Comment:
This leads to the question of who runs the world? The idiots or geniuses? People might get fooled into believing the blowhard really knows what he/she is talking about, but in fact, the blowhard is just an idiot.
An example that comes to mind is AOC.
"Man's gotta to know his limitations."
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, November 9, 2019
Magic words may lose their power to cast spells
Comment:
It seems that the impeachment warriors have some favorite words and phrases that they like to trot out when they are needed. One of them is "truth". Others are "democracy", "rule of law" and "nobody is above the law". These words and phrases are like magical incantations which will bring them luck in the next election, or so they believe.
Do the words have power when there's nothing behind the words?
So here we have a pattern emerging with Blasey-Ford and Ciarmarella. These two have scrubbed their media footprints before they launched their offensives. Their defenders speak the magic words in order to cast their spells upon the public. But there's a problem.
If truth is your objective, then why hide the truth? Why do you need to scrub your past?
The tweet with the link below goes on to say that the Democrats may lose what credibility that they have left. Hmm. I wonder about that one. Why should they have any credibility at all? All of this has happened before. Why doesn't the public wise up to these shenanigans?
It seems that the impeachment warriors have some favorite words and phrases that they like to trot out when they are needed. One of them is "truth". Others are "democracy", "rule of law" and "nobody is above the law". These words and phrases are like magical incantations which will bring them luck in the next election, or so they believe.
Do the words have power when there's nothing behind the words?
So here we have a pattern emerging with Blasey-Ford and Ciarmarella. These two have scrubbed their media footprints before they launched their offensives. Their defenders speak the magic words in order to cast their spells upon the public. But there's a problem.
If truth is your objective, then why hide the truth? Why do you need to scrub your past?
The tweet with the link below goes on to say that the Democrats may lose what credibility that they have left. Hmm. I wonder about that one. Why should they have any credibility at all? All of this has happened before. Why doesn't the public wise up to these shenanigans?
"Truth" squad's secrets: SCRUB-A-DUB-DUB: Did the whistleblower scrub his social media footprint before filing his complaint?… https://t.co/isCA1JLAvC— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 9, 2019
Friday, November 8, 2019
Impeachment follies
Comment:
Are they serious about this impeachment? This is a joke.
Are they serious about this impeachment? This is a joke.
It appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her “impeachment inquiry” deposition under oath. https://t.co/2Ju420Pkpb pic.twitter.com/WACsyksMzW— Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) November 8, 2019
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Seems right to me
Comment:
A "red flag" about the FBI informants used in the FISA application process in 2016 election.
One problem not mentioned in the Solomon piece is the claim that the DNC was hacked, when it almost certainly was not. The FBI depended upon second hand information, also known as hearsay, for its determination that the DNC was hacked. Subsequent forensic examination disputes the hack conclusion, and supports the theory that the emails were stolen as a result of an inside job.
If the emails weren't hacked, there is no there there. The deeper you did into this, the real scandal is how this Russian collusion hoax was all made up bravo sierra.
Hopefully that is what they'll find out and report soon. Otherwise, the swamp will stay as swampy as ever.
A "red flag" about the FBI informants used in the FISA application process in 2016 election.
One problem not mentioned in the Solomon piece is the claim that the DNC was hacked, when it almost certainly was not. The FBI depended upon second hand information, also known as hearsay, for its determination that the DNC was hacked. Subsequent forensic examination disputes the hack conclusion, and supports the theory that the emails were stolen as a result of an inside job.
If the emails weren't hacked, there is no there there. The deeper you did into this, the real scandal is how this Russian collusion hoax was all made up bravo sierra.
Hopefully that is what they'll find out and report soon. Otherwise, the swamp will stay as swampy as ever.
Sources tell me DOJ IG has forthcoming report identifying concerns with FBI handling of infomants like Christopher Steele. Talking soon to @seanhannity on @foxnews about this breaking story. https://t.co/l95XgXtKF4— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 7, 2019
Good job
Comment:
Ah, but this isn't allowed according to the rules that were in place before the Donald showed up. So-called conservatives were to be seen but not heard. It was all supposed to be "presidential". ( my ass) By the way, when "Dubya" was in the White House, people were practically begging him to fight back.
