Comment:
11.16.19:
4:15 pm:
I watched this again--- no, I STUDIED it. Yes. This requires attention and STUDY. Why? Well, it is complicated. Names are thrown out there, but there is one thing, just one thing that you might get out of this if you get nothing else.
THE FRICKIN' MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY IS CORRUPT AS HELL.
There. I said it.
1:10 pm:
This is the post in which Beck outlined what was testified ( falsely ) to yesterday. Yep. Yovanovitch was lying her butt off.
The scared mousey act was to play up the emotions while obfuscating the facts. Trump's tweet was the icing on the cake as far as they were concerned. It is how they played up Trump as the bad guy while they were trying to screw him. They were doing it in 2016 and they are doing it again.
Trump is threatening to expose them, and so far they are probably succeeding up to a point. But a Rassmussen poll shows that they aren't fooling the majority. Most in that poll think the press is trying to help out the Democrats with impeachment. At any rate, the Dems are sitting on top of a 10 megaton nuke that will vaporize their plans if it blows. It just might.
10.11.19:
Glenn Beck discusses the history of the scandal, and the scandal doesn't belong to Trump.
However, the odds of the average knucklehead ever learning about this, are zero. Why? Because they listen to the liars in the media. Is Beck a liar too? Well, I tell you what. Those who criticize the powers that be are not the ones telling you what you can and cannot say. The left does that.
Maybe I'm selling the average knucklehead short. But I don't think so. The average knucklehead is a knucklehead because the powers that be want him to be a knucklehead. The average knucklehead just wants to go about his business. He cannot be bothered to ever look into matters such as this. After all, he has a job, and a life.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, it has been said. Here is an object lesson that proves how true that really is.
Note: Glenn Beck did not seem friendly to Trump, if memory serves. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Those who call themselves Democrats should reflect upon what their party is doing to them. In short their party is dragging them into a massive conspiracy which is intended to defraud the public out of its own freedom and position within our own country. Don't be a knucklehead. At least ask some questions that the leadership of the Democrat Party doesn't seem to want to answer.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
The "do not prosecute" lists are really a thing
Comment:
The Dems will claim that it has been debunked, but this debunks the debunking.
By the way, she seems to be rather mousey here. In the transcripts, they told her many times to speak louder or move up closer to the mic.
Part two of this demonstrates that Ms. Yovanovitch was being a bit disingenuous. The little mousey ambassador didn't do a Blasey-Ford, instead, she does a rather mousey routine where she isn't exactly telling the truth. She isn't "intimidated" by Trump's tweets. It's all an act, I suspect. Somebody who lies like this isn't a frightened person.
This got by me yesterday, but I do remember some of the names that were bandied about when I read through the transcripts. I got bored again, as with the first "witness" on Wednesday. The thing is, I heard this before from Beck, and I had forgotten the names. Shame on me.
Why didn't the GOP nail her on it? Schiff wouldn't let them. He controlled the process.
The Dems will claim that it has been debunked, but this debunks the debunking.
By the way, she seems to be rather mousey here. In the transcripts, they told her many times to speak louder or move up closer to the mic.
Part two of this demonstrates that Ms. Yovanovitch was being a bit disingenuous. The little mousey ambassador didn't do a Blasey-Ford, instead, she does a rather mousey routine where she isn't exactly telling the truth. She isn't "intimidated" by Trump's tweets. It's all an act, I suspect. Somebody who lies like this isn't a frightened person.
This got by me yesterday, but I do remember some of the names that were bandied about when I read through the transcripts. I got bored again, as with the first "witness" on Wednesday. The thing is, I heard this before from Beck, and I had forgotten the names. Shame on me.
Why didn't the GOP nail her on it? Schiff wouldn't let them. He controlled the process.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Unserious times and unserious people
Comment:
But they are serious about their unseriousness. Seriously. Not a laughing matter. Seriously.
But they are serious about their unseriousness. Seriously. Not a laughing matter. Seriously.
In July, 95 Democrats voted to impeach Trump over mean tweets about "The Squad." These are unserious times, and we are led by laughably unserious people. https://t.co/aXiRIsECil— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 15, 2019
Yovanovitch supports foreign efforts to meddle in our elections?
