Didn't read all of this, but I read enough to see that Solomon is pissed.
Confronting Lt. Col Vindman's Ukraine testimony ... with the factshttps://t.co/H65sv2PRn7— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 22, 2019
Friday, November 22, 2019
Messing with the wrong dude, dude
Comment:
Didn't read all of this, but I read enough to see that Solomon is pissed.
Didn't read all of this, but I read enough to see that Solomon is pissed.
Justice Kavanaugh as new Chief Justice
Comment:
Chief Justice Roberts is said to have a conflict of interest and cannot preside over any impeachment trial in the Senate.
Another tell in their intentions toward this trial?
If the GOP got really aggressive, they could replace Roberts with Kavanaugh. But that would require a Senate vote. Not likely to happen, but there would be a chance that it could.
Chief Justice Roberts is said to have a conflict of interest and cannot preside over any impeachment trial in the Senate.
Another tell in their intentions toward this trial?
If the GOP got really aggressive, they could replace Roberts with Kavanaugh. But that would require a Senate vote. Not likely to happen, but there would be a chance that it could.
Recusal?: Chief Justice Roberts now dragged into Democrat impeachment process https://t.co/LTumrVxZUh— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 22, 2019
How many will be persuaded by this?
Peggy Noonan wrote speeches for Bush and maybe Reagan. Now she appears to be joining with the Democrats and advocating for his impeachment. She represents the Pierre Delecto point of view in the GOP.
We got a one-sided show in the House. If this makes it to the Senate, and if there's another one-sided show, it might well be close.
But it shouldn't be.
We should know a lot more. We should know how this story came to be. Without the whistleblower and without the evidence of how this whistleblower got his story to Congress, we are missing an important part of the story. We should also know a lot more about the backstory of how the Russian collusion story can be concocted. Taking all of that into consideration should show that the President did the right thing.
Noonan's point of view matches those of the Establishment. How Trump gets treated will be a tell to how the trial will go in the Senate. If the POTUS gets a fair trial, it will do some damage to the Democrats, and they may be wise to take heed of that. If the Establishment in the Senate dictates a one-sided treatment in the Senate, then all of these people will be on the judgment seat. They may think they are judging Trump, but they are on trial as well. Many people aren't buying this point of view of theirs.
We got a one-sided show in the House. If this makes it to the Senate, and if there's another one-sided show, it might well be close.
But it shouldn't be.
We should know a lot more. We should know how this story came to be. Without the whistleblower and without the evidence of how this whistleblower got his story to Congress, we are missing an important part of the story. We should also know a lot more about the backstory of how the Russian collusion story can be concocted. Taking all of that into consideration should show that the President did the right thing.
Noonan's point of view matches those of the Establishment. How Trump gets treated will be a tell to how the trial will go in the Senate. If the POTUS gets a fair trial, it will do some damage to the Democrats, and they may be wise to take heed of that. If the Establishment in the Senate dictates a one-sided treatment in the Senate, then all of these people will be on the judgment seat. They may think they are judging Trump, but they are on trial as well. Many people aren't buying this point of view of theirs.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Now it's getting dangerous
Comment:
My opinion here is that impeachment is very unwise. Yes, it could be dangerous. If this effort comes to fruition, and the Senate removes Trump on such a flimsy charge, while rendering it based upon a flagrantly partisan basis, it will enrage nearly half the electorate. If not, it may well enrage the other half.
One can wonder then how a stable society could result from such foolishness. How do you go on from this? Does a civil war ensue?
It reminds me of what I read about secession here in Texas. A quote comes to mind: "When the rabble hiss, well may the patriots tremble".
Indeed the times may be getting dangerous.
My opinion here is that impeachment is very unwise. Yes, it could be dangerous. If this effort comes to fruition, and the Senate removes Trump on such a flimsy charge, while rendering it based upon a flagrantly partisan basis, it will enrage nearly half the electorate. If not, it may well enrage the other half.
One can wonder then how a stable society could result from such foolishness. How do you go on from this? Does a civil war ensue?
It reminds me of what I read about secession here in Texas. A quote comes to mind: "When the rabble hiss, well may the patriots tremble".
Indeed the times may be getting dangerous.
Now It’s Getting Dangerous https://t.co/DOaSmJ5MD5— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 21, 2019
The weirdness continues
Comment:
Holmes was with Bolton, I think. Fiona Hill was a Trump advisor? Strange bedfellows.