So Don, Jr. gives 'em hell. Good job.
Ah, but this isn't allowed according to the rules that were in place before the Donald showed up. So-called conservatives were to be seen but not heard. It was all supposed to be "presidential". ( my ass) By the way, when "Dubya" was in the White House, people were practically begging him to fight back.
So Don, Jr. gives 'em hell. Good job.
Heck yes, @DonaldJTrumpJr! https://t.co/qRvVdjuGLy— Erin Perrine (@ErinMPerrine) November 7, 2019
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Flynn wanted to audit the spooks
Comment:
A motive to frame Flynn--- he wanted to audit the intelligence community.
How many of them would survive such an audit?
woof.
A motive to frame Flynn--- he wanted to audit the intelligence community.
How many of them would survive such an audit?
woof.
🔴 LIVE: https://t.co/itOoNHIyjA— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) November 5, 2019
“After Trump won… [@GenFlynn] was talking about auditing the intelligence community… We see therefore how important it was… to get Flynn out of the way.”
@LeeSmithDC, author of “The Plot Against the President," on American Thought Leaders🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/0ouTLamms5
Hanging by thread to sanity
Comment:
The so-called impeachment inquiry does not interest me anymore. Anybody with a brain should figure out that it is total b.s.
I found this video that was worth posting. The reason is that it shows how nutty these people really are. Not to mention how big of a liar they are. Somebody out there said that Hillary really didn't say what she said. Liars.
The thing that shows how nutty was the part that Hillary said that Tulsi Gabbard was being groomed somehow by the Russians. This is really sick, sick shit you people. What's even worse is that Joy Behar is defending this sick shit.
Look, I know that Behar is nutty, but this is so far off the in the weeds that it would seem that she would just shut the f**k up and let Tulsi say her piece and let it go.
What a bunch of sick puppies these people are. They could spend the rest of their lives in psychotherapy and not scratch the surface of what their problems are.
Not to defend Tulsi Gabbard here. She is almost sane. But that doesn't speak well of her either.
The so-called impeachment inquiry does not interest me anymore. Anybody with a brain should figure out that it is total b.s.
I found this video that was worth posting. The reason is that it shows how nutty these people really are. Not to mention how big of a liar they are. Somebody out there said that Hillary really didn't say what she said. Liars.
The thing that shows how nutty was the part that Hillary said that Tulsi Gabbard was being groomed somehow by the Russians. This is really sick, sick shit you people. What's even worse is that Joy Behar is defending this sick shit.
Look, I know that Behar is nutty, but this is so far off the in the weeds that it would seem that she would just shut the f**k up and let Tulsi say her piece and let it go.
What a bunch of sick puppies these people are. They could spend the rest of their lives in psychotherapy and not scratch the surface of what their problems are.
Not to defend Tulsi Gabbard here. She is almost sane. But that doesn't speak well of her either.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Halper-Trubikov connection
Comment:
You may recall the Kavalec memos, in which Christopher Steele mentions Trubikov. Bongino discusses how Trubikov has Stefan Halper connections, which may lead to an "explosive" revelation.
You may recall the Kavalec memos, in which Christopher Steele mentions Trubikov. Bongino discusses how Trubikov has Stefan Halper connections, which may lead to an "explosive" revelation.
Don Surber: Trump expands his base
Don Surber: Trump expands his base: Jonathan Chait of the New York magazine and Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner are worlds apart politically. The former hates Presiden...
Comment:
There's not a whole lot to write about impeachment anymore. So, what does the election look like when it is one year out?
There was a comment which stated that the "public" polls are unreliable, but the internal polls were more reliable. The comment also said that the internal polls were more expensive.
Could it be that the polls are unreliable because they are cheap? Or that they are being used to make the news as opposed to reporting the news? I think that the latter is a valid reason for inaccuracy.