Comment:
A good point, but it would be useful to see the video of that.
I think I saw something of what he meant. She didn't get the question and had to have it repeated.
It was a long question all right, but she didn't seem to get the point of what he was saying.
A good point, but it would be useful to see the video of that.
I think I saw something of what he meant. She didn't get the question and had to have it repeated.
It was a long question all right, but she didn't seem to get the point of what he was saying.
Jim Jordan just got Yovanovitch, who's clearly a left-wing partisan, to admit she didn't do a single thing to prevent Ukrainian officials from meddling in our election in 2016. Her demeanor made it clear she did nothing because she supported foreign efforts to damage Trump.— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 15, 2019
Yovanovitch testimony today
Update:
7 pm:
After the testimony, the one thing that seems to get some focus is that Trump tweeted some criticism of Yovanovitch while she was still testifying.
They think this is the big deal, and not what she actually had to say today. Should tell you a lot.
9:00 am:
This latest Schiff-show features another one of their witnesses who wasn't a party to the July 25th Trump-Zelensky call. I'm sure she has plenty more hearsay she can offer. Hearsay is better than eyewitness testimony these days, or so I heard. Seems like Judge Judy didn't like it much the one time I watched her show. They must have higher standards there in Washington DC. Judge Judy should take notes.
Wikipedia reads like the New York Times with the Yovanovitch background. Did the Times buy out Wikipedia or something? Even Wikipedia gives some information that may raise some eyebrows if that is possible amongst some folks. She denied a visa to Shokin, who is the guy that Biden was bragging about firing in his infamous video. Seems to me that somebody doesn't want Shokin to speak in the open in an American setting. What is so scary about Shokin? Does he have anything to say which the Dems don't want Americans to hear? The denial of a visa to Shokin and the subsequent dismissal of Yovanovitch may be an issue we hear about today. Sounds pretty gruesome to me.
Wikipedia says a few things that seem to contradict what I have been reading. I suppose I have been reading a lot of conspiracy theories, at least according to this authoritative source. Not that Wikipedia would do such a thing as spreading conspiracy theories. No sir.
7 pm:
After the testimony, the one thing that seems to get some focus is that Trump tweeted some criticism of Yovanovitch while she was still testifying.
They think this is the big deal, and not what she actually had to say today. Should tell you a lot.
9:00 am:
This latest Schiff-show features another one of their witnesses who wasn't a party to the July 25th Trump-Zelensky call. I'm sure she has plenty more hearsay she can offer. Hearsay is better than eyewitness testimony these days, or so I heard. Seems like Judge Judy didn't like it much the one time I watched her show. They must have higher standards there in Washington DC. Judge Judy should take notes.
Wikipedia reads like the New York Times with the Yovanovitch background. Did the Times buy out Wikipedia or something? Even Wikipedia gives some information that may raise some eyebrows if that is possible amongst some folks. She denied a visa to Shokin, who is the guy that Biden was bragging about firing in his infamous video. Seems to me that somebody doesn't want Shokin to speak in the open in an American setting. What is so scary about Shokin? Does he have anything to say which the Dems don't want Americans to hear? The denial of a visa to Shokin and the subsequent dismissal of Yovanovitch may be an issue we hear about today. Sounds pretty gruesome to me.
Wikipedia says a few things that seem to contradict what I have been reading. I suppose I have been reading a lot of conspiracy theories, at least according to this authoritative source. Not that Wikipedia would do such a thing as spreading conspiracy theories. No sir.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Impeachment inquiry, the day after
It seems that there were no further hearings today. So what happened yesterday?
The reason I stopped reading through the Kent testimony was that it was too slow-paced. If there's something there, they should be able to get to the core of it fast enough. I don't have the inclination to read hundreds of pages of testimony. I would gather that few people would have the patience for that.
So I held back and waited to hear what was said about it. It appears that the first day of testimony was a negative for the Dems.
They had better up their game big time or the next day of this stuff will sap the patience of just about everybody left who bothers with this stuff.
