Let’s Have a Revolution

I think we need a Revolution just to re-establish the Constitutional order. I’m sure if our Amazona saw this – via Brit Hume – she’d have blown a gasket:

This from the article: “he (Vindman) was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy…” There is a huge fallacy in this. Anyone know what it is?

The fallacy is that a President can subvert US foreign policy, of course. Per the Constitution, American foreign policy is whatever the President says it is: good, bad or indifferent. Congress has inputs in that they must agree to pay the monetary cost of the President’s policy and the Senate must ratify any treaties the President makes in pursuit of Administration policy…but the President decides what it is. If the President wakes up tomorrow morning and decides that our foreign policy is to insist that foreigners hop on one foot when negotiating with us, then that is the foreign policy of the United States, the end. And it can only be subverted if someone other than the President tries to change policy.

But this is where we are in 2019 – where we have bureaucrats claiming they run the show and large swaths of American political power agreeing with that assertion. We’ve lost all concept of what the Rule of Law is and that has made our Constitution, functionally, a dead letter. It is only enforced, at the moment, on whim…but we can’t remain free (or even civilized) like that. We have to get back to strict enforcement of the law, or we’re doomed. And if we can’t get that via Trump (mostly by appointing judges) then we are going to have to alter or abolish our current government and start all over again.

82 thoughts on “Let’s Have a Revolution

  1. Cluster November 3, 2019 / 3:39 pm

    I saw the following on social media today from one of my ex marine buddies here in AZ and I have to say I agree 100%

    Impeachment…each and every one of you should pray, this doesn’t happen…and, I’ll tell you why. For 8 years, we sat silent, while Obama divided our nation. He used identity politics, race warfare, and class warfare to divide us all. Obama thrust universal healthcare upon us and we sat silent. In the meantime, Hillary and Obama let 4 Americans die in Benghazi, while they watched on closed-circuit tv. Again, we were silent. We watched Hillary Clinton and Donna Brazil rig a primary against Bernie Sanders. We saw Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch (Attorney General at the time) sit on a flight line, only to find that Hilary was exonerated for any crime; regarding her acid-washed / bleach bit server and 33,000 deleted emails. Again, we were silent…We have watched our duly elected president harassed each and every day, for 3 years; even though he has put millions back to work, brought jobs back to America, stood up to our adversaries, and fought like hell to protect our borders. Now, we see Joe Biden leveraging $1 Billion American dollars for his son. However, the Democrats and the media only care about impeaching Trump! So, I can tell you with the utmost certainty…if you are successful in your witch-hunt, we will NOT be silent!!! You will see a revolution you cannot even fathom! Tread lightly…🇺🇸

    • JeremiahTMM November 3, 2019 / 7:10 pm

      Really, to be honest, they shouldn’t have to be successful for there to be a revolution. As I’ve said in the past, as long as the Democrats have air in their lungs, they’re gonna be a never-ending nightmare.

  2. Cluster November 4, 2019 / 9:05 am

    Why is the media, including Fox, doing their best to convince us that everyone wants Trump impeached and removed? They can not prove any crime, nor can they even credibly connect the dots on anything that may be construed as an impeachable offense, but they are working overtime in trying to convince us that everyone thinks he’s guilty and needs to be out.

    It’s Orwellian

    And then there’s this:

    Thousands of people gathered for Kanye West’s “Sunday Service” in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, after a last-minute announcement Friday.

    Curvine Brewington, a pastor at Crossroads Church in Lafayette, Louisiana, attended the event and shared his experience on Instagram, saying there was an “altar call” and “over 1,000” people gave their lives to Christ

    I think people are once again searching for a Higher purpose. They want autonomy, they want to know that their lives matter, and they want to serve something more meaningful than the State. Socialism, forced equality, and borderless countries destroys individual purpose and meaning. The Democrats are selling policies that are solely designed to improve their own lives and expand the power of the State which is the antithesis of individual purpose and autonomy. We are at a cross roads.

    • Amazona November 4, 2019 / 10:31 am

      I just don’t believe polls—not when they so clearly contradict what I see and hear in my own life. Yes, there are Trump haters who want him out of office for any reason, even a bogus reason that, if acted upon, undermines our basic concepts of rule of law and due process. To them, the end justifies the means, and to be blunt about it, most are not smart enough or interested enough to even understand those concepts or their importance. They are the Idiocracy, paddling around on the surface of society with no interest in going any deeper than the superficial TMZ level of what they think is “politics”. This is the level of intelligence that marches in meaningless parades, waves stupid signs and howls in rage and hatred every time a camera shows up to document their mindless fury.

      Then there are the hyper-partisans who think it is fine to go into a football game where the referees are all bought and paid for, and they are armed with brass knuckles and knives and focused not on winning by the rules but simply on destroying—literally destroying—the other team. I’m not even sure these people are even true ideologues, in that I doubt they have a deep and sincere dedication to the actual governing principles of Leftism in its true form. They strike me as opportunists and bullies, who have picked a team and then see opposition not just as people with a differing point of view but as enemies, who must be destroyed, and there are no rules. I’ve never seen a hint of ideology from Schumer, for example, or Pelosi. They are in it for the money, the power and the thrill of the blood sport they have made of politics. They wear their dishonesty and their brutality like badges of honor.

      There IS a level of the Left that is ideological, hard-eyed and cold-blooded and with long-range plans and goals, and this is the driving factor, herding the Idiocracies and the thugs. This is where the war plans are made, the strategies developed, the narratives written, the trolls hired, the gears set in motion and the strings pulled.

      But I just don’t buy into the story being pushed, which is that most of the country is fooled by the theatrics, indifferent to the blatant efforts to undermine if not simply dismiss our Constitution, blind to the lies and manipulations and in general being sucked into the hysteria of impeachment.

      • Retired Spook November 4, 2019 / 12:49 pm

        I just don’t believe polls—not when they so clearly contradict what I see and hear in my own life.

        I agree. I think the main purpose of polls in this day and age is not to reflect public opinion, but to direct it.

      • Cluster November 4, 2019 / 1:11 pm

        Case in point. Headline from Drudge today:

        FOXNEWS POLL: HILLARY BEATS TRUMP

        This was the same headline back from 2016. Deja vu all over again. Who are these people they poll?

      • Amazona November 4, 2019 / 4:32 pm

        No, Cluster, don’t make fun of that headline. Celebrate it. Encourage the Left to believe it. Another Hillary run for the presidency—or stumble, anyway—would be wonderful. This should be a “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch” moment—“Oh please please PLEASE don’t run, Hillary, we are so scared of you!”

        And just look at the tacit admission by the Left that this is even a consideration—-that even fatally flawed Hillary Clinton is looking like a better choice than the Clown Car we have been seeing run into walls and off cliffs for the last few months. Some are talking about a Michelle Obama campaign, Oprah has even been mentioned, but I’m holding out for seeing Hillary strapped to a moving dolly and rolled out to make an acceptance speech.

      • Cluster November 4, 2019 / 7:21 pm

        They are the Idiocracy, paddling around on the surface of society with no interest in going any deeper than the superficial TMZ level

        LOL you’re right because I do like to make fun of their mental illness.

  3. Cluster November 4, 2019 / 9:16 am

    And just FYI, MSNBC is in full lecture mode this morning. Lecturing Republicans on what it means to be a “Republican” lol. They long for the days of McCain and Romney when “Republicans” only spoke of securing the border, lowering taxes, removing regulations, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, rethinking foreign policy, rooting out corruption, and taking on China but never actually doing anything about it and demurring to Democrats when their feelings were hurt.

    No mas amigos.

  4. Retired Spook November 4, 2019 / 12:01 pm

    OT, but the YCMTSU file just keeps getting thicker and thicker.

    Cuomo called global warming deniers “delusional.” The word “delusional” means holding holding beliefs that are contradicted by reality. Cuomo believes hurricanes never made landfall in New York until recently, but recorded history (AKA reality) contradicts that, which makes him delusional.

    The good news for Cuomo is that he unleashed his delusions on MSNBC and neither of the anchors bothered to correct him. If President Trump said that Border Patrol agents apprehended 3,000 illegal aliens and the number was actually 3001, the liberal media would fact-check the hell out of him and call him a liar. Cuomo tells an easily fact-checked lie and they let it go because he’s BSing a false narrative they are actively supporting.

  5. Retired Spook November 4, 2019 / 12:45 pm

    It’s going to be difficult to get anyone who is invested in the stock market, either directly or through a work related 401K, to participate in a revolution. All the major indices are trading at all-time record highs this morning. Let’s see, record stock market, record overall employment, record wages, record all-time low black and hispanic unemployment, 50-year low overall unemployment, personal savings on the rise for the first time in a long time — yeah we definitely gotta get rid of the guy at the helm.

  6. Amazona November 4, 2019 / 4:23 pm

    Mark, my gaskets have been blown so often lately I can’t keep track.

    The most obvious questions simply never get asked. The answers would be informative. Re: your comment on who sets foreign policy. Wouldn’t that be a good question to ask? Just: “who sets foreign policy for the United States?” Uhhh, duh, err, ummm, Congress? What a good opportunity, what Dear Leader would have called a Teachable Moment, for the questioner—-a little peek at the Constitution, probably a first for the person being questioned.

    One I have been waiting for, which has never come: “You say the president’s request for investigations into corruption in Ukraine involving various American politicians is really an effort to put his interests ahead of those of the country. Are you saying that it would be in the best interests of the country to have American politicians colluding with foreign governments to influence American elections, or possibly involved in the siphoning off American aid dollars, and to just look the other way because they are prominent politicians?” Or: ” Are you saying that being a candidate for the nomination to run for the presidency, or a former candidate for the presidency, should carry with it immunity from investigation for wrongdoing?” Or: “How would it be in the best interest of the United States to have foreign governments believe that American politicians will look the other way when corruption is indicated because they fear backlash from the political party of the implicated people?”

    These are not hard questions to formulate, just impossible for the Complicit Agenda Media to ask.

  7. Amazona November 4, 2019 / 4:57 pm

    I heard part of a an interview with Lee Smith, the author of the best seller The Plot Against The President. Sounds like a great book, but the man definitely has the personality for an author, not an interviewee. Listening to him is excruciating. But even in the midst of his oddly incoherent and boring rambling there were some gems.

    One was the conversations with Nunes, in which Nunes said he fully expected one big bombshell revelation after another to shift the needle on the polls, and there was always minimal movement. It was clear that facts simply do not matter. Rush did point out that these people just don’t hear the facts, that they only hear the mainstream media coverage, which is what I have been upset about for so long.

    I’ve tried to find out what it would cost to buy air time on a network for a one hour prime time show every week, and what I find seems to focus on advertising costs, not the simple cost of what someone would have to pay ABC or NBC or CBS to put on an hour-long show every week. I’ve even got a name for it—Behind the Curtain. Production costs could be minimal. It would have to be self-funded, by a mega-PAC or even a branch of the RNC, as advertisers would be afraid to advertise on it for fear of being demonized and boycotted, though I imagine the NRA would chip in a little

    Personally, I think it would pull in high numbers of viewers—sincere people who really want to hear the other side of the stories they are told, skeptics who just watch to get themselves all worked up, and of course the people who already pay attention. The more the Left howls about it, the more viewers it would attract. They couldn’t just ignore it, because that would be a tacit admission that the stories and explanations were right. But they couldn’t challeng it on grounds other than personally attacking the people behind it, because the facts are there, the facts are documented, and the more they are attacked the more opportunities there are to explain them over and over again.