The polls are useless if they have the sample sizes wrong. This could be done "accidentally on purpose" in order to produce a desired result. Those cases would be the ones that attempt to make the news.
Then there was the Rasmussen poll were recently stated that a certain percentage of Democrats tend to favor Trump more than other Democrats. This could really skew the results. How to determine the sample sizes?
I could see how an accurate poll could entail extensive research in order to get the sample sizes right, and therefore a meaningful result. In other words, the polls should be taken with a grain of salt.
Comment:
There's not a whole lot to write about impeachment anymore. So, what does the election look like when it is one year out?
There was a comment which stated that the "public" polls are unreliable, but the internal polls were more reliable. The comment also said that the internal polls were more expensive.
Could it be that the polls are unreliable because they are cheap? Or that they are being used to make the news as opposed to reporting the news? I think that the latter is a valid reason for inaccuracy.
The polls are useless if they have the sample sizes wrong. This could be done "accidentally on purpose" in order to produce a desired result. Those cases would be the ones that attempt to make the news.
Then there was the Rasmussen poll were recently stated that a certain percentage of Democrats tend to favor Trump more than other Democrats. This could really skew the results. How to determine the sample sizes?
I could see how an accurate poll could entail extensive research in order to get the sample sizes right, and therefore a meaningful result. In other words, the polls should be taken with a grain of salt.
Monday, November 4, 2019
Don't take this faux impeachment lying down.
Comment:
6:45 pm:
It may not be much, but I signed a petition recently denouncing this Democrat Star Chamber in the dungeon crap. The Senate has 50 co-sponsors of a resolution against this garbage the last I heard.
Today I sent some emails out on my own. It isn't much, but it is something. If you don't like this garbage, I suggest you do something concrete about it. If this stuff backfired on them, maybe they would be discouraged enough to stop trying to gain something from frauds like this.
11:45 am:
Obviously, I think there is a remedy. You could expand upon what the Senate has already done.
A petition should be sent to Chief Justice Roberts. Point out that he, as presiding judge, can rule out all "evidence" obtained from the Star Chamber in the Dungeon, a dismiss the case with prejudice.
Maybe that is asking too much, but it is better than saying nothing can be done.
6:45 pm:
It may not be much, but I signed a petition recently denouncing this Democrat Star Chamber in the dungeon crap. The Senate has 50 co-sponsors of a resolution against this garbage the last I heard.
Today I sent some emails out on my own. It isn't much, but it is something. If you don't like this garbage, I suggest you do something concrete about it. If this stuff backfired on them, maybe they would be discouraged enough to stop trying to gain something from frauds like this.
11:45 am:
Obviously, I think there is a remedy. You could expand upon what the Senate has already done.
A petition should be sent to Chief Justice Roberts. Point out that he, as presiding judge, can rule out all "evidence" obtained from the Star Chamber in the Dungeon, a dismiss the case with prejudice.
Maybe that is asking too much, but it is better than saying nothing can be done.
Is there no remedy for unconstitutional bill of attainder, aka "impeachement"? Doing the Impeachment Math https://t.co/ZZYuiIdKvG— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 4, 2019
Burisma pressed US officials to end corruption allegations
Comment:
This article shows Hunter Biden's Burisma sought help from the US State Dept in ending corruption investigation. Then Vice President Joe Biden strong-arms the Ukrainians in dropping the case shortly after.
That convinces me. We should impeach John Solomon for writing this.
This article shows Hunter Biden's Burisma sought help from the US State Dept in ending corruption investigation. Then Vice President Joe Biden strong-arms the Ukrainians in dropping the case shortly after.
That convinces me. We should impeach John Solomon for writing this.
Breaking: Memos detailing Hunter Biden's contacts with Obama State Department released. VP son's Ukrainian gas firm pressed US officials to end corruption allegations ... just a month before Joe Biden forced firing of prosecutor overseeing case.https://t.co/APtdGUrnxn— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 4, 2019
Sure seems slow today
So I heard the Cinnamon Girl on the radio today ( or yesterday or whenever ). I also heard or saw that there was an exchange of insults. For what? I looked into it, and it appears to be nothing.