I hear that it is Yovanovitch tomorrow. Some are saying she should do a Blasey-Ford and start crying. If she does, it is over for these guys. A repeat of Blasey-Ford will be a 10 megaton nuke on this thing and it should be deader than a doornail.
But it isn't dead yet. When the fat lady sings, it will be over. Or if the lady cries it will be over. Either way, it is bad.
The reason I stopped reading through the Kent testimony was that it was too slow-paced. If there's something there, they should be able to get to the core of it fast enough. I don't have the inclination to read hundreds of pages of testimony. I would gather that few people would have the patience for that.
So I held back and waited to hear what was said about it. It appears that the first day of testimony was a negative for the Dems.
They had better up their game big time or the next day of this stuff will sap the patience of just about everybody left who bothers with this stuff.
I hear that it is Yovanovitch tomorrow. Some are saying she should do a Blasey-Ford and start crying. If she does, it is over for these guys. A repeat of Blasey-Ford will be a 10 megaton nuke on this thing and it should be deader than a doornail.
But it isn't dead yet. When the fat lady sings, it will be over. Or if the lady cries it will be over. Either way, it is bad.
Media centers are a big power source for Dems
This isn't anything new to most observers. But the advantage in California is outsized by a lot. There are 46 Democrats in the California delegation to Congress. The GOP only has 7. This is pretty hard to make up.
Texas is considered pretty red, but it is still significantly smaller than California, and the margin isn't nearly as big as California's. Texas' GOP numbers lead 23-13 over the Dems. Plus 39 v. plus 10 isn't a fair fight.
New York is a media center too. If you count nearby New Jersey in the mix, you lose all the advantage of Texas in terms of how many members of Congress.
The media has an outsized advantage all over the country. Most people live in the cities, and most of these cities vote Democrat. That's true in Texas as well. The media and mass population centers seem to go together. New York, New Jersey, and California account for 78 of the Democrat delegation in Congress, which about one-third of their entire number. About one-fifth of all Americans live in these three states.
Texas is considered pretty red, but it is still significantly smaller than California, and the margin isn't nearly as big as California's. Texas' GOP numbers lead 23-13 over the Dems. Plus 39 v. plus 10 isn't a fair fight.
New York is a media center too. If you count nearby New Jersey in the mix, you lose all the advantage of Texas in terms of how many members of Congress.
The media has an outsized advantage all over the country. Most people live in the cities, and most of these cities vote Democrat. That's true in Texas as well. The media and mass population centers seem to go together. New York, New Jersey, and California account for 78 of the Democrat delegation in Congress, which about one-third of their entire number. About one-fifth of all Americans live in these three states.
Thoughts about impeachment
A few thoughts on the subject now that it is front row and center.
The change of language from Latin to English seems to be a retreat of sorts. Not a full retreat, since quid pro quo isn't necessarily illegal, but bribery and extortion is. The retreat is from reality. It would be easier to square a "something for something" deal than a corrupt deal that is plainly illegal. The one thing that is plain is that the bar got higher once the Dems asserted lawbreaking. A mere accusation of a deal doesn't seem to push the idea of impeachment as a remedy for something not plainly illegal.
They had to retreat from Latin to English in order to justify the drastic remedy of impeachment. Their retreat in the use of language made the job a lot harder as a result.
The Democrats have to square a political act with the necessity of making it a criminal act. The Constitution frowns upon the idea of plainly partisan uses of the procedure since "high crimes and misdemeanors" are to be part of the specifications for impeachment. Without these, it becomes too close to a "bill of attainder", in which disfavored persons are punished even though they may have done nothing illegal. Bills of attainder are illegal under the US Constitution. You cannot get rid of a President for merely partisan reasons.
It is also a misuse of the system in order to rein in a wayward president. First, you have to establish that the president is indeed wayward. Secondly, you have to establish with the president's supporters that the impeachment is needed in order to settle matters that may well have come undone.
Why would partisans on each side agree when there is no crime committed? Why would the president's supporters abandon him just to please his critics?