    I think all the people who have stopped donating to the RNC would start to send money to pay for something like this.

  8. Cluster November 4, 2019 / 7:25 pm

    I just heard a snippet on MSNBC from Mike Morrell who was an assistant to Brennan and he was speaking about the Durham investigation and castigating Durham for even looking into what he is looking into because according to Morrell, and I quote:

    “The proper people have already looked into this and found nothing”

    Proper people …. wow. I think this simple sentence says volumes. The deep state truly believes they are the ones who run this country.

  9. Cluster November 4, 2019 / 7:53 pm

    Chris Stirewalt just repeated a lie on Fox’s special report that went unchallenged. Chris said “everyone knows that Trump asked Ukraine for dirt on his political rival ….”

    First of all Biden is not Trumps political rival. No one is right now and I don’t think Biden even wins the primary. Secondly, there is no way you can construe the Democrat narrative from the transcript. No way but the media and Democrats are fully invested in the lie. How do you over come that? Are we going to just continue to play nice with them?

  10. Cluster November 5, 2019 / 8:40 am

    Going back to my comment “are we going to continue to play nice with them” – the same people who are lying thru their teeth to impeach and remove our President are the same people who care more about Kurdish refugees and the Syrian border than they do Americans and our southern border. Yesterday in Mexico:

    Seventeen family members from the LeBaron and Langford families were ‘ambushed’ eight miles apart while heading to celebrate a wedding anniversary in three cars from La Mora – a decades-old settlement founded as part of an offshoot of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One of the woman shot dead was Christina Langford, who saved her seven-month-old baby’s life by throwing her to the floor of their SUV as bullets tore through the vehicle. In last night’s massacre, Rhonita Maria LeBaron was traveling to Phoenix when her car broke down, according to relatives. Gunmen opened fire and torched her vehicle causing the gas tank to explode where she died along with her twin six-month-old babies, Titus and Tiana and two more of her children Krystal, 10, and Howard, 12. Eight miles ahead, Christina Langford Johnson, 31, Dawna Ray Langford, 43, and two of Dawna’s children, Trevor, 11, and Rogan, 3, were also killed in other SUVs. Other family members are still unaccounted for.

    Confrontational Conservatism people. Get in their face and make them question their existence. They are all unworthy of the positions they occupy. I despise these reprobates.

    Trump 2020
    No More Bullshit

  11. Cluster November 5, 2019 / 8:50 am

    I thought she wanted to be back in school. Or excuse me, I think she said “I should be back in schoo” with an angry scowl on her face. So what is she doing in California??

    Arnold Schwarzenegger goes cycling with his ‘friend and hero’ Greta Thunberg: Terminator rides around Santa Monica with the teen climate change crusader after he lent her his Tesla and urges her to ‘keep inspiring’

  12. Cluster November 5, 2019 / 9:15 am

    This morning, the pieces of sh*t on MSNBC are worried for diplomats lives in the Trump administration. If only they cared that much for Amb. Chris Stevens who was left to die in Libya and then Susan Rice went on every network and lied thru her teeth about it.

    Burt now they care. Let’s turn the tables folks. Shame them in public and get in their face at every opportunity. At their core, they are are weak cowards so let’s expose that.

    Turning Point USA

  13. Retired Spook November 5, 2019 / 9:47 am

    I’m still laughing from a comment by the Queen of Smart, Joy Behar, on the View yesterday.

    Behar interjected that O’Rourke simply should have kept his ambitious plans for gun control to himself.

    “If you are going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected and then take the guns away!” she insisted. “Don’t tell them ahead of time!”

    I hate to tell you sweetie, but it would have been a looooooong wait.

    • Cluster November 5, 2019 / 10:19 am

      That’s the only way Democrats can advance their agenda …. lie about it.

    • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 11:29 am

      As I say, all we have to do is wait and the Left will tell us what they want to do. In this case, lie to the people to get in power, then turn the power of the State on them when it is too late.

      As for Bobby Frank, what I got from his anti-gun campaign was that he, like so many other Dems, like the mobs that are still so stunned that Trump is president that they have to invent malignant reasons for voting for Trump to explain his election, lives in a bubble where everyone in that bubble thinks the way he does, so obviously everyone else does, too. He clearly thought this gun takeaway would win him millions of supporters.

      • Retired Spook November 5, 2019 / 12:27 pm

        I think it probably DID win him millions of supporters, but it also won him tens of millions of opponents. Maybe he’s just not good at math.

  14. Amazona November 5, 2019 / 12:57 pm

    Dennis Prager sums up what we have been discussing here:

    The left-right divide in America is, unfortunately, unbridgeable.
    There are three reasons.

    First, we are divided by our vision of what we want America to be.

    The right believes the founders’ vision was brilliant and moral, that bourgeois middle-class values are superior to alternative value systems; that rights come from God, not man; and that the state must be as small as possible. The left (not liberals) shares none of those values.

    Second, we are divided by the means we use to achieve our vision. Given their different ends, left and right obviously differ on what means to use to achieve their ends.

    Third, and perhaps most troubling, there is a reality-perception divide.

    Left and right have different perceptions of reality.

    https://www.dennisprager.com/the-left-right-divide-is-about-reality-itself/

    His third reason leads us to a chicken-or-egg question: Is the reality perception correctable if facts are made available and presented often enough and clearly enough to penetrate the bubble in which these people choose to live, or is the difference in perception a choice to simply reject anything that does not comply with a chosen perspective?

    My opinion is “maybe”. I think some are so deeply invested in a way of looking at the American political world there is no interest in evaluating it for reason or substance, but also that some are just reacting to what they are incessantly told is reality. There is a chance this latter category can be reached by fact and reason—but only if it is exposed to fact and reason, consistently and persuasively.

    That is our challenge. It is being met, but only in online media at this point, and in books. It’s our job to expand that exposure.

    As to the question of whether or not there are any real journalists out there, the answer is yes, though damned few. John Solomon stands out, Lee Smith has done a great job, and Project Veritas has been engaging in hard-hitting investigative journalism for a few years now. The problem is, they are preaching to the choir, reaching only people already motivated to pay attention to conservative news sources.

    https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/

    • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 2:25 pm

      Regarding my question: Is the reality perception correctable if facts are made available and presented often enough and clearly enough to penetrate the bubble in which these people choose to live, or is the difference in perception a choice to simply reject anything that does not comply with a chosen perspective? I think of trolls like rg. He piously claims to value truth, but whenever one of his narratives is challenged with facts he just skips seamlessly to a different narrative.

      If he had even the slightest integrity or interest in following facts instead of a false narrative he would look at what is presented to him and be open to discussing it. Instead, he comes across as someone who would be quite comfortable in Mahrer’s audience just booing at anything deemed to be unacceptable merely on the basis of its source.

      So I don’t think any volume of evidence and proof would ever budge the rgs of the country out of their comfort zone. I think Hunter Biden could admit “Yes, Burisma and my association with it WERE under investigation, and yes, I DID use my association with the Secretary of State (through my former business partner, Kerry’s stepson) and the White House through my father to try to get the investigation stopped. When that didn’t happen then my father stepped in and leveraged a billion dollars of American aid money to Ukraine to pressure them to fire the investigator. And yes. my dad and John Kerry DID use their power and influence to get China to give our company, run by me and Chris Heinz and Devon Archer, a contract worth billions of dollars, in exchange for favorable treatment by the U.S.”

      He could say all of this, and back it up with emails and other documentation, and the Left and its mindless sheeple would blink a couple of times and then go off on “obstruction of justice” and “RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA” . They would not care. Some would cling to the lie that there had been no investigation into Burisma when Joe made his threat, that the investigation had been closed and no wrongdoing had been found and that the blackmail was just because the investigator was corrupt.

      There are still people who think the Russians hacked the DNC to help Trump. There are still people who think Trump openly instructed Russia to hack Hillary’s server. And they will always believe these lies, and more, which just proves that you can’t fix stupid.

      Just look at the testimony from Ukrainian officials admitting to interfering in the 2016 election to support Clinton and harm Trump. Do they care? No. They either pretend that this never happened or they lie and claim it has been investigated and proved to be false.

      Write them off. They don’t matter. They are busy building walls around themselves and their lies and delusions, and I say “fine”—the more encapsulated and isolated they are, chattering only to each other while real life goes on around them, the better. We need to focus on those who do care about truth and decency but who have been misled and lied to, who would care about basing their opinions on lies if they only knew the truth.

      • rgrg2 November 5, 2019 / 7:30 pm

        I think of trolls like rg…

        I’m flattered that you keep me in your thoughts. As for “following facts instead of a false narrative,” happy to do it.

        He piously claims to value truth, but whenever one of his narratives is challenged with facts he just skips seamlessly to a different narrative.

        Actually you’re thinking of Cluster, the king of whataboutism. But see, I make one comment and you and Cluster respond with ten questions, then complain when I don’t answer each and every one. This then leads you to claim that I don’t answer questions and therefore must be banned.

        Speaking of questions, you still haven’t answered this one: Where in the Constitution does it grant the executive branch the authority to dictate the terms of an impeachment inquiry to the legislative branch?

        Meanwhile, even Trump’s million dollar donor has revised his testimony to make it clear that the president acted corruptly with respect to Ukraine. Not a good day for Trumpists.

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 8:56 pm

        No one has ever said the executive branch has the authority to dictate the terms of an impeachment inquiry to the legislative branch so this is a silly question. This is a favorite tactic of the Left—challenge with a pseudo-question, usually in a somewhat pugnacious manner, and then when the question can’t be answered because it has no foundation in fact this is seen as a triumphant “GOTCHA!”

        An impeachment hearing is a legal process and as such has to follow certain basic parameters of other legal processes. It is, in fact, nothing but a formal accusation of wrongdoing, a finding that a proven wrongdoing is serious enough to call for a formal accusation which would then be sent to the Senate for a trial.

        The arguments about the strange and improper proceedings of the House in this matter are several. One is that it defies the concept and constitutional guarantee of due process. Let’s take a look at one definition of “due process”. emphasis mine

        Due Process Clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that embodies a system of rights based on moral principles. The due process principle states that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Thus the due process clause in the constitution prohibits the state and local government from depriving people of their life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. In the U.S. Constitution, the concept of due process is discussed under the fourteenth and the fifth amendments to the constitution. Following is the excerpt of USCS Const. Amend. 14, § 1 dealing with due process:

        “***nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law****”

        Under the Fifth Amendment the due process clause has two aspects:

        1. procedural- Procedural due process is concerned with the process by which legal proceedings are conducted; and

        2. substantive- Substantive due process is concerned with the content of particular laws that are applied during legal proceedings.

        With me so far?

        OK, in the odd and distorted antics of the House, the procedural process has been erratic and without any precedent. And the substantive due process, such as it is, is lacking in any particular laws that can be applied. It is not against any law for the president to engage in negotiations with heads of state. It is not against the law to let a head of state know that this country is supportive of its internal efforts to weed out corruption, especially when a former administration had interfered in those efforts. It is not against any law to advance any investigation into any foreign interference in an American election. It is not against any law for the president to demand the same rights due any citizen, regarding due process. It is not against any law for the president to set foreign policy. It is not against the law for any president to remove from office any appointed official who fails to work to implement the policies set by the president.