Holmes was with Bolton, I think. Fiona Hill was a Trump advisor? Strange bedfellows.
Ask David Holmes when his wife worked with the whistleblower.— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 21, 2019
While they're at it, ask Fiona Hill how long she has known the whistleblower.
These people go way back.
Sondland
Comment:
11.21.19:
Free Republic: Sondland's hotels are getting bad reviews on Yelp. It is a link to a Daily Beast article, which I won't link to. It caught my eye that there are a lot of Trump supporters who are being hammered by the leftists. Yet they worry about Trump's tweets. In other words, witness intimidation.
11.20.19:
It is a thing and it isn't a thing.
The trouble with the Dems is that they don't have Sondland by the gonads. If they did, Sondland would tell them what they want. What he's telling them isn't good enough.
For example, Sondland is saying that in his opinion there was quid pro quo, but actually, Trump told him that there wasn't. Not good enough for them to establish quid pro quo.
But as I have been saying all along, my opinion is that quid pro quo isn't a crime.
It's not bribery either, nor is it extortion. Not good enough.
11.21.19:
Free Republic: Sondland's hotels are getting bad reviews on Yelp. It is a link to a Daily Beast article, which I won't link to. It caught my eye that there are a lot of Trump supporters who are being hammered by the leftists. Yet they worry about Trump's tweets. In other words, witness intimidation.
11.20.19:
It is a thing and it isn't a thing.
The trouble with the Dems is that they don't have Sondland by the gonads. If they did, Sondland would tell them what they want. What he's telling them isn't good enough.
For example, Sondland is saying that in his opinion there was quid pro quo, but actually, Trump told him that there wasn't. Not good enough for them to establish quid pro quo.
But as I have been saying all along, my opinion is that quid pro quo isn't a crime.
It's not bribery either, nor is it extortion. Not good enough.
Ambassador Sondland confirms Trump told him no quid pro quo pic.twitter.com/iqzwXTl2D5— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2019
The Ukraine scandal timeline ( Burisma )
Comment:
This may conform to Beck's blackboard video. ( of course, I haven't checked )
This may conform to Beck's blackboard video. ( of course, I haven't checked )
The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats and their media allies don't want America to seehttps://t.co/EWVLcEPb2F— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) November 20, 2019
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
POTUS to visit Austin today
He's coming to visit a new 1 billion dollar Apple Computer plant in Northwest Austin. Here's a drone video of the area of the plant where it is to be built. I don't recognize it exactly, but I do recognize the name of the street, so I have an idea of where this plant will be.
The new plant is supposed to be close to the current facility. If that is so, then that narrows it down quite a bit. I haven't been to Austin since March. It looks familiar to me, but I never noticed the place where it is currently.
If it is a billion-dollar plant it sounds like it is frickin' huge.
Here's an older video with the news of the selection of this location for the plant. This was last year about this time.
The new plant is supposed to be close to the current facility. If that is so, then that narrows it down quite a bit. I haven't been to Austin since March. It looks familiar to me, but I never noticed the place where it is currently.
If it is a billion-dollar plant it sounds like it is frickin' huge.
Here's an older video with the news of the selection of this location for the plant. This was last year about this time.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
You have to be a real political junkie to follow this stuff
Updated,
8:00 pm:
Sean Davis breaks down the testimony. He believes that Vindman is the leaker. Also that Vindman lied about not knowing who the so-called whistleblower is.
9:30 am:
To get up to speed on this takes so much time. Not to mention that it is pretty boring stuff.
Yep. I read through some more of Morrison's testimony this morning. After a while, I noted that testimony was already underway, so I switched off a bit on that.
Col. Vindman is testifying now. There's a transcript of his previous testimony, but I have not read it. Nor am I interested in watching it this morning.
Even with my lack of interest, it is probably more than average. A recent poll showed that 20 percent or so are interested in this and are following it.
A lot of this revolves around the secrecy of the so-called whistleblower. Just guessing here that Vindman was the whistleblower's connection. It is why so many think that Ciarmarella is the whistleblower. Both these guys are Democrat partisans.
As mentioned previously, the President was within the scope of the aid authorization to make sure that there was no corruption in connection to the aid, so the delay is not that big of a deal. Basically, the quid pro quo was supposed to be about getting a public statement out of the Ukrainian president. The allegation is that the funds were being held up because of that. The Democrats want it to be about Biden, and that it was a bribe to Zelensky for an announcement of an investigation?