Something else is going on. The impeachment is absurd on its merits. If impeachment is being pursued for merely partisan reasons, then success doesn't seem to be its aim. If not success in removing the president, then what is the real aim? The real aim is to control their divided faction. The president's critics are divided amongst themselves on the subject of impeachment itself. Pelosi got dragged into this. She considered it a "gift" to the Republicans. Indeed, it may well unify the GOP. It may also paradoxically unite the Democrats as well. They may lose on the impeachment front, but the party will stay unified in its opposition to the president.
Consequently, the real object is not to remove the president but to win the next election.
The change of language from Latin to English seems to be a retreat of sorts. Not a full retreat, since quid pro quo isn't necessarily illegal, but bribery and extortion is. The retreat is from reality. It would be easier to square a "something for something" deal than a corrupt deal that is plainly illegal. The one thing that is plain is that the bar got higher once the Dems asserted lawbreaking. A mere accusation of a deal doesn't seem to push the idea of impeachment as a remedy for something not plainly illegal.
They had to retreat from Latin to English in order to justify the drastic remedy of impeachment. Their retreat in the use of language made the job a lot harder as a result.
The Democrats have to square a political act with the necessity of making it a criminal act. The Constitution frowns upon the idea of plainly partisan uses of the procedure since "high crimes and misdemeanors" are to be part of the specifications for impeachment. Without these, it becomes too close to a "bill of attainder", in which disfavored persons are punished even though they may have done nothing illegal. Bills of attainder are illegal under the US Constitution. You cannot get rid of a President for merely partisan reasons.
It is also a misuse of the system in order to rein in a wayward president. First, you have to establish that the president is indeed wayward. Secondly, you have to establish with the president's supporters that the impeachment is needed in order to settle matters that may well have come undone.
Why would partisans on each side agree when there is no crime committed? Why would the president's supporters abandon him just to please his critics?
Something else is going on. The impeachment is absurd on its merits. If impeachment is being pursued for merely partisan reasons, then success doesn't seem to be its aim. If not success in removing the president, then what is the real aim? The real aim is to control their divided faction. The president's critics are divided amongst themselves on the subject of impeachment itself. Pelosi got dragged into this. She considered it a "gift" to the Republicans. Indeed, it may well unify the GOP. It may also paradoxically unite the Democrats as well. They may lose on the impeachment front, but the party will stay unified in its opposition to the president.
Consequently, the real object is not to remove the president but to win the next election.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
The eyes have it
Comment:
One of these days, his eyes are going to pop out.
One of these days, his eyes are going to pop out.
Schiff is like Pinocchio, but instead of his nose growing, it's his eyeballs that get bigger, rounder, wider. Quite interesting. https://t.co/ssf0hgfM3L— MorningCovfefe⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@preppygardener) November 14, 2019
The Real Ukraine Controversy
Comment:
In the 100 pages of the Kent testimony today that I read, the name of the reporter named John Solomon came up. As if to respond to that, Solomon has this to say. (see tweet below)
Basically, he says that there really was a "do not prosecute list".
Incidentally, this was supposed to be an impeachment inquiry directed at Trump, not Solomon et. al.
In the 100 pages of the Kent testimony today that I read, the name of the reporter named John Solomon came up. As if to respond to that, Solomon has this to say. (see tweet below)
Basically, he says that there really was a "do not prosecute list".
Incidentally, this was supposed to be an impeachment inquiry directed at Trump, not Solomon et. al.
'The Real Ukraine Controversy': John Solomon Exposes How Rogue US Embassy Conducted Foreign Policy | Zero Hedge https://t.co/VNlb8O1pgV— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 14, 2019
Impeachment Show, Day 1
Comment:
Well everybody wants to know about the impeachment.
Don't look at me. I know nothing. I am not going to spend time watching the impeachment show on TV. I did read transcripts of Kent's testimony, or about a fourth of it. It was rather bland stuff, and I got bored pretty quickly. Not much of a show.
So, after most of a day of testimony, the reviews are coming in. Evidently, Democrats believed they did well. But the Republicans think not. Based upon that, I'd say the ball hasn't advanced very far either way.