        The process has veered wildly from one accusation to another, none of which have any foundation other than the attribution of motive or intent by people not directly involved in the incident (the phone call) but who have serious anti-Trump biases. When a process depends not on what was said but on a version of “Don’t pay any attention to what was SAID—this is what he MEANT” the whole thing is a farce.

        Until last week there had not even been a formal invocation of an inquiry. Without the framework of a formal inquiry there is nothing but a lot of noise and posturing. The usual procedure has been to (1) vote to initiate a formal inquiry and then, if the inquiry calls for it, (2) vote for a formal hearing of impeachment. The usual procedure has been open and public. This procedure started with no formal inquiry, just a lot of posturing, and has been undertaken in secret.

        You seem to think that the executive branch has no rights under the law, but is totally at the mercy of a predatory and hostile House of Representatives. Others disagree and believe the president and others have the same legal rights to due process as anyone else accused of anything else. If your argument is that the president is not entitled to due process, make that argument.

        In the meantime, the inquiry appears to be focusing on hearsay and hunches about what someone meant, and is highly dependent on innuendo and interpretation. It is dependent on tactics such as reframing identification of wrongdoing as mere “smear campaigns” for example. It is dependent on such flawed premises that no one can take them seriously.

        The whistleblower law is intended to protect someone from being fired for revealing wrongdoing in a department or agency. It was clearly written in its incarnation in the intelligence agencies—-a report had to be first-person, not based on what was told to the reporter by someone else. It had to be a serious concern, which was defined in the law, and it had to refer to wrongdoing within the intelligence community about something related to the intelligence community. It could NOT be about a difference of opinion. It had to go to the Inspector General, who would determine if it met the criteria and if it did he was then required to send it to Congress. But in this case the report was second or even third hand, (Defect # 1)possibly based on an illegal passing on of classified information (possible Defect # 2) , and it has nothing to do with anything within the intelligence community (Defect # 3). It only went to the IG after it had been presented to a member of Congress and formulated with the assistance of his staff. (Defect # 4) The IG then changed the rules to allow hearsay, but never did change the rules to allow a report to be about anyone outside the intelligence community about anything that did not relate to the intelligence community. Not a single element of the report is compliant with the law.

        The legal foundation of the inquiry is so defective, so fatally flawed, that no one should take it seriously, no matter how many people are brought in to offer their personal, biased, interpretations or opinions about what was really meant.

        The mob is howling because this lynch mob and its flimsy teetering edifice of innuendo, attribution, lies and distortions is not taken seriously—leading, evidently, to your effort to shift the blame onto the executive branch by claiming it is really just trying to ” dictate the terms of an impeachment inquiry to the legislative branch”.

        As for the rest of your whine, I think it is BS. You toss out snot-nuggets of Leftist talking points and then when challenged just shift gears to a different set of talking points. And then you accuse someone else of “whattaboutism”.

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 9:04 pm

        Joe Biden privately contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice when he was a senior and influential U.S. senator to discuss issues that his son Hunter’s firm was being paid to lobby on, according to government records.

        On at least two occasions, Biden contacted federal departments to discuss issues related to Hunter’s firm’s lobbying clients, according to records reviewed by the Washington Examiner.

        Corrupt?

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 8:59 pm

        even Trump’s million dollar donor has revised his testimony to make it clear that the president acted corruptly with respect to Ukraine. Really? Who? In what way?

        Remember, the OPINION of someone about the morality of an act is immaterial. It is the objective analytical analysis of the act that matters, and the law that covers it.

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 9:05 pm

        On Feb. 28, 2007, Biden contacted DHS to express that he was “concerned about the Department’s proposed chemical security regulations authorized by Section 550 of DHS Appropriations Act of 2007,” according to the department’s log of its contacts with members of Congress.

        Section 550, which was passed in 2006 as part of the DHS appropriations bill, requires high-risk chemical plants to submit site safety plans to DHS for approval, including security credentialing and training for employees.

        Eight weeks earlier, the Industrial Safety Training Council had hired Hunter Biden’s firm to lobby DHS on the issue.

        Corrupt?

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 9:09 pm

        he day the Bidens took over Paradigm Global Advisors was a memorable one.

        In the late summer of 2006 Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Joe’s younger brother, James, purchased the firm. On their first day on the job, they showed up with Joe’s other son, Beau, and two large men and ordered the hedge fund’s chief of compliance to fire its president, according to a Paradigm executive who was present.

        After the firing, the two large men escorted the fund’s president out of the firm’s midtown Manhattan office, and James Biden laid out his vision for the fund’s future. “Don’t worry about investors,” he said, according to the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation. “We’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.”

        At the time, the senator was just months away from both assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second presidential bid. According to the executive, James Biden made it clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying.

        Corrupt?

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 9:31 pm

        Two major figures in this corruption feature prominently in Biden’s Ukraine investment.

        Zlochevsky founded Burisma in Cyprus in 2006. He served as natural resources minister under Yanukovych, and gave himself the licenses to develop the country’s abundant gas fields. He also had a flare for lavishness, running a super-exclusive fashion boutique named after himself.

        Burisma’s major subsidiaries ended up sharing the same business address as the natural gas firm controlled by Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. He controlled the country’s largest financial institution, ProvatBank, through which the Ukrainian military and government workers got paid. He also owned media companies and airlines. In violation of Ukraine law, he maintained Ukrainian, Israeli, and Cypriot passports.

        Kolomoisky gained a reputation for violence and brutality, along with lawlessness. Rival oligarchs have sued him for alleged involvement in “murders and beheadings” related to a business deal. He also allegedly used “hired rowdies armed with baseball bats, iron bars, gas and rubber bullet pistols and chainsaws” to take over a steel plant in 2006. He built his multibillion-dollar empire by “raiding” other companies, forcing them to merge with his own using brute force.

        For these and other reasons, the U.S. government placed Kolomoisky on its visa ban list, prohibiting him from entering the country legally. In 2015, however, after Hunter Biden and Devon Archer had joined Burisma’s board, Kolomoisky was given admittance back into the U.S.

        Archer and the younger Biden brought other benefits to Burisma, however. Archer represented the company at the Louisiana Gulf Coast Oil Exposition in 2015. Biden addressed the Energy Security for the Future conference in Monaco. The vice president’s son brought much-needed legitimacy to the shoddy gas company.

        Less than a month after Archer joined Burisma’s board, the company hired another Kerry lackey, David Leiter, as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He successfully lobbied for more aid to the country.

        Both Biden and Kerry championed $1.8 billion in taxpayer-backed loans to be given to Ukraine courtesy of the IMF. That money would go directly through Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank, and then it would disappear.

        According to the Ukrainian anticorruption watchdog Nashi Groshi, “This transaction of $1.8 billion … with the help of fake contracts was simply an asset siphoning operation.”

        In December 2016, Ukraine’s government was forced to nationalize Privatbank in order to shore up Ukrainians’ savings. A Ukrainian lawmaker called it the “greatest robbery of Ukraine’s state budget of the millennium.”

        In February 2016, the government seized Burisma founder Zlochevsky’s assets and placed him on Ukraine’s wanted list. The Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office seized Burisma’s gas wells.

        Even so, four days before Joe Biden arrived for his “swan song” visit in January 2017, the criminal investigation into Burisma was dropped.

        Devon Archer left the company at the end of 2016, but Hunter Biden remains on the board and continues to provide legal assistance. Archer and Biden have not been required to disclose their compensation from Burisma, but Bowling Green State University professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett wrote, “Potentially, the Biden family could become billionaires.”

        Did Joe Biden get Burisma off the hook for $1.8 billion in lost aid funding? Did he or his son get Kolomoisky off the visa ban list? Schweizer says the Bidens did not return numerous requests for comment.

        Schweizer’s book also reveals extensive Biden- and Kerry-related corruption in China, with Hunter Biden’s company even investing in a Chinese company under FBI investigation for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets.

        But Biden is supposed to get a pass because he has been running for the nomination by his party to run against Trump in 2020. It is supposedly in the best interest of the nation to ignore corruption by Dem politicians, and wrong to investigate their actions.

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 9:36 pm

        Hunter Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma in 2014. Bank records released as part of an unrelated lawsuit show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a firm operated by Archer, received more than $160,000 per month from Burisma starting in May 2016. Rosemont Seneca Bohai regularly sent funds to Hunter Biden, the records show.

        The seizure of Zlochevsky’s assets took place on Feb. 2, 2014. At the time, top Ukrainian corruption prosecutor Viktor Shokin led the probe.

        On the day of the seizure, Hunter Biden followed Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken on his Twitter account, another email obtained by Solomon shows.

        Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian Parliament, told Reuters that Zlochevsky came up with the idea to appoint Hunter Biden to the board “to protect [the company].”

        Weeks after Burisma lobbied the State Department and Archer met with Kerry, Joe Biden forced the firing of Shokin by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees; Biden bragged about the move during a videotaped speech on a panel last year.

        In a sworn statement, Shokin said that he was fired under pressure from Biden because he, Shokin, refused to drop the Burisma investigation.

        But this should have been ignored by President Trump because Joe Biden was supposedly under the protection of his possible role in the 2020 election, according to the Democrat Party claim that a candidate should not be investigated.

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 11:23 pm

        “Meanwhile, even Trump’s million dollar donor has revised his testimony “

        Who? What did he say, Do you have the entire testimony or just cherry-picked fragments? Too many questions for you? Ready to turn tail and run?

        Don’t forget to blame me if you do. Wahhh Wahhhhh Wahhhh

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 11:37 pm

        You whined that I “complained when you don’t answer each and every” question asked. No, I just commented that your pattern is to dart in, toss out a couple of stink bombs and then scurry off, or just come back with more nonsense without responding to anythiing anyone asks you.

        Which, by the way, is exactly what you do.

        I have asked you several questions in this series . To make it easier for you to illustrate that you are willing and able to address each one, I will list most of them for you.

        why is it that you are not upset about the progression of lies and violations of rules and protocols it took to get to this point? Why doesn’t any of that bother you?

        And why don’t you want Biden investigated? Either Biden? Why are you so defensive of them?

        Using the power and status of the Vice President to cover up a crime or at least halt an investigation seems just fine with you, but using the power and status of the President to look into this corruption has your panties in wad. Why is that?

        How is it in the best interest of the nation to ignore, or overlook, or demand an end to an investigation by another nation, into corrupt and possibly illegal activities by a prominent American politician?

        Why are you quibbling about the process and not the origin of the process, which is to protect a prominent Democrat politician from scrutiny of his activities as a representative of the United States government and the possible/likely abuse of his power and position?

        Why are you only bothered by the president’s arguments against the process and not the criminality implied by what we know about the involvement of the Bidens in various schemes?

        Why are you trying so hard to shift the focus away from the real issues, onto the superficial issues of the legitimacy of the lynch mob process?

        What “million dollar (Trump) donor revised his testimony”? Who, and how?

        There. That shouldn’t be too hard, should it?

      • rgrg2 November 5, 2019 / 9:43 pm

        No one has ever said the executive branch has the authority to dictate the terms of an impeachment inquiry to the legislative branch so this is a silly question.