Oh, and the Dems want to claim that Trump is intimidating witnesses. Exaggerating in the extreme, I'd say.
I can see the general lack of interest in this. The reason I follow it at all is I am suspicious of a faction in the GOP who probably would like an excuse to end Trump's presidency. If it weren't for them, the Dems would have no hope for this.
If they got to Ciarmarella off the top, they would save a lot more time. The reason they don't is that it ruins the Democrat narrative. Ciarmarella is partisan, Vindman is partisan, and Schiff is partisan.
I would be incredulous that even the never-Trumpers in the GOP would find any of this a good enough excuse to dump Trump. It is clearly a partisan Democrat deal. Even worse, they are hindering a legitimate investigation that involves some of their own people in the Democrat party. Not a good thing for any GOP'er to join, I'd say.
8:00 pm:
Sean Davis breaks down the testimony. He believes that Vindman is the leaker. Also that Vindman lied about not knowing who the so-called whistleblower is.
Sean Davis: ‘Vindman is the leaker’ and he ‘lied last month’ https://t.co/kjxntwyouv via @twitchyteam— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 20, 2019
9:30 am:
To get up to speed on this takes so much time. Not to mention that it is pretty boring stuff.
Yep. I read through some more of Morrison's testimony this morning. After a while, I noted that testimony was already underway, so I switched off a bit on that.
Col. Vindman is testifying now. There's a transcript of his previous testimony, but I have not read it. Nor am I interested in watching it this morning.
Even with my lack of interest, it is probably more than average. A recent poll showed that 20 percent or so are interested in this and are following it.
A lot of this revolves around the secrecy of the so-called whistleblower. Just guessing here that Vindman was the whistleblower's connection. It is why so many think that Ciarmarella is the whistleblower. Both these guys are Democrat partisans.
As mentioned previously, the President was within the scope of the aid authorization to make sure that there was no corruption in connection to the aid, so the delay is not that big of a deal. Basically, the quid pro quo was supposed to be about getting a public statement out of the Ukrainian president. The allegation is that the funds were being held up because of that. The Democrats want it to be about Biden, and that it was a bribe to Zelensky for an announcement of an investigation?
Oh, and the Dems want to claim that Trump is intimidating witnesses. Exaggerating in the extreme, I'd say.
I can see the general lack of interest in this. The reason I follow it at all is I am suspicious of a faction in the GOP who probably would like an excuse to end Trump's presidency. If it weren't for them, the Dems would have no hope for this.
If they got to Ciarmarella off the top, they would save a lot more time. The reason they don't is that it ruins the Democrat narrative. Ciarmarella is partisan, Vindman is partisan, and Schiff is partisan.
I would be incredulous that even the never-Trumpers in the GOP would find any of this a good enough excuse to dump Trump. It is clearly a partisan Democrat deal. Even worse, they are hindering a legitimate investigation that involves some of their own people in the Democrat party. Not a good thing for any GOP'er to join, I'd say.
Swallwell does what???
Laughter is the best medicine. The days are rather grim, but a little humor lightens the load a bit. This made me laugh so hard I had to wipe my eyes.
Ratcliffe and Stefanik
Stacks of testimony and bribery not mentioned.
Conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden: all witnesses so far agree.
Conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden: all witnesses so far agree.
Computer cleanup
I did almost all of these things, and the computer still works. ( cross my fingers )
Maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't. There is so much junk on these computers nowadays that it makes me wonder who owns who.
Maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't. There is so much junk on these computers nowadays that it makes me wonder who owns who.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Impeachment testimony
Updated,
8:02 pm:
There may have been something left out, or I didn't see it the first time. In this piece, Scalise mentions to Wallace that it was in the authorization for aid that the President could withhold aid if there was a corruption problem. In other words, the aid legislation authorized the President to do what he did.
That is a significant point, right there.
2:14 pm:
Thanks to this video, I revisited the CBS story, which had a link that listed the witnesses to appear this week in the so-called impeachment inquiry.
There does appear to be some significant issues here, so it isn't over yet. It is a bit of a stretch to say that an investigation of the Bidens involves a political advantage for Trump as opposed to an actual corruption issue. There is a lot more evidence of corruption than what the Democrats are willing to admit.
It speaks to why the GOP is asking for witnesses. The Democrats and Schiff are only allowing witnesses that advance their narrative. Therefore, there will be no "Taco Bell" Chalupa to testify. If this was an honest inquiry, there would be a full-scale discussion of the Bidens. Of course, that will not be permitted.