They'll try again tomorrow, I suppose. Schiff threatens to punish anybody who out the whistleblower but he doesn't know who the whistleblower is. If somebody said the whistleblower was the fairy godmother, would Schiff ban them from the Woolsworth? If he did, how would he know if he did the right thing??? We all know Schiff wants to do the right thing because he says so.
Well everybody wants to know about the impeachment.
Don't look at me. I know nothing. I am not going to spend time watching the impeachment show on TV. I did read transcripts of Kent's testimony, or about a fourth of it. It was rather bland stuff, and I got bored pretty quickly. Not much of a show.
So, after most of a day of testimony, the reviews are coming in. Evidently, Democrats believed they did well. But the Republicans think not. Based upon that, I'd say the ball hasn't advanced very far either way.
They'll try again tomorrow, I suppose. Schiff threatens to punish anybody who out the whistleblower but he doesn't know who the whistleblower is. If somebody said the whistleblower was the fairy godmother, would Schiff ban them from the Woolsworth? If he did, how would he know if he did the right thing??? We all know Schiff wants to do the right thing because he says so.
Shady Schiff Claims he Doesn't Know Identity of "Whistleblower"— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) November 13, 2019
https://t.co/Wm777cS4R8
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Latin is just too hard
Comment:
These jokers are really straining themselves now. Evidently the term "quid pro quo" is just too hard for the public to grasp, so they say they'll use other words that are easier for dummies to understand. Trouble is extortion or bribery generally involves an exchange of monies that one receives, not what one gives. You extort a sum of money, not a non-monetary favor. Bribes are received in exchange for a favor. The only thing that Trump would get would be an investigation of Biden, not any money. The Ukrainians get the goods, but the Congress has already appropriated the money anyway.
If an investigation of Biden is the cause, the POTUS is already well within the law. There is a probable cause of a crime, for which an investigation is called for. Calling this investigation a "good" received is a very big stretch.
These jokers are really straining themselves now. Evidently the term "quid pro quo" is just too hard for the public to grasp, so they say they'll use other words that are easier for dummies to understand. Trouble is extortion or bribery generally involves an exchange of monies that one receives, not what one gives. You extort a sum of money, not a non-monetary favor. Bribes are received in exchange for a favor. The only thing that Trump would get would be an investigation of Biden, not any money. The Ukrainians get the goods, but the Congress has already appropriated the money anyway.
If an investigation of Biden is the cause, the POTUS is already well within the law. There is a probable cause of a crime, for which an investigation is called for. Calling this investigation a "good" received is a very big stretch.
Latin is hard: Democrats Shift from ‘Quid Pro Quo’ to ‘Bribery’ and ‘Extortion’ Ahead of Public Impeachment Hearings https://t.co/30bGpNgwhx via @BreitbartNews— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 12, 2019
Secret ballot in Senate?
Comment:
Why would the Senate agree to this after 50 sponsored the resolution against the Democrats' impeachment inquiry? The House has pursued Star Chamber tactics, and this would only make the dishonor complete.
This would be a 10 megaton nuke against the GOP forevermore. Who would ever trust them again after such treachery?
It would be clear that DC is irretrievably corrupt. It would be destabilizing in the extreme. It would guarantee a Democrat victory next year. Many very negative things could start happening.
Nevertheless, I could see such a thing happening.
Why would the Senate agree to this after 50 sponsored the resolution against the Democrats' impeachment inquiry? The House has pursued Star Chamber tactics, and this would only make the dishonor complete.
This would be a 10 megaton nuke against the GOP forevermore. Who would ever trust them again after such treachery?
It would be clear that DC is irretrievably corrupt. It would be destabilizing in the extreme. It would guarantee a Democrat victory next year. Many very negative things could start happening.
Nevertheless, I could see such a thing happening.
By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him.— POLITICO Magazine (@POLITICOMag) November 12, 2019
But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? https://t.co/IWTSEAWM25
Col. Vindman problem for Dems
Comment:
Their biggest problem is that they are full of crap.
Their biggest problem is that they are full of crap.