        Actually, the Trump administration has made that claim. In fact, the White House argued that in the absence of a full House vote, the impeachment inquiry is “constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process.” In fact, there is no Constitutional or statutory requirement that the House take a full vote, and a federal Court of Appeals ruled that the House is not legally required to vote before issuing subpoenas in an impeachment inquiry.

        The Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

        In other words, they don’t have to make a formal invocation that the process is underway or anything else. It can be as “erratic” and veer as “wildly” as the House wants it to.

        Furthermore, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 states, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 10:41 pm

        And this bothers you because…..?

        BTW, disagreeing with a process is not the same thing as dictating how a process should proceed.

        The concern is that this so-called “impeachment process” is just more of the same Stalinist approach of first naming a target and then using the power of the State to try to find a crime. This is what we saw with the FISA Court frauds, this is what we saw with the Mueller investigation, and now we are seeing it with a chamber of Congress. While it can’t be stopped, it shouldn’t be condoned.

        No actual law has been cited as having been violated. Every effort to invoke a law has been shot down. No campaign finance violation. No quid pro quo. No leveraging of American funds to improperly pressure a foreign nation into doing anything. Nothing but the highly subjective FEELINGS of a few anti-Trump people who were vaguely “disturbed” by the way they interpreted what was said, or what they were told was said.

        I notice that you haven’t addressed my analysis of the so-called whistleblower involvement. This whole thing was started on a wholly false premise that met not a single criterion of legitimacy, and that doesn’t seem to bother you. Now you are nitpicking the objections to the process, ignoring the fact that the process is based on lies, innuendo and violation of regulations. You are defending the process, while pretending that its initiation was valid. And you are defending the process while it has failed to uncover a single actual misdeed, just a collection of grievances and whines and biased perceptions.

        This is a Soviet-style star chamber proceeding of prosecuting Thought Crimes, based on attributed thoughts, motives and intents.

        And why haven’t you defended what is evidently a conviction that a political opponent is protected from investigation merely by being a political opponent? How is it in the best interest of the nation to ignore, or overlook, or agree to support an investigation by another nation, into corrupt and possibly illegal activities by a prominent American politician?

        Why are you quibbling about the process and not the origin of the process, which is to protect a prominent Democrat politician from scrutiny of his activities as a representative of the United States government and the possible/likely abuse of his power and position? Why are you only bothered by the president’s arguments against the process and not the criminality implied by what we know about the involvement of the Bidens in various schemes? Why are you trying so hard to shift the focus away from the real issues, onto the superficial issues of the legitimacy of the lynch mob process?

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 10:49 pm

        We also need to recognize that the purpose of this charade is really just to smear the president in any and every way possible while trying to avoid the responsibility for doing so. It has nothing to do with a serious effort to uncover and punish misdeeds or malfeasance, and everything to do with trying to poison the well to influence the next election. It is a de fact admission that the president cannot be defeated by the Democrats if the election is decided on merit or accomplishment or leadership, so the Left must resort to every filthy, low, despicable trick in their book to try to create an illusion of the president and his actions that is wholly dependent on their lies.

        And what we are seeing is the depth and breadth of that book of tricks, lies and filth. And we are seeing people like you trying to defend what the Left is doing, with your own tricks and maneuverings.

        So drop the pious mouthings of dismay at the objections of the president and address the real issues—or shut up and go away. Because when you have been kicked off the blog, you have not been banned for your ideas, you have just proved yourself to be nothing more than an annoying pest.

      • rgrg2 November 5, 2019 / 10:49 pm

        And this bothers you because…..?

        Doesn’t bother me. Seems to bother you and President Trump a great deal.

        No actual law has been cited as having been violated. Every effort to invoke a law has been shot down. No campaign finance violation. No quid pro quo. No leveraging of American funds to improperly pressure a foreign nation into doing anything.

        Well, first off, no actual law needs to be cited. As for the quid pro quo, they have already admitted it. As for “leveraging of American funds to improperly pressure a foreign nation into doing anything,” that has also been shown. I mean, withholding funds allocated by Congress until another country’s president goes on television and declares that he is investigating President Trump’s likely 2020 opponent is exactly what you say didn’t happen. You don’t have to believe me, just read the testimony of those who were there.

        As for your other questions, are you going to delete my posts or let them stand? I’m not going to spend more time in response to you if you’re just going to delete my posts. You don’t have a great track record in that regard.

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 11:17 pm

        You are so full of it. But thanks for admitting that the partisan House doesn’t need a crime to impeach, just butthurt and panic over losing the last election and awareness that the next one is going down the tubes as well. Thanks for admitting they don’t need a crime at all, much less a High Crime.

        No one has admitted a quid pro quo. That is a lie. The people who were part of the conversation say there was none, and they are the only ones who count. Yes, it is really important to you people to pretend that Trump was ever concerned about Joe as an opponent, but….no.

        Are you sure about your facts when you assert “,,withholding funds allocated by Congress until another country’s president goes on television and declares that he is investigating President Trump’s likely 2020 opponent ..” I don’t remember the “going on television” part, though maybe it was there. I just remember a statement about having the investigation. And that was not part of the phone call and depends on the memories, attributions, perceptions and other assorted contributions of those who were there, more than on the actual words of those who had the conversations. Who, exactly, used those exact words?

        And why are you so convinced that I am in charge of deleting your posts? This is an odd little obsession with you. I’ve come here and seen holes in the discussion and freestanding responses to you without any idea of who took your posts down. Now you are setting up a pretend reason to bail out, because I asked you some hard questions and you don’t deal with hard questions.

        So, to move things along: without agreeing with you, let’s take your allegations and set them aside and proceed. Because what we really need to get to is the many rule violations that constituted the original premise of the “investigation”. You seem pretty comfortable with the levels of deceit and corruption it took to get as far as the alleged whistleblower complaint being made public. Why is that? It took an embedded anti-Trump pro-Biden activist willing to lie in a formal complaint, it took at least one or maybe more anti-Trump activists to betray his trust and leak alleged elements of his conversation to the complainant. it took the violation of rules in taking the complaint to Schiff’s office before filing it with the IG, it took a corrupt Inspector General to change the rules to allow the complaint to be accepted and to then declare it valid and of urgency even though it still failed to meet the criteria of the rules he didn’t think to change, it took Schiff’s lying about the whole thing, and it took accepting this as a valid complaint even though it was not about anyone in the intelligence community or about anything to do with the intelligence community. And, of course, it took misstating the content of the phone call–what we call “lying”.

        You, and your kind, seem perfectly happy with the list of violations and lies and deceits it took to bring this to public attention, because it accomplished what you all want—-a platform upon which you can then start to assemble more lies, more innuendo, more attributions of thoughts and motives, and more elements of a typical Leftist smear campaign.

        So why is it that you are not upset about the progression of lies and violations of rules and protocols it took to get to this point? Why doesn’t any of that bother you?

        And why don’t you want Biden investigated? Either Biden? Why are you so defensive of them? Do you think he should get a pass because he has some half-assed hope of being nominated to run against Trump? Is that all it takes to get a Get Out Of Jail card for you people? You are hyperventilating about your perception that Trump used too much aggression in pursuing an investigation into what may very well BE High Crimes and Misdemeanors by a former Senator and Vice President, and don’t seem the least bit concerned about those actions by Biden. Why is that? Using the power and status of the Vice President to cover up a crime or at least halt an investigation seems just fine with you, but using the power and status of the President to look into this corruption has your panties in wad. Why is that?

      • rgrg2 November 5, 2019 / 11:39 pm

        I don’t remember the “going on television” part, though maybe it was there.

        That’s because you are not informed.

        Trump aides working to secure a statement from Zelensky at one point floated the possibility of having him do a television interview that would satisfy Trump’s desire to hear a statement on anti-corruption measures, according to Sondland.

        Sondland told lawmakers that by early September the idea for a press statement had morphed into a possible television interview that would take place on a network “Trump would obviously see.”

        “Fox. On Tucker,” Sondland mused, referencing Tucker Carlson’s show that Trump regularly watches and shares quotes from.

        https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/469123-five-things-to-know-about-the-sondland-volker-transcripts

        Lots of other sources if you don’t like The Hill. Google it. Or better, read the transcripts. Are you even aware that Sondland, the hotelier who donated $1 million to Trump and got an ambassadorship with not qualifications whatsoever, went in and changed his testimony this week and essentially admitted what it was? This, of course, after he realized that it was obvious from all of the other testimony that he was initially lying.

        Because what we really need to get to is the many rule violations that constituted the original premise of the “investigation”.</b?

        Which rules are these? See, your problem is that you can't actually defend the president's conduct, so you have to attack the process. And of course, your attacks are meritless because it is entirely up to the House to determine how to go about the impeachment process. This seems to gall you to no end.

        And why are you so convinced that I am in charge of deleting your posts?

        Experience. Plus one of your regular buddies here once said that that is what you do. So maybe ask them.

        So why is it that you are not upset about the progression of lies and violations of rules and protocols it took to get to this point? Why doesn’t any of that bother you?

        What rules? What protocols? You tell me, what are the rules and protocols of impeachment? I suggest you read the Constitution before answering.

        And why don’t you want Biden investigated? Either Biden?

        If it was a legitimate investigation, it wouldn’t fall to the president himself to strong-arm other nations into making public statements that they will investigate the Bidens. It would be conducted by the FBI, as it should. Instead, the president is pursuing a personal, political agenda using the resources of the United States of America. And that is an abuse of power. And that is why the impeachment process is underway.

        As for whistleblower “malfeasance,” everything the whistleblower said in his or her statement has been corroborated by the release of the summary of the phone call and the sworn testimony before the Congressional committees. You do know that the transcripts of their testimony are being made public, right? You can’t hide behind the claim that it’s a secret process.

        And besides, you are assuming there is only one whistleblower.

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 2:07 am

        And besides, you are assuming there is only one whistleblower.

        Really? How many slugs are the Left going to pull out of the swamp to wave in our faces? The transcript is there, we can all see what was said, we can all see what the other head of state thought about what was said, and all you people can come up with is more haters who are willing to go on record about how they FELT about what was said, and what motives and intents they somehow SENSED lay behind the actual words.

        You people need to get a grip, including a better understanding of what words mean. You are not talking about “whistleblowers”. That is just a feeble and increasingly transparent effort to add some credibility to some partisan whiners trying to sabotage the president, and the presidency.

        More “codes”. More “dog whistles”. Just more crystal ball BS from the howling Left.

        Back to some questions”

        Using the power and status of the Vice President to cover up a crime or at least halt an investigation seems just fine with you, but using the power and status of the President to look into this corruption has your panties in wad. Why is that?

        How is it in the best interest of the nation to ignore, or overlook, corrupt and possibly illegal activities by a prominent American politician?

        Why are you quibbling about the process and not the origin of the process, which is to protect a prominent Democrat politician from scrutiny of his activities as a representative of the United States government and the possible/likely abuse of his power and position?

        Why are you only bothered by the president’s arguments against the process and not the criminality implied by what we know about the involvement of the Bidens in various schemes?

        Why are you trying so hard to shift the focus away from the real issues, onto the superficial issues of the legitimacy of the lynch mob process?

        ……………………………………………..
        You say, to my question: And why don’t you want Biden investigated? Either Biden?