This week will get deeper into the weeds, so to speak. It may justify, at least in their minds, the impeachment. But it is definitely a partisan exercise.
This kid has swallowed the Kool-Aid. As for Chris Wallace, he is entertaining this charade called an impeachment inquiry. There's a lot being covered up here. There is a huge backstory on the 2016 election that hasn't been told, and that of the Bidens has also been covered up.
As for Trump, even if he went after Biden, there's evidence to support an investigation of him. Trump's denial of a quid pro quo could be a problem for him if it turns out to be true. But there's no quid pro quo in the transcript of July 25, but Trump's critics are disputing that the phone call is the whole story. Maybe there's something there, but in my opinion, it isn't nearly enough to justify impeachment. Nor a political scandal for that matter. But it could hurt Trump politically if his credibility takes a hit.
His credibility could take a hit if Trump is lying about the quid pro quo. But why would he lie about this? If you are right legally and politically, why lie about it? That's the problem that could result from this. If he felt that he couldn't take the risk of telling the truth, that is an indication of another problem.
We'll see.
9:57 am:
As far as I can tell, the Democrats have laid a couple eggs that didn't hatch so far. The third one may come on Wednesday, with Ambassador Sondland testifying in public.
There may be open hearings from Tuesday to Thursday this week, but this CBS report is entirely not clear on that. The report mentioned a person named Holmes said he overheard Sondland talking on the phone with the President one day AFTER the Zelensky call. The CBS report also mentioned that Sondland gave an opinion to a Ukrainian official about the aid being held up for a commitment to investigate. That seems irrelevant since the conversation with Zelensky had already taken place.
Sondland is not one of the principals here. The principals are Zelensky and Trump. Sondland is giving only his opinion, and the conversation in question had already taken place. What's the point?
The aid was already approved by Congress. The President can only delay it at best. The delay could have been from late April to mid-September. Technically it could be argued that there was no freeze at all. The aid was released during the time frame that it was authorized. I hear that the date the aid was due was on the 30th of September. It looks like the impeachment argument is a bit too fine of a point, but that won't stop the Democrats from trying it anyway.
8:02 pm:
There may have been something left out, or I didn't see it the first time. In this piece, Scalise mentions to Wallace that it was in the authorization for aid that the President could withhold aid if there was a corruption problem. In other words, the aid legislation authorized the President to do what he did.
That is a significant point, right there.
2:14 pm:
Thanks to this video, I revisited the CBS story, which had a link that listed the witnesses to appear this week in the so-called impeachment inquiry.
There does appear to be some significant issues here, so it isn't over yet. It is a bit of a stretch to say that an investigation of the Bidens involves a political advantage for Trump as opposed to an actual corruption issue. There is a lot more evidence of corruption than what the Democrats are willing to admit.
It speaks to why the GOP is asking for witnesses. The Democrats and Schiff are only allowing witnesses that advance their narrative. Therefore, there will be no "Taco Bell" Chalupa to testify. If this was an honest inquiry, there would be a full-scale discussion of the Bidens. Of course, that will not be permitted.
This week will get deeper into the weeds, so to speak. It may justify, at least in their minds, the impeachment. But it is definitely a partisan exercise.
This kid has swallowed the Kool-Aid. As for Chris Wallace, he is entertaining this charade called an impeachment inquiry. There's a lot being covered up here. There is a huge backstory on the 2016 election that hasn't been told, and that of the Bidens has also been covered up.
As for Trump, even if he went after Biden, there's evidence to support an investigation of him. Trump's denial of a quid pro quo could be a problem for him if it turns out to be true. But there's no quid pro quo in the transcript of July 25, but Trump's critics are disputing that the phone call is the whole story. Maybe there's something there, but in my opinion, it isn't nearly enough to justify impeachment. Nor a political scandal for that matter. But it could hurt Trump politically if his credibility takes a hit.
His credibility could take a hit if Trump is lying about the quid pro quo. But why would he lie about this? If you are right legally and politically, why lie about it? That's the problem that could result from this. If he felt that he couldn't take the risk of telling the truth, that is an indication of another problem.
We'll see.
9:57 am:
As far as I can tell, the Democrats have laid a couple eggs that didn't hatch so far. The third one may come on Wednesday, with Ambassador Sondland testifying in public.