ANALYSIS: Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem https://t.co/LQSX9EJRjz— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 12, 2019
Monday, November 11, 2019
How and why identity politics could fail
Comment:
People like this woman, who can win in a deep blue state, can make a difference. Dan Bognino recommended here as a follow, but I know nothing about her. I do have her name and in a place where I can remember.
The point is that someone who doesn't follow the politically correct path can succeed in a place where it usually doesn't happen. If this became a pattern all over the nation, the identity politics model would have a problem.
People like this woman, who can win in a deep blue state, can make a difference. Dan Bognino recommended here as a follow, but I know nothing about her. I do have her name and in a place where I can remember.
The point is that someone who doesn't follow the politically correct path can succeed in a place where it usually doesn't happen. If this became a pattern all over the nation, the identity politics model would have a problem.
Looking for a fantastic follow? @roxyndebumadu just beat the deep blue Maryland Democrat machine in the deepest of Blue, Prince George’s County, MD. She ran as a Republican and won in an enormous upset. Please follow this Patriot a she shakes up a deep blue state. pic.twitter.com/dnh9KqfcJP— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) November 10, 2019
Health tip
The main feature is at the end. It is a drink that is supposed to help clean out your arteries.
Impeachment for Dummies
Comment:
11.11.19:
Or aka "How can you be so stupid?". "I've got this fella helping me."
11.10.19:
Washington DC is so out-of-control that they need some instruction. Normally the books on how-to do certain things are called "for dummies", which means one needs some instruction. These dummies are in dire need of same.
This "impeachment for dummies" could be a book about how not to do impeachments.
The GOP has a great opportunity here if the Dems go full blown dummies and impeach this president. But the GOP's reaction could also make it in the book if they don't.
Imagine calling the "whistleblower" in for questioning and Schiff and Pelosi too. They could do this, and imagine putting them in the jail these dummies who may not want to appear as a result of a Senate subpoena. The tables could be turned on them big time, and it could make them look very, very bad. Instead of making Trump look bad, they will look very very bad.
But DC is so out-of-control that who knows what will happen.
11.11.19:
Or aka "How can you be so stupid?". "I've got this fella helping me."
Impeachment for Dummies: Eric Swalwell: "These witnesses, for the most part, they've not been coordinating or talking to each other"... https://t.co/JvlmzZvSgS via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 11, 2019
11.10.19:
Washington DC is so out-of-control that they need some instruction. Normally the books on how-to do certain things are called "for dummies", which means one needs some instruction. These dummies are in dire need of same.
This "impeachment for dummies" could be a book about how not to do impeachments.
The GOP has a great opportunity here if the Dems go full blown dummies and impeach this president. But the GOP's reaction could also make it in the book if they don't.
Imagine calling the "whistleblower" in for questioning and Schiff and Pelosi too. They could do this, and imagine putting them in the jail these dummies who may not want to appear as a result of a Senate subpoena. The tables could be turned on them big time, and it could make them look very, very bad. Instead of making Trump look bad, they will look very very bad.
But DC is so out-of-control that who knows what will happen.
The facts:— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) November 10, 2019
1. The Ukrainian President and Foreign Minister said there was no pressure.
2. They never knew the money wasn't paid.
3. They received the aid with no conditions.
Read the transcript! There was #NoQuidProQuo.https://t.co/ZoCNB5elfA
Sunday, November 10, 2019
Whatever
Comment:
None of this seems serious to me. It is a big joke.
None of this seems serious to me. It is a big joke.
I know the Resistance is trying to make their latest effort to undo 2016 seem all serious and stuff, but it's mildly hilarious that the agency's *ethics* lawyer was the upset deep stater's twin bro. https://t.co/wYtaNfwbMY— Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 9, 2019
In the jailhouse now
Comment:
This may have been posted before, but what the heck. We'll all be "in the outhouse now" if this impeachment garbage succeeds.
This may have been posted before, but what the heck. We'll all be "in the outhouse now" if this impeachment garbage succeeds.
Outhouse politics
Comment:
Centuries of the rule of law going down the poop chute.
Centuries of the rule of law going down the poop chute.
In outhouse now: https://t.co/7YSotEj9ft— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 10, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)