        If it was a legitimate investigation, it wouldn’t fall to the president himself to strong-arm other nations into making public statements that they will investigate the Bidens.

        Yet no one ever heard the president do any such thing.

        It would be conducted by the FBI, as it should. Interesting. I didn’t know the FBI had the authority to mount an investigation in a foreign nation, into internal corruption in that nation.

        Remember, an investigation was underway till it was derailed by a true abuse of power, when the Vice President of the United States threatened the president of Ukraine that he would personally withhold a billion dollars of promised aid if the investigator was not fired.

        Instead, the president is pursuing a personal, political agenda using the resources of the United States of America.

        Except that is just a personal interpretation of something not in evidence. That’s just what you see because that is what you choose to see, in spite of the actual words used and the actual impressions of the the people who were actually part of the conversation.

        And that is an abuse of power. Except it never happened.

        And that is why the impeachment process is underway. No, it isn’t. That is the pretext for the Kabuki theater of the melodramatic Left. The process is underway because the Left knows it can’t defeat Trump in any way except maybe smearing him enough to make anyone else look like a better option, or to create so much distaste and disgust in the voting public that they can suppress the vote.

        As for whistleblower “malfeasance,” everything the whistleblower said in his or her statement has been corroborated by the release of the summary of the phone call

        This is truly a delusional comment. None of it is supported, much less “corroborated” by the transcript. None of it. I made a point of quoting the lies told by the leaker. Here are some:

        While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

        The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

        Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

        Not a word about servers. Not a word about Lutsenko. No reason to think Brechbuhl was a party to the phone call. All lies, told with confidence that the president would never be bold enough to just release the transcript.

        …and the sworn testimony before the Congressional committees. which either supports the claims of the people who were actually a part of the conversation or shows the desperate need of the Left to condemn by attribution of motives not stated.

        You do know that the transcripts of their testimony are being made public, right? You can’t hide behind the claim that it’s a secret process.

        Well, SOME of the transcripts are being released, and we have no way of knowing how much they have been edited, or if they will be presented in full. And it IS a secret process when the Star Chamber committee gets to decide what is make public, and in what form, and to what extent, after secret testimony.

      • rgrg2 November 5, 2019 / 11:50 pm

        As for rules, maybe you remember this:

        Democrats eager to investigate the Trump administration if they seize the House would have the GOP to thank for one of their most potent tools — a sweeping subpoena authority that Democratic lawmakers denounced as an abusive power grab three years ago.

        House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.

        Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.

        “The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO.

        https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 1:58 am

        And you Libs do love the smell of vengeance in the morning……

  15. Amazona November 5, 2019 / 2:57 pm

    In the spirit of being open to different perspectives, I offer this for consideration. However, keep in mind that the Deep State as ideologically motivated and the Deep State as merely a venue for graft and corruption are not two mutually exclusive agendas.

    What if our Deep State is not, like the Turkish variety, focused on perpetuating its power? What if it is simply a grift participated in by a large number of people who see government service…and, in some cases, military service…as a way of having influence, being the center of attention, and getting paid damned well in the bargain. If ISIS goes away, no one is going to care about your expertise on them. If Endless War ends, no one needs a bureaucrat to go on sex charged expeditions to our embassies. If Ukraine is brought under control, it is no longer a crisis and a speaker of an obscure language with expertise in a conflict that has abated will no longer have a fat cat job in the National Security Council. He’ll be in the bowels of the Pentagon doing whatever.

    What better way of explaining the unreasonable metastasis of Trump Derangement Syndrome than people having their pockets picked? No more think tank “fellow” positions. No more highly paid lectures to college students on what “true conservatism” is. I’d be whizzed off, too. I’d be mad enough to actually lie to impeach the guy.

    https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/11/04/deep-state-not-seditious-just-another-grift

    • Retired Spook November 5, 2019 / 3:05 pm

      As you say — not mutually exclusive, but to be honest, I’d never given much thought to the grift aspect of the Deep State. It works in the scientific community as it relates to climate change, so I can’t imagine it wouldn’t work in other areas of government and/or the military.

      • Amazona November 5, 2019 / 3:40 pm

        Just think of it as job security. If you have tunnel vision, like thinking primarily of your financial future and secondarily of the perks you get from the status of your job, you are going to want to preserve the elements that make your job, and by extension you, invaluable.

        Then ideology might come into play–which political philosophy is more likely to not just tolerate my position and status but secure it? And the club that got you appointed to your position, got you that promotion in rank, put you in that position of status and compensation, is going to have your loyalty—not the opposition party that might cut out your position altogether, or appoint its own people who might conflict with you.

        I’m not saying every high-ranking military person or diplomat or aide or advisor sat down at the beginning of his or her career and said “I’m going to lie, cheat and suck up to anyone I have to, to get ahead”. But then as time goes on, and advances are made, and mortgages and other debts mount up, and a certain level of living becomes customary, and a certain level of deference becomes customary, and a certain ego-gratifying sense of power becomes customary, it is natural for whatever it takes to preserve those suddenly important aspects of your life to take over.

        If you are benefiting by being highly placed in an agency bloated in size and expanding in power and authority, you are probably going to do whatever you can to keep that status quo, and feel threatened by political opposition that wants to diminish the size, scope and power of your agency, diminish your status and possibly even eliminate your position. Your efforts to maintain that status quo, keep that job and its perks, continue to be thought of as powerful and important, don’t have to be based on a commitment to a certain political ideology, but if a political ideology and its members of the government are the ones that also happens to support what is important to you on a personal level that is where your loyalties are going to lie.

        I think a lot of corruption is incremental, slipping from one small sin to another. But at a certain level I think you end up with people failing around like people who are trying not to go under, and trying everything they can think of to stay afloat.

  16. Amazona November 6, 2019 / 1:27 am

    to rg: Moving this to a new position as the line of responses is getting long.

    My, you are a pissy little thing, aren’t you? I SAID I didn’t remember a comment about a televised statement. And your comment, to which I responded, said I mean, withholding funds allocated by Congress until another country’s president goes on television and declares that he is investigating President Trump’s likely 2020 opponent is exactly what you say didn’t happen.

    And when I admit I don’t remember that, you try to support this claim by citing something that doesn’t support it at all.

    Trump aides working to secure a statement from Zelensky at one point floated the possibilityof having him do a television interview that would satisfy Trump’s desire to hear a statement on anti-corruption measures, according to Sondland.

    Sondland told lawmakers that by early September the idea for a press statement had morphed into a possible television interview that would take place on a network “Trump would obviously see.”

    Hmmm. So not a word about Trump demanding a television statement. And not a word about it being tied to releasing the funds. Funny how your claims tend to fall apart when compared to facts.

    Are you even aware that Sondland, the hotelier who donated $1 million to Trump and got an ambassadorship with not qualifications whatsoever… Oh, NO! An ambassadorship going to someone not already in the Diplomatic Corps! Who ever heard of such a thing? Yet the Sondland revision did NOT “essentially admit(ted) what it was”. In fact, he did not link his impression of a connection to anything Trump said.

    This, of course, after he realized that it was obvious from all of the other testimony that he was initially lying. And here we have yet another example of attribution of motive, bubbling up out of a cess pool of spite and malice and hatred of anyone connected with Trump.

    Because what we really need to get to is the many rule violations that constituted the original premise of the “investigation”.

    Which rules are these?

    Well, here is the original wording of the rule on filing a whistleblower report:

    Urgent Concern: Complaint must be of an “urgent concern” which is defined as follows:

    o A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive Order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters;

    o A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; and/or

    o An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of Title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under section 7(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, in response to an employee reporting an urgent concern.

    As for the sudden change allowing hearsay as the basis for a report:

    Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

    The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

    The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.

    The complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant acknowledged he was “not a direct witness” to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.

    A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

    “The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,” the previous form stated under the bolded heading “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.” “This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.”

    “If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA,” the form concluded.

    The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official,” “I learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “One White House official described this act,” “Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me,” “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials,” “The U.S. officials characterized this meeting,” “multiple U.S. officials told me,” “I learned from U.S. officials,” “I also learned from a U.S. official,” “several U.S. officials told me,” “I heard from multiple U.S. officials,” and “multiple U.S. officials told me.”

    The repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for “urgent concern” submissions. The change to the “urgent concern” submission form was first highlighted on Twitter by researcher Stephen McIntyre.

    The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.

    “I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.

    As for the lies in the complaint:

    The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and debunked. While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

    The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

    Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

    “I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call,” the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call.

    In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

    “The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the September 3 OLC opinion noted. “Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand.”

    “The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of “urgent concern” that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees,” the OLC opinion continued. “We conclude that it does not.”

    It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.

    See, your problem is that you can’t actually defend the president’s conduct, so you have to attack the process.

    I am not just attacking the process. You are just focusing on defending the process, because you can’t defend the route taken by the Left to get to the process. As for “the president’s conduct” there is nothing to defend. He had a perfectly normal conversation with another head of state, in which both discussed items of interest to both countries. One of these items of interest was the need to continue prior investigations into corruption. That’s his job. Anything he does that has a good effect is something that might enhance his chances of being reelected.

    And of course, your attacks are meritless because it is entirely up to the House to determine how to go about the impeachment process. There you go again, inserting your own attributions as if they are fact. “attacks”? No, just observations of how desperate the Dems are, so much so that they have to manipulate the process and abandon precedent to try to create a smokescreen of misdeeds where none exist.

    This seems to gall you to no end. Well, yeah. It does bother me to see the House of Representatives reduced to a drooling mob dedicated to mounting a political coup.

    And why are you so convinced that I am in charge of deleting your posts?

    Experience. Plus one of your regular buddies here once said that that is what you do. So maybe ask them. Them? Make up your mind—one of more than one. As for what you claim someone told you, who cares. Believe what you will, but consider the value of information given in a groveling effort to be accepted in a group, not just its validity but its purpose.

    So why is it that you are not upset about the progression of lies and violations of rules and protocols it took to get to this point? Why doesn’t any of that bother you?

    What rules? What protocols?

    I just listed the rules and protocols violated to get this bogus complaint in front of the public. You really do need to try to keep up. The rules broken range from the violation of trust and possibly the law in having classified information passed on to someone not in the loop for the purpose of damaging a sitting president to the violation of the rules regarding which reports can be considered. You just ignore all this. You just don’t care. Any lie, any violation, is fine if it promotes the ability to smear the president.

    You tell me, what are the rules and protocols of impeachment? I suggest you read the Constitution before answering.

    And here you are, back to carrying on about the process. There have been standards of impeachment proceedings which this mob has chosen to ignore but the written rules give them the lack of guidance that makes this possible. This is what happens when too much faith is put in the hope that people will act honorably.

    • rgrg2 November 6, 2019 / 1:54 am

      Hmmm. So not a word about Trump demanding a televisions statement. Funny how your claims tend to fall apart when compared to facts.

      There are many news items that summarize the testimony indicating that a public statement by Zelensky implicating Biden in an investigation–that is, smearing him–would be required to release the funds that were already approved by Congress. Clearly at least some of Trump’s minions interpreted his request as a seen-on-TV event. But instead of reading the news items summarizing the testimony, feel free to read the testimony and get back to us. It has been made public, as you know.

      The rules regarding whistleblower complaints weren’t changed in order to satisfy this case. There are many news sources that have investigated this and come to that conclusion. E.g., https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fact-check-were-whistleblower-rules-changed-ukraine-complaint-n106048.

