prospect of a doom and gloom Democrat debate could put this booming economy and market off the rails.

    This is epic, folks – we haven’t seen anything like this since the previous truly great American president – Ronald Reagan – held office. Enjoy the WINNING while you have it. It’s been an all-too rare thing in U.S. history.

    The walls of John Durham’s investigation continue closing in on the Coup Cabal. – The New York Times, carrying out its role as water toady for the Deep State, published a piece on Thursday based on leaks from the usual anonymous source, a source whose name is most likely John Brennan. That’s an easy guess since the piece details efforts by U.S. Attorney John Durham to acquire the phone, digital and written communications of…wait for it…John Brennan.

    Oh. As reported by Daily Wire:


    Durham has “requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry,” The New York Times reported. “He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including [Hillary Clintom] the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.”

    That’s from the second paragraph of the piece. In the very next paragraph, the Democrat activists at the Times add the standard language designed to protect seditious scumbags like Brennan by smearing Attorney General William Barr:


    Mr. Durham’s pursuit of Mr. Brennan’s records is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies. The president has long attacked Mr. Brennan as part of his narrative about a so-called deep state cabal of Obama administration officials who tried to sabotage his campaign, and Mr. Trump has held out Mr. Durham’s investigation as a potential avenue for proving those claims.

    Yes, it is “certain to add to accusations,” mainly because the New York Times will be the first to level those accusations. See how this works?

    Two paragraphs later, the Times gives you this little gem:

    The people familiar with Mr. Durham’s inquiry stressed that it was continuing and it was not clear what crimes, if any, he had uncovered. Representatives for Mr. Brennan and the Justice Department declined to comment.

    Guess who the “people famliar with Mr. Durham’s inquiry” are? If you said John Brennan, the target, you win the prize. Mr. Brennan is intimately familiar with this aspect of the Durham investigation since he was already interviewed by Durham a few months ago, and has no doubt been receiving frequent communications from Durham’s staff ever since. This isn’t reporting the Times is doing – it’s stenography for the Deep State.

    The very next paragraph just proves this point:


    Defenders of Mr. Brennan have long maintained he did nothing wrong and properly sounded the alarm on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and he told MSNBC this fall that he would answer Mr. Durham’s questions if asked.

    The “Defenders of Mr. Brennan” here are…Mr. Brennan. Bingo. Deep State/Media propaganda 101.

    And if that paragraph didn’t make this little seditious game blatantly obvious enough, the very next paragraph delivers the money quote from…John Brennan:

    “I feel good about what it is we did as an intelligence community, and I feel very confident and comfortable with what I did, so I have no qualms whatsoever about talking with investigators who are going to be looking at this in a fair and appropriate manner,” Mr. Brennan said.

    Folks, they aren’t even trying to hide their Deep State toady activities anymore. It’s a wonder the Times hasn’t just given Brennan a contributor’s contract like the one he has with MSNBC and just assigned him to overtly write his own PR pieces on their front page, rather than maintain the tissue-thin pretense that some journalist hack is actually doing “reporting” for these propaganda pieces.

    At least that would be an honest approach, but then again, it would be the only honest thing in the entire publication.



    That is all.

    John Durham is Closing in on the Coup Cabal and the New York Times is Panicking
    December 20, 2019 by David Blackmon 26 Comments
    Today’s Campaign Update
    (Because The Campaign Never Ends)

    https://dbdailyupdate.com/index.php/...-is-panicking/

    Finally, John Brennan’s emails is the link to Hillary Clinton:



    Disconnect the link and the rest of the chain is useless.
    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

  17. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,923
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 24,835 Times in 17,266 Posts
    Groans
    5,349
    Groaned 4,601 Times in 4,278 Posts

    Default

    Flanders has no ability to evaluate right-wing insane charges. He buys them all and parrots the craziness for our reading pleasure. Can he really believe that crazy shit? It must be scary to see conspiracies everywhere.
    Who is more honest Trump or Hillary? How about Trump v Obama. We have a guy in the Whitehouse with no respect for the law and he plays distraction. Look the other way. Look at Hillary. Look at Steele. Just don't look at Russia, Ukraine and Trump.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Nordberg For This Post:

    Tranquillus in Exile (12-23-2019)

  19. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,923
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 24,835 Times in 17,266 Posts
    Groans
    5,349
    Groaned 4,601 Times in 4,278 Posts

    Default

    The Fusion investigation into Trump, known as oppo research, was started and paid for by Republicans. When Trump won the nomination, the rightys abandoned it. The Dems picked it up. Fusion hired Steele because he was a former Brit agent specializing in Russia. The connections between Trumpy and Russians were clear and worrisome. They hired a pro. he provided raw data with no conclusions. Hillary had squat to do with any of it. The Dems paid for it. Most of Steele's data has been shown to be factual. Exactly how can Hillary go to jail for any of that? Reds are cracking up.
    Last edited by Nordberg; 12-21-2019 at 02:21 PM.

  20. #15 | 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

    splendiferous (adjective)

    Splendid: “The working genius of American design has been . . . a refining of utilitarian purity into a kind of splendiferous native simplicity” (Jay Cocks).


    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    They just can't get over their Hillary obsession,
    To archives: I call it a splendiferous obsession.





    To me it looks like she is wearing the top part of the clown costume the fat lady in the circus wears when she fills in for the regular clown:




    Hillary Clinton looked like hell wrapped in a blue polka dot tent.

    Thank God this woman is not president!

    What is She Wearing? Hillary Clinton Praises Pelosi’s Sham Impeachment During Book Tour – Wrapped in a Blue Polka Dot Tent (VIDEO)
    by Cristina Laila
    December 21, 2019

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ot-tent-video/
    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. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2019, 08:29 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-09-2019, 02:27 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-17-2018, 08:10 PM
  4. Did Sanders Back Hillary to Protect Jane?
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-16-2017, 01:31 PM
  5. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 05-07-2017, 10:22 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
  •