An idea! The impeachment is about nothing. Maybe they should impeach Seinfeld.
On the other hand, these guys should just stick to music.
An idea! The impeachment is about nothing. Maybe they should impeach Seinfeld.
Seinfeld argument ( about nothing) :Ted Nugent and David Crosby Exchange Insults After White House Visit https://t.co/lb0aSaITme @UltClassicRock— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 4, 2019
On the other hand, these guys should just stick to music.
Would an impeachment on political grounds only be an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder?
Comment:
11.4.19:
A bill of attainder may be argued as a normal bill requiring Senate approval and a POTUS signature, or a vote to over-ride a veto.
However, an idea occurred to me that you can argue that impeachment is a bill too. Since the House has sole power of impeachment, the other two requirements are not needed. If the House is like a Grand Jury, then Grand Juries can return indictments or a "nobill". If no indictment is returned, then there is "no bill", right? So, an indictment is a bill. In the case of impeachment then, it is a bill. If it is a bill which is solely partisan and without due process, then it can be argued that it is a bill of attainder. In which case, the presiding judge ( Chief Justice ) in case of impeachment trials, can rule as much and dismiss the case.
Since the Senate has already voted that it is an unlawful process, it would strengthen the hand that the case should be dismissed out of hand. It is a bill of attainder unless it satisfies the procedure set forth by the Constitution. It cannot be a merely political process, which some of these people seem to be arguing.
11.3.19:
Interesting question. If the Chief Justice decides that it is, he could dismiss the case out of hand. But will Chief Justice Roberts do that?
I wouldn't count on it, nor count it out.
The argument seems to be that an actual crime has to be specified. If they can't or won't, then it is a Bill of Attainder and unconstitutional.
11.4.19:
A bill of attainder may be argued as a normal bill requiring Senate approval and a POTUS signature, or a vote to over-ride a veto.
However, an idea occurred to me that you can argue that impeachment is a bill too. Since the House has sole power of impeachment, the other two requirements are not needed. If the House is like a Grand Jury, then Grand Juries can return indictments or a "nobill". If no indictment is returned, then there is "no bill", right? So, an indictment is a bill. In the case of impeachment then, it is a bill. If it is a bill which is solely partisan and without due process, then it can be argued that it is a bill of attainder. In which case, the presiding judge ( Chief Justice ) in case of impeachment trials, can rule as much and dismiss the case.
Since the Senate has already voted that it is an unlawful process, it would strengthen the hand that the case should be dismissed out of hand. It is a bill of attainder unless it satisfies the procedure set forth by the Constitution. It cannot be a merely political process, which some of these people seem to be arguing.
11.3.19:
Interesting question. If the Chief Justice decides that it is, he could dismiss the case out of hand. But will Chief Justice Roberts do that?
I wouldn't count on it, nor count it out.
The argument seems to be that an actual crime has to be specified. If they can't or won't, then it is a Bill of Attainder and unconstitutional.
COMMENTARY: Impeachment of Trump would be an unconstitutional attainder https://t.co/CB7Gm6Bu3L via @newsintheburg— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 3, 2019
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Questions
A few questions for those who may be interested:
- If Trump abused power with the Ukraine thing, then why didn't Obama abuse power for the Russian thing?
- Again, if Trump is abusing power, then why are his accusers any less so for wanting to impeach him?
- If process isn't important, and this isn't a criminal trial, then why not say that politics is the one and only reason for impeaching Trump?
- If the argument is that Trump really did violate the law, then why can't he have due process?
- If it is all political, and Trump's accusers want to preserve democracy, then why can't the people see what they are doing? Shouldn't the people be informed of all of the facts so the people can decide? Isn't that what Trump's accusers are saying? If so, then why the secrecy?
- If it all comes down to "my truth", then why the hell should anybody care about anybody else's "truth"? In short, if it is all about the Trump's accusers' truth, then why should conservatives and Trump supporter give a hoot about what his accusers think? And vice versa?
- If the above isn't true, then why all the disrespect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)