      As for rules and process, you brought it up, not me. I merely note that the subpoena rules were enacted by the Republicans when Obama was president, and the same rules are in effect. I also noted that the Constitution does not proscribe any rules regarding impeachment. You don’t seem to like this. Not my problem, but it is an indication of the weakness of Trump’s case that the best argument Republicans have is to complain about process. They–and you–cannot argue the case on its merits.

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 2:37 am

        There are many news items that summarize the testimony indicating that a public statement by Zelensky implicating Biden in an investigation–that is, smearing him–would be required to release the funds that were already approved by Congress

        Ah, yes, the “news items” that form such an integral part of the Lefts’s smear machine. You do realize, don’t you, that the strategy of leaking things to the press so the publication of the leaks can be cited as “proof” of the validity of what was leaked is now well known? That was the circular technique used to support the fraudulent FISA court applications, and it has been spotted since then, including in this farce. Do yourself a favor and don’t embarrass yourself by citing “news items” to try to support your stories. When a Leftist feeds a lie to the press and then quotes the press to support the lie, it’s pretty pathetic,

        And BTW, citing NBC is equally feeble. The link pulls up a 404 error. But….. why does it make sense to allow someone to file a report based on hearsay? What is the rationale for that? And how does that change the fact that the report, defective as it was, was still not about anyone in the intelligence community doing any of the things the rules say would support a complaint? Or the fact that the leaker broke the rules by taking the complaint to Congress instead of to the IG? Or that it was factually inaccurate?

        It is an indication of the desperation of the Left that you have to claim that ” the best argument Republicans have is to complain about process.” How utterly stupid. The best argument the Republicans have is the transcribed words of the participants in the conversation and their testimony about what they meant and how they understood what was said.

        The only argument the Dems have is that some people had a feeling, somehow, that what the people said wasn’t really what they meant.

        There are two separate issues. One is that the facts support the president, and the other is that the process indulged in by the Dems is shameful. Don’t try to conflate the two.

      • Retired Spook November 6, 2019 / 10:12 am

        Ah, yes, the “news items” that form such an integral part of the Lefts’s smear machine. You do realize, don’t you, that the strategy of leaking things to the press so the publication of the leaks can be cited as “proof” of the validity of what was leaked is now well known?

        Nowhere was this more true than in the Mueller Report, which contained 94 references to the New York Times, 66 references to the Washington Post,29 references to CNN, 22 references to Fox News, 22 references to NBC, 6 references to ABC,3 references to the New York Post, 2 references to CBS, and 1 reference each to USA Today, the Guardian and the Washington Examiner. Those were the only ones I searched on, but there are likely others. Some of those articles linked to OTHER articles, which, in turn, linked to anonymous sources. It’s easy to build a narrative. It doesn’t even take any investigative work — just at your computer and comb through news stories.

        — snip —

        RGRG2 11/6/19 @ 1:54AM Not my problem, but it is an indication of the weakness of Trump’s case that the best argument Republicans have is to complain about process. They–and you–cannot argue the case on its merits.

        The case has no merits.

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 11:15 am

        The case has no merits.

        Actually, there is no “case”. There is just a mishmash of hysterical accusations, all of which depend either on willful lying (Schiff and the leaker) or on claims by anti-Trump people that they somehow sensed or felt motives that were not actually expressed in words but just, like, you know, like were just THERE, somehow, because it just kind of FELT like maybe the words said didn’t really mean what they said.

        It’s the Left’s latest foray into Thought Crimes, a favorite mode of oppression by the Left because all it has to do is ATTRIBUTE thoughts to people and then prosecute based on those attributions. It’s so much easier than having to rely on facts and actual evidence.

  17. Cluster November 6, 2019 / 9:40 am

    …. implicating Biden in an investigation–that is, smearing him–

    Why would an investigation into Biden be “smearing him”? And couldn’t this be construed that all investigations into Trump are just attempts to “smear him”? If as Biden attests that “he did nothing wrong” wouldn’t an investigation into the matter be exactly what they want? To clear Biden’s good name? The fact that Democrats define any investigation attempts into the matter as an attempt to smear Biden indicates that they know he is dirty.

    I think everyone has grown tired of the daily word salad coming out of the networks examining every word and sentence looking for the nuanced evidence of malfeasance bolstering their position for impeachment when in reality, all of this boils down to is just partisan federal bureaucrats and angry Democrats in disagreement with how Trump conducts foreign policy. This is how petulant Democrats have become … they seem to think that their feelings and opinions matter more than others and that’s exactly how children think so I don’t know why we continue to engage them or play nice with them. They deserve to be bitch slapped.

    ABC quashed a story on Epstein which directly implicated Bill Clinton and that needs to be investigated, as does the Biden story. If these investigations end up “smearing” their names and reputations than that is their fault. If they are innocent as they claim, than they should welcome that investigation.

    • Retired Spook November 6, 2019 / 10:30 am

      If they are innocent as they claim, than they should welcome that investigation.

      And if they’re guilty of malfeasance they should be held accountable.

      • Cluster November 6, 2019 / 10:41 am

        And I think the Democrats and these partisan federal bureaucrat leakers, aka whistle blowers, should be held to account for subverting the president’s foreign policy. Their actions are directly impeding the Presidents ability to have open and candid conversations with other leaders around the world, which negatively impacts our country.

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 10:54 am

        Their actions are directly impeding the Presidents ability to have open and candid conversations with other leaders around the world, which negatively impacts our country.

        Bingo! They are actively sabotaging the ability of the president to do his job, actively trying to undermine his authority as the American head of state, actively trying to keep him from achieving anything that would benefit the United States because that might affect his popularity and in general actively working against national security and the interests of the country.

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 10:51 am

        And if they’re guilty of malfeasance they should be held accountable

        And that is what scares them. The Useful Idiots like rg might not realize the extent of wrongdoing that is going to be uncovered, or that has been uncovered and is going to be revealed, though their masters do. That is the real reason for mounting this elaborate theatrical production. It hopes to serve a dual purpose: throw enough crap at Trump to influence some voters but mostly to distract from the avalanche looming above them. Just wait and see—when the Durham information drops, the whine will be that this is just retribution for the impeachment hearing. They get away with stuff like this because their Useful Idiots either aren’t smart enough or don’t care enough to look at timelines. They will just line up to be fed their ration of lies and look to the Complicit Agenda Media to be told what they think and why.

        I actually laughed out loud when poor rg cited “news items” to try to bolster his sad silly recitation of debunked lies. As if the strategy of planting lies with the complicit media and then citing the publishing of those lies as corroboration of those lies has not been thoroughly exposed. But then if his corrupt lapdog media never came right out and told him what they are doing, he wouldn’t know, because they are his only source of “information”.

        Did you notice that he claimed the lies of the embedded leaker had been “corroborated” by the transcript of the conversation? This even after the transcript of the report had been made public, the transcript of the conversation made public to show that the account given in the report was false, and my recitation of the lies in the report.

    • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 10:34 am

      And here you touch upon one of the Left’s tactics, one used since the Russian Revolution. That is, to redefine terms and how they are used, to fit or support the narrative.

      So any investigation into any wrongdoing or evaluation of poor job performance by a Leftist or someone temporarily under the umbrella of protection of the Left is considered an attempt to “smear” him or her. But the bogus “investigation” of Trump was not a smear campaign, nor is this latest theatrical presentation of drama, melodrama, psychodrama and bullshit. No, these are, to hear the Left praise itself, merely efforts to get at the truth and save the country and preserve the Constitution and stand up bravely for all that is good and noble.

      I have also pointed out the inadvertent admission by the Left that any investigation into any Biden is going to produce information harmful to him. The Left has telegraphed several other admissions during this farce: that the foreign policy of the nation is not supposed to be set by the person elected to the presidency but by a cabal of unelected political appointees burrowed into the State Department and the intelligence community; that it is considered OK to work to undermine the president and unseat him if the Left wants to protect and consolidate power; that the end justifies the means so lying is OK; planting false information and making false reports is OK, that perjury is OK; that spying on citizens to try to find something to use against them is OK; and that undermining the authority of the president as he is negotiating abroad is acceptable. A mouthpiece for the Left recently admitted that the Left will be more successful in getting into power if it lies to the voters to get into office and only then implements policies the voters would not have voted for.

  18. Amazona November 6, 2019 / 11:02 am

    I know I scold people for feeding the trolls, and then I went ahead and engaged rg in a discussion. But I had my motives. We had just talked about the chicken/egg aspect of Leftist stupidity——are they willfully stupid or just uninformed? So when he offered a chance to explore those options, I took it.

    I think he very definitely put himself in the “willfully stupid” category though there is wiggle room there—he might be not stupid but just a willful liar. In any case, he proved my points, that facts and reason have no place in his mental universe, limited as it is. and that he is completely resistant to any information or perception that is not 100% in lockstep with what he either truly believes or is just pushing in his role as a troll.

    It’s not that I lack respect for him—-I actually have contempt for him. There is no logical reason for anyone of his obvious intellect to be so committed to his political allegiance, other than reasons that spur contempt and disdain.

    So I think I have proved that there is no reason to give him any more bandwidth. He brings nothing to the discussion but lies, spite and malice.

    • Cluster November 6, 2019 / 11:12 am

      It’s not that I lack respect for him—-I actually have contempt for him.

      Thank you. As do most rational people. I engage them from time to time but only for the purpose to make them question their existence. These are people who willingly lied to destroy an innocent man’s life and family in the case of Brett Kavanaugh and never felt shame or the need to apologize. These are people who open endless investigations into their political opponents and who openly admit to lying to the America electorate to advance their agenda.

      They are not people I want to even associate with, let alone share a country with. I am all for a civil war if it comes to that and their daily actions are making that more of a reality than we might suspect.

    • Retired Spook November 6, 2019 / 11:35 am

      There is no logical reason for anyone of his obvious intellect to be so committed to his political allegiance, other than reasons that spur contempt and disdain.

      I don’t think logic is part of the equation. I find it more than a little humorous that he chides us for having the same kind of allegiance to Trump in spite of Trump’s “many” moral and ethical shortcomings, when allegiance to the Left requires considerably more ignorance, tolerance, or what ever you want to call it of the moral and ethical shortcomings of the Left, which are literally too numerous to list. So what it really comes down to is results, and if you compare Trumps promises vs. results with previous presidents of both parties, it’s not even close.

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 12:20 pm

        What I get from the constant bleating from the Left that Trump supporters are just mindlessly devoted to him as a person, as if voting for Trump means being in some kind of cult, is simple projection.

        Yes, some who voted for Trump just really like him. But many did not, and voted for him anyway because they/we understand that the election is not supposed to be a popularity contest. As I said, I don’t want to date Trump, I want to hire him. Because he, of all the other candidates, had the best credentials for being able to do the job I wanted done. It is the cultish Left that not only obsesses about Identity Politics, it projects that obsession onto everyone else.

        It just so happens that Trump, in being such a great surprise, in doing such a good job, has started to win me over as I have started to appreciate some aspects of his personality as well as admire his dedication and tenacity.