There may be open hearings from Tuesday to Thursday this week, but this CBS report is entirely not clear on that. The report mentioned a person named Holmes said he overheard Sondland talking on the phone with the President one day AFTER the Zelensky call. The CBS report also mentioned that Sondland gave an opinion to a Ukrainian official about the aid being held up for a commitment to investigate. That seems irrelevant since the conversation with Zelensky had already taken place.
Sondland is not one of the principals here. The principals are Zelensky and Trump. Sondland is giving only his opinion, and the conversation in question had already taken place. What's the point?
The aid was already approved by Congress. The President can only delay it at best. The delay could have been from late April to mid-September. Technically it could be argued that there was no freeze at all. The aid was released during the time frame that it was authorized. I hear that the date the aid was due was on the 30th of September. It looks like the impeachment argument is a bit too fine of a point, but that won't stop the Democrats from trying it anyway.
Morrison transcript
There are about 270 pages of testimony recently released with respect to Morrison. Col. Vindman reported to Morrison, so that establishes some of the significance of Morrison. Also, Morrison talked to Sondland and Taylor, who have testified. Also, Fiona Hill. Morrison took over from Hill just about two weeks before the July 25th call.
The critics of the POTUS may have some smoke, but no fire that I can see. Not a smoking gun, just smoke in the sense of something maybe there, maybe not.
I've read through about a third of this, but it is a tough slog. Maybe the last two-thirds has something of significance in it, but I haven't the desire to read so much at a time. Besides, it is boring stuff for the most part.
Perhaps if I had read more of it in advance. That would prepare me better for reading the transcript of the open testimony. Or make it redundant. It would depend upon anything new from the last go-round.
My opinion of this at this time is that they may be able to do some damage to Trump's credibility, but that is all. I'm not saying that they definitely will succeed at that, only that it may be possible for them to achieve this much. As for the rest, there's a lot more to go.
The critics of the POTUS may have some smoke, but no fire that I can see. Not a smoking gun, just smoke in the sense of something maybe there, maybe not.
I've read through about a third of this, but it is a tough slog. Maybe the last two-thirds has something of significance in it, but I haven't the desire to read so much at a time. Besides, it is boring stuff for the most part.
Perhaps if I had read more of it in advance. That would prepare me better for reading the transcript of the open testimony. Or make it redundant. It would depend upon anything new from the last go-round.
My opinion of this at this time is that they may be able to do some damage to Trump's credibility, but that is all. I'm not saying that they definitely will succeed at that, only that it may be possible for them to achieve this much. As for the rest, there's a lot more to go.
Dirty pool, old man.
Comment:
Still playing dirty and still losing.
Still playing dirty and still losing.
Dirty Pool: Jim Jordan -vs- Margaret Brennan - Important Note: Media Given Leaked Sealed Transcripts from Friday Depositions... (illegal) https://t.co/AJeeo8lj90 via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 18, 2019
Sunday, November 17, 2019
The mouse that lied
Comment:
11.17.19:
Busted.
11.16.19:
The ambassador who would be a mouse ( the scared little girl routine ), told a few whoppers yesterday. More evidence of that below:
11.17.19:
Busted.
Amb. Yovanovitch: No one in the Obama Admin raised the issue of Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.— ✌🏻 ALX 🇺🇸 ✌🏻 (@alx) November 15, 2019
Also Amb. Yovanovitch: They used the issue of Burisma and Hunter Biden specifically to prep me for my confirmation.
(H/T: @TCPigott) pic.twitter.com/Sj5O0LZIXH
11.16.19:
The ambassador who would be a mouse ( the scared little girl routine ), told a few whoppers yesterday. More evidence of that below:
Lying to Congress - Marie Yovanovitch Was Prepped by Obama Administration About Issues With Hunter Biden and Burisma... https://t.co/uJY03v3Fci via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 16, 2019
Democracy on trial
It's democracy — not Trump — that's on trial on Capitol Hill https://t.co/KCHVbcFlCZ via @nypost— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 18, 2019
Rudy Giuliani speaks with OAN about Yovanovitch testimony
Comment:
The calling of Yovanovitch as a witness seems quite puzzling. So far, I haven't seen anything that she said that was supposed to be so damaging to Trump.
At any rate, she is a partisan Democrat, as Giuliani points out here.
The calling of Yovanovitch as a witness seems quite puzzling. So far, I haven't seen anything that she said that was supposed to be so damaging to Trump.
At any rate, she is a partisan Democrat, as Giuliani points out here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)