        I see political allegiance as a pyramid. Those on the Right start with a big foundation of ideology—that is, a conviction that the nation must be governed according to certain specific rules and concepts. They build upon that foundation, and each succeeding tier is less important and dependent on the ones below it, till they get to the pinnacle, which is their choice of the person they think is most likely to accomplish what they want. In this pyramid of priorities, personality is the least important and occupies the least space.

        But on the Left, the pyramid is inverted, and the most important thing is the PERSON. And upon this tiny point the upside-down pyramid of political philosophy teeters. To the Left, the cult of personality is imperative, and upon this everything else rests and depends. That’s OK. They get to pick their own approaches to life. What is so annoying is their assumption that everyone else is equally superficial and indifferent to objectivity and reality.

  19. Cluster November 6, 2019 / 12:06 pm

    I also think the killings of those Americans in Mexico the other day is an act of war and we should act accordingly. Violent crimes are up double digit percentages in Mexico over the last couple of years and that country now has more violent crimes than most countries. In fact the wife and I have no plans to ever go back which is sad because I love Mexico.

  20. rgrg2 November 6, 2019 / 12:16 pm

    It’s not that I lack respect for him—-I actually have contempt for him. There is no logical reason for anyone of his obvious intellect to be so committed to his political allegiance, other than reasons that spur contempt and disdain.

    Meanwhile, you are so committed to your political allegiance to a man–not a country or any principles–that you offer complete and unwavering support for him. A man who argues in court that not only can he not be indicted of a crime, but he can’t even be investigated because he is the president. Is that what the Founders intended, Amazona?

    Cluster said it best for you: there is nothing that Donald Trump can do that will separate his supporters from him. In other words, you are no longer a conservative; you are a Trumpist.

    • Retired Spook November 6, 2019 / 12:29 pm

      Meanwhile, you are so committed to your political allegiance to a man–not a country or any principles–that you offer complete and unwavering support for him.

      Sorry sport — you’ve got that back asswards. We have political allegiance to what the “man” is doing for the country. I know several of us have said this before, multiple times, but it keeps sailing right over your pointy little head. Trump is doing what previous GOP presidents have promised to do but failed. It’s no different than your side back in the 90’s when you (collective you, not you personally) supported Clinton in spite of his moral and ethical failings because you liked the way he did his job, and you separated his personal life from his job performance. You may not be old enough to remember that, but I assure you Cluster, Amazona and I are — and do.

      you are no longer a conservative; you are a Trumpist.

      And when you boil it all down, that’s really all you’ve got. When you’ve lost the argument, call people names. Pathetic doesn’t begin to cover it.

      • rgrg2 November 6, 2019 / 12:47 pm

        And since you brought up Bill Clinton, let’s take this opportunity to remember what Senator Lindsey Graham said about impeachment when the subject was Clinton:

        “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 1:58 pm

        So now the mob has to convince the public that wanting to uncover corruption and cooperating with other nations to do this is somehow deserving of public scorn, humiliation and impeachment. Now the mob has to convince the public that secret Star Chamber Soviet-style hearings after which selected tidbits of testimony are released to be interpreted by a partisan lapdog press really don’t just represent an effort to mount a coup and unseat a duly elected president but are, somehow, just seeking to “restore honor and integrity to the office”—which of course depends entirely on convincing them that cooperating with a foreign nation to weed out corruption is the antithesis of honor and integrity.

        What is going to be fun to watch is the unraveling of the real concern of the Left, which is the double whammy of exposing the only real collusion between an American political party and a foreign nation to influence an American election and the illegal use of American agencies to spy on political opponents in a Stalinist style program of first naming a target and then trying to find something to accuse him of.

        When those two activities are exposed, the true motive for this theatrical impeachment charade, which is to distract from the real criminality and corruption represented by them and leading all the way up to the Obama White House, will also be clear.

        Sucks to be you.

    • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 12:33 pm

      It is so funny to see your comment, as it was posted while I was composing my post on the cultishness of the Left and your obsession with projecting that same blind allegiance to people rather than principle to others, as if everyone is as committed to such superficiality as you are. And then, here is your post confirming this.

      No, understanding that Trump is the focus of a sinister, dedicated, highly focused effort to unseat him by any means possible is just an allegiance to the concepts of fairness, truth and justice, not a blind allegiance to him as a person. The efforts of the Left are so blatantly corrupt, depending as they do on lies, attributions, manipulations of what is presented to the public through the lapdog complicit press, the Soviet-style secret proceedings, the selective leaks of cherry-picked and then misrepresented statements by witnesses and the general overall stench of dishonesty that even people who have never supported Trump are being offended by it.

      Though some, like you, find it so tasty you just can’t get enough of it. Yum yum, another lie, another deceit, like candy to the Left.

      And, as usual, you bring nothing to the discussion but a toxic stew of malice, dishonesty and ignorance.

    • rgrg2 November 6, 2019 / 12:43 pm

      Sorry sport — you’ve got that back asswards. We have political allegiance to what the “man” is doing for the country.

      When you all say there is nothing that will separate you from your support of a man, you are expressing allegiance to that man, not the country. It is the antithesis of patriotism.

      I get that you like the judges that have been appointed, and the economy is running along about the same as it was before Trump took office, but Trump’s behavior requires you to subvert your own ethical and moral standards. And you know it. That’s why you so vociferously push back on this.

      There is absolutely no way that you would tolerate any of Trump’s behavior if it was done by a Democrat. I mean, you guys had a fit when Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met for a few minutes on an airport tarmac.

      So spare me your weak justifications and rationalizations. If the term Trumpist bothers you, then stop acting like one. (And I know that it does bother you, because a few months ago you admitted it right here on BV4 when you wrote a post saying how my calling you out about this did in fact bother you. Of course, you came to the conclusion that all was right in your moral universe. lol)

      (And just for the record, while I am definitely old enough to have participated in the 1992 and 1996 elections, I never voted for Clinton.)

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 1:49 pm

        …the economy is running along about the same as it was before Trump took office except for actually running better, of course. It was hardly even “running” at all under Obama, more like staggering and stumbling, and Obama told us this was the new normal and we had to get used to it because this is the way it would be from then on out.

        You do realize we can tell when you are lying, don’t you? Yes, it is when you post, but aside from that it is when you say things that are simply so stupid that not even you can really believe them. This is what I mean by you just coming here to clutter the blog with crap.

        Trump’s behavior requires you to subvert your own ethical and moral standards

        The voices, the voices. You really have to tell them to shut up, because when you repeat the nonsense they tell you you just come across as a complete moron, with a strong element of deceit. “Trump’s behavior” is only objectionable when viewed through the distorted lens of abject rabid partisan Trump hatred and determination to demonize every single thing he says or does. And that comes back on YOU, not on those who recognize this toxic insanity for what it is.

        “…you guys had a fit when Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met for a few minutes on an airport tarmac.

        Yeah, we did, for all the good it did for us to point out the corruption and conflict of interest in having the head of the agency charged with investigating crimes of Hillary Clinton trying to have a secret meeting with her husband. We cared. You people didn’t.

        As for not voting for Clinton, it’s a little late for some feeble virtue signaling. It’s today we are talking about—today when you are obsessed with flooding the blog with lies, nonsense, insults and by the way did I mention lies?

      • Cluster November 6, 2019 / 2:05 pm

        The voices, the voices. You really have to tell them to shut up

        LOL

      • Retired Spook November 6, 2019 / 5:55 pm

        When you all say there is nothing that will separate you from your support of a man, you are expressing allegiance to that man, not the country. It is the antithesis of patriotism.

        I get that you like the judges that have been appointed, and the economy is running along about the same as it was before Trump took office, but Trump’s behavior requires you to subvert your own ethical and moral standards. And you know it. That’s why you so vociferously push back on this.

        You can keep saying that until you’re blue in the face, and it will still not be true.

        There is absolutely no way that you would tolerate any of Trump’s behavior if it was done by a Democrat.

        LOL! You’re right, but it has nothing to do with behavior. There isn’t a Democrat, at least on the national level, who would or could accomplish all that Trump has that is supported by Conservatives.

        Thanks for playing.

  21. rgrg2 November 6, 2019 / 12:28 pm

    Why would an investigation into Biden be “smearing him”?

    First off, a legitimate investigation into Biden would not be conducted out of the oval office. That should be your first clue.

    A legitimate investigation would not be promoted as a personal crusade on behalf of the president by the likes of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer. That should be your second clue.

    If there is legitimate wrongdoing, or evidence that there might be, then the matter should be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Donald Trump does not do this because he doesn’t care about legitimate investigations. What he wants is for foreign governments to publicly declare that they are “investigating” the Bidens, whether they are or not, so that he can score political points.

    Furthermore, this has been investigated, and while one could claim that Hunter Biden showed poor judgement in accepting a position that could be viewed as linked to his father’s role as vice president, there has been no evidence of a crime, even remotely. Trump claims that Vice President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Burisma. Actually, Shokin was fired for aiding and abetting corruption, not investigating it. This is all known and in the public domain. Why do you not know this?

    • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 1:40 pm

      “..a legitimate investigation into Biden would not be conducted out of the oval office. That should be your first clue.”

      Yet no one suggested that any investigation be conducted out of the oval office. The Oval Office is located in Washington, D.C. and the president of the United States has no investigative powers, even in the United States. The investigation had been, before it was improperly squashed due to an abuse of power by the then-vice president of the United States using taxpayer dollars as a bludgeon, conducted in the country of Ukraine, where the corruption was initiated and where most of it took place. Anyone who believes that a Ukrainian investigation into Ukrainian corruption would be “conducted out of the oval office” is, simply, profoundly stupid.

      A legitimate investigation would not be promoted as a personal crusade on behalf of the president by the likes of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer. That should be your second clue.

      The president has the legal and moral right to appoint anyone he chooses to represent him in any dealing or transaction. The experience of the president in his association with Mr. Giuliani evidently impressed him with Mr. Giuliani’s skills and led him to trust him to advise and assist in matters associated with Ukraine. It is quite usual for a president to have a “personal crusade”—-LBJ’s for example, was his War On Poverty, while Obama’s was federally funded health insurance. This president ran on his personal crusade to “drain the swamp”. Clearly you never heard of this,or you would not be expressing such surprise at the prospect of him actually working to do this. When foreign corruption is funded in part by American taxpayer dollars, and appears to include high-ranking American politicians and their children, it is obvious that the borders of the swamp extend beyond the borders of the United States. It’s a big job, especially with swamp creatures like you fighting him at every step with lies and howls of feigned outrage, and naturally he needs help. He gets to pick who he wants to help him. Get over it.

      If there is legitimate wrongdoing, or evidence that there might be, then the matter should be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.
      When that wrongdoing took place in another nation, the matter WAS referred to the head of that nation, for his assignment to the appropriate law enforcement agencies in that country. The President of the United States does not have the authority to delegate any investigation to any law enforcement agency in any other country, but he does have the authority to ask the head of that other country to look into it. Which he did.

      Donald Trump does not do this because he doesn’t care about legitimate investigations.

      And here we have the spiral into (1) a lie, and (2) the fantasyland of assuming knowledge of how a stranger thinks and feels. Donald Trump DID refer the matter of corruption in Ukraine to the head of that country’s government, and your attribution of the messages you get from the voices in your head as actual fact is just plain dumb.

      What he wants is for foreign governments to publicly declare that they are “investigating” the Bidens, whether they are or not, so that he can score political points.

      Again, the voices. The voices howling or whispering secrets about what Trump thinks and why he does things. Hint: Listen to the voices all you want, but don’t quote them because this just makes you look both stupid and nuts.

      Furthermore, this has been investigated,.. and it was, till it wasn’t. The investigator was called off, so Ukraine could collect the billion dollars promised to it. The investigation was never finalized, no conclusions were drawn, and the investigator wanted it to continue but was under serious political pressure. Pressure which came through his own government but from the American vice president.

      “…there has been no evidence of a crime, even remotely.”

      Except, of course, for the evidence that crimes WERE committed, some of which have been linked to Burisma. Quit parroting your stupid Leftist talking points and do some independent research.

      Trump claims that Vice President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Burisma.

      I didn’t hear Trump say this. Did he really, or is this just more reporting from the voices in your head?

      Actually, Shokin was fired for aiding and abetting corruption, not investigating it. This is all known and in the public domain.

      Ah, that “public domain” again. I guess if you call it the “public domain” it will sound different from “news items”. This is a narrative invented and put out by the Left, dutifully reported by its lapdog media, to try to cover for Biden’s blatant abuse of power and blackmailing of the Ukrainian government to try to protect his slimy corrupt son. As Ronald Reagan said, the problem with you people is that you know so much that is not true.

      But this is your bubble, and this is the noxious gas you people expel within your bubble so others can revel in the stench.

      All you ever do is try to clutter and stink up the blog with your litanies of hysterical lies and toxic worldview. But, as you constantly prove, you are a profoundly dishonest and morally corrupt person dedicated to attacking those who represent opposition to Leftist tyranny and deceit.

      • Amazona November 6, 2019 / 2:19 pm

        “..there has been no evidence of a crime, even remotely..”

        Well, aside from the evident decision to define “directly linked” as “not even remotely” this is from two stories on the Ukrainian investigation: emphasis mine

        Two major figures in this corruption feature prominently in Biden’s Ukraine investment.

        Zlochevsky founded Burisma in Cyprus in 2006. He served as natural resources minister under Yanukovych, and gave himself the licenses to develop the country’s abundant gas fields. He also had a flare for lavishness, running a super-exclusive fashion boutique named after himself.

        Burisma’s major subsidiaries ended up sharing the same business address as the natural gas firm controlled by Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. He controlled the country’s largest financial institution, ProvatBank, through which the Ukrainian military and government workers got paid. He also owned media companies and airlines. In violation of Ukraine law, he maintained Ukrainian, Israeli, and Cypriot passports.

        Kolomoisky gained a reputation for violence and brutality, along with lawlessness. Rival oligarchs have sued him for alleged involvement in “murders and beheadings” related to a business deal. He also allegedly used “hired rowdies armed with baseball bats, iron bars, gas and rubber bullet pistols and chainsaws” to take over a steel plant in 2006. He built his multibillion-dollar empire by “raiding” other companies, forcing them to merge with his own using brute force.

        For these and other reasons, the U.S. government placed Kolomoisky on its visa ban list, prohibiting him from entering the country legally. In 2015, however, after Hunter Biden and Devon Archer had joined Burisma’s board, Kolomoisky was given admittance back into the U.S.

        Archer and the younger Biden brought other benefits to Burisma, however. Archer represented the company at the Louisiana Gulf Coast Oil Exposition in 2015. Biden addressed the Energy Security for the Future conference in Monaco. The vice president’s son brought much-needed legitimacy to the shoddy gas company.

        Less than a month after Archer joined Burisma’s board, the company hired another Kerry lackey, David Leiter, as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He successfully lobbied for more aid to the country.

        Both Biden and Kerry championed $1.8 billion in taxpayer-backed loans to be given to Ukraine courtesy of the IMF. That money would go directly through Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank, and then it would disappear.

        According to the Ukrainian anticorruption watchdog Nashi Groshi, “This transaction of $1.8 billion … with the help of fake contracts was simply an asset siphoning operation.”

        In December 2016, Ukraine’s government was forced to nationalize Privatbank in order to shore up Ukrainians’ savings. A Ukrainian lawmaker called it the “greatest robbery of Ukraine’s state budget of the millennium.”

        In February 2016, the government seized Burisma founder Zlochevsky’s assets and placed him on Ukraine’s wanted list. The Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office seized Burisma’s gas wells.

        Even so, four days before Joe Biden arrived for his “swan song” visit in January 2017, the criminal investigation into Burisma was dropped.

        Devon Archer left the company at the end of 2016, but Hunter Biden remains on the board and continues to provide legal assistance. Archer and Biden have not been required to disclose their compensation from Burisma, but Bowling Green State University professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett wrote, “Potentially, the Biden family could become billionaires.”

        Did Joe Biden get Burisma off the hook for $1.8 billion in lost aid funding? Did he or his son get Kolomoisky off the visa ban list?

        …………….

        Hunter Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma in 2014. Bank records released as part of an unrelated lawsuit show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a firm operated by Archer, received more than $160,000 per month from Burisma starting in May 2016. Rosemont Seneca Bohai regularly sent funds to Hunter Biden, the records show.

        The seizure of Zlochevsky’s assets took place on Feb. 2, 2014. At the time, top Ukrainian corruption prosecutor Viktor Shokin led the probe.

        On the day of the seizure, Hunter Biden followed Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken on his Twitter account, another email obtained by Solomon shows.
        Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian Parliament, told Reuters that Zlochevsky came up with the idea to appoint Hunter Biden to the board “to protect [the company].”

        Weeks after Burisma lobbied the State Department and Archer met with Kerry, Joe Biden forced the firing of Shokin by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees; Biden bragged about the move during a videotaped speech on a panel last year.

        In a sworn statement, Shokin said that he was fired under pressure from Biden because he, Shokin, refused to drop the Burisma investigation.

        No evidence of any crime. Not even remotely. In the strange bizzaroland of the rabid Leftist, this might even be believed. But I doubt it. If it looks like a blatant lie, sounds like a blatant lie, smells like a blatant lie, then I’m going with the conclusion that rg is just spouting another blatant lie.

        That’s always a safe conclusion, by the way.

        Here’s a summary of what rg claims is a complete lack of evidence of any crime, “even remotely”

        *********************
        Zlochevsky starts Burisma. Burisma shares a business address with a thug, murderer and beheader, Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who owns PrivatBank.

        Zlochevsky hires Hunter Biden “to protect [the company.” Then Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry champion $1.8 billion in taxpayer-backed loans to be given to Ukraine courtesy of the IMF. That money would go directly through Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank, and then it would disappear.

        According to the Ukrainian anticorruption watchdog Nashi Groshi, “This transaction of $1.8 billion … with the help of fake contracts was simply an asset siphoning operation.”

        As part of a probe into this, Zlochevsky’s assets were seized on Feb. 2, 2014. Zlochevsky was placed on Ukraine’s wanted list. The Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office seized Burisma’s gas wells. At the time, top Ukrainian corruption prosecutor Viktor Shokin led the probe.

        On the day of the seizure, Hunter Biden lobbied the State Department to end the investigation. Weeks after Burisma lobbied the State Department and Archer met with Kerry, Joe Biden forced the firing of Shokin by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees;

        In a sworn statement, Shokin said that he was fired under pressure from Biden because he, Shokin, refused to drop the Burisma investigation.

        ************************

  22. Cluster November 6, 2019 / 1:31 pm

    Common leftist refrain

    Furthermore, this has been investigated, and while one could claim that Hunter Biden showed poor judgement in accepting a position that could be viewed as linked to his father’s role as vice president, there has been no evidence of a crime

    Yet no one has ever cited who did the investigation, when it was completed, and where that report can be found.

    Trump claims that Vice President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin

    As if it’s not on tape. You become more irrelevant everyday.

  23. Cluster November 6, 2019 / 1:35 pm

    It is funny to read RG’s refrain about an “allegiance” to a man on the heels of “The One They Have All Been Waiting For”. That was the very definition of an allegiance to a man and not their country. In fact RG’s MAN promised a “fundamental transformation” of the country so that in every aspect is a devotion to a man and not the country

  24. Amazona November 6, 2019 / 3:55 pm

    More on the “absolutely no evidence of any crime not even remotely in any way shape or form by a Biden” meme:

    Spearheading relations with China, Biden was instrumental in crafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that would have crushed American manufacturing and outsource millions of jobs. The deal would have omitted corrupt Chinese practices such as currency manipulation, dispute resolution courts, negative impact on U.S. automakers, labor rules, and wage commitments.

    In a nutshell, the TPP handed China economic supremacy. The deal didn’t make sense to American unions or economists at the time. That’s because they were unaware of what the Bidens were doing on the down-low.

    What we know now is that Hunter Biden got a free ride to China on Air Force Two to press the flesh with the highest-ranking Chinese finance ministers. After shaking hands and engaging in private one-on-one talks, Hunter Biden secured more than a billion dollars in Chinese funding. The target was buying a controlling interest in Henniges Automotive, and (sic) American auto outfit that also created military applications.

    Enter BHR Partners, a Chinese investment firm founded in 2013 that leveraged upwards of $600 million to buy Henniges Automotive. Hunter Biden sat on its paid board to leverage political influence with the White House and had personally invested $420,000 for a 10-percent stake.

    It’s come to light that Chinese hackers linked to these outfits stole designs for the U.S. F-35 fighter jet and used the plans to develop a stealth jet of their own.

    In hindsight, it appears Joe Biden and his son cleared a political pathway for the corporate takeover and could face treason charges once the loose ends are tied together. Sen. Chuck Grassley has launched an investigation into how the Biden and Kerry families profited while ethics rules about conflicts of interest were sidestepped, and national security was breached.

    “There is cause for concern that potential conflicts of interest could have influenced CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.) approval of the Henniges transaction,” Grassley reportedly wrote. “Accordingly, Congress and the public must fully understand the decision-making process that led to the Henniges approval and the extent to which CFIUS fully considered the transaction’s national security risks.”

    Ummm—the son of the vice president of the United States, working in a relationship with a nation not friendly to the U.S., leveraged by personal status and connections, then gets more than a billion dollars in funding for his company, and personally invests nearly half a million dollars for a 10% share in the acquisition of an American company that created military applications by the Chinese?

    Why is an American company that creates military applications being sold to the Chinese in the first place? If this transaction was enabled in any way to any extent by Joe Biden, aside from the national security issue there is the fact that his son owns a piece of the company in question after his father greases the skids to let the purchase go through, and of course the fact that his son’s partnership in the Chinese company came about, as if by coincidence, immediately after Hunter Biden accompanied his vice president father on Air Force Two on a state visit to China, where he was included in ceremonies and treated like a VIP and introduced to All The Right People.

    Damned right …Congress and the public must fully understand the decision-making process that led to the Henniges approval and the extent to which CFIUS fully considered the transaction’s national security risks.”.

    While this obviously pales in comparison to the importance of the selective reading of the tea leaves to determine what Donald Trump REALLY MEANT when he said something, it still seems pretty suspicious to me. But naturally, Biden is immune to any scrutiny as long as he is still in the race and pumped up by the lapdog complicit media as a really really serious, scary, no I mean REALLY SERIOUS threat to the reelection of Donald Trump. This desperate need to prop up Joe as a serious contender is already leading to some Weekend At Bernie’s moments and it’s only going to get more surreal.

Comments are closed.