Open Thread

No, as it turns out, I don’t trust Vindman – of course, I have a general distrust for our military officers these days, to begin with. I somehow doubt that Obama’s DoD was promoting people based on military merit. I suspect your promotion was based upon how well you mouthed words about “diversity”, “overseas contingency operations” and “global warming is a national security threat”. Not that I trust all that much those promoted during the Bush Administration, either. It was under Bush that we started allowing JAG REMFs to charge our boys and girls with war crimes, after all. So, nope: don’t trust the guy. In addition to the mistrust, I think he’s the leaker and very likely a liar. At all events, it isn’t for a light colonel to set foreign policy under any circumstances. I’m hoping that in a 2nd Trump Administration we’ll get a thorough housecleaning in our military forces. Lets pretty much retire everyone Major General and above and seek out hard charging, combat-orientated colonels and majors for rapid advancement.

Still don’t quite know where the Democrats are going with this charade. There is nothing to this. Certainly not anything that even a compliant MSM can puff up into something the American people will consider impeachment-worthy. But if the Democrats do go forward, I hope that McConnell spins it out to the Convention and then allows a motion to dismiss to pass.

Warren’s Medicare for All plan would require rationing. You already knew this. She’ll deny it, of course; call it something else. But the bottom line is that there are not, will not and cannot be enough medical providers to ensure everyone who wants/needs care at a particular time will get it at the time requested. Rationing, by one means or another, is inherent in any market where there is a scarcity – wisdom dictates that, in most instances, we let price ration. It is understandable that in something as crucial as healthcare, people don’t want price to dictate…but if it isn’t going to be price, then it will be a faceless bureaucrat who is far more interested in pleasing other bureaucrats who will decide how much care, and when you get it.

The latest woke reboot – Charlie’s Angels – tanked at the box office and the director is blaming sexism for it. Nope. Sorry; that ain’t it. Everyone actually likes strong female characters. Celeste and Rossalyn in Mirrors are very much bad-asses. In Secrets I’m introducing two more major female characters; a wicked one and a good one. Both, bad-asses. But when it is time in the story for a bad guy’s face to be caved in, rely on it: it will be a male character administering the beat down. Because duh. People don’t want to see a movie where a 110 pound woman takes down a 200 pound man. It is just ridiculous. But even that isn’t the worst part: when you add to that absurdity a lecture on how bad men are, it just turns everyone off. Want to make money? Then have your book or movie have really good, fun male and female characters doing all sorts of really cool things…but keep the men, men and the women, women.

Burglar brings an axe to a shotgun fight.

The House tried to get Trump’s tax returns but the Chief Justice has swatted them down. It is silly. You can rely on it that if there wasn’t anything in there, some Deep Stater would have leaked them already. But, also, it is unfair to demand the President’s tax returns and let everyone else off the hook. Once Nancy agrees to have her full financial life exposed to public scrutiny, then I might agree to do the same for Trump.

Focus group claims people like Trump’s policies, don’t like his Tweets. I can see that – but, how else is Trump to intervene in the national debate? He can’t go via the MSM as they’ll just lie about what he said. Has to do something.


“Christmas ornaments, drywall and Jeffrey Epstein – name three things that don’t hang themselves. That’s what the American people think…and they deserve some answers.”

It would be nice to find out what really happened. My view: Epstein did likely kill himself, but was helped along…if not in the physical sense, then in someone presenting the hemlock in the form of “you better kill yourself or Horrible Things will happen to you and anyone you care about”. Remember, even if it was just jail for Epstein, there’s jail and then there’s JAIL. What sort of prison, what sort of safety, who you’re lodged with…these are crucial things which can determine life or very painful torment and death for a flabby, middle-aged pedophile in prison. But I’m doubtful any investigation can get to the bottom of things: too many very powerful people are deeply compromised.

46 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. Cluster November 19, 2019 / 7:13 pm

    One thing we’re hearing today is how everyone agrees that Burisma was in fact a very corrupt company yet Democrats still want us to believe that Biden’s involvement was completely appropriate, even though he has no experience or knowledge in the industry nor does he even speak the language. Doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Re: Epstein my opinion is he was murdered … straight up. That man would have never been allowed to talk or see the inside of a court room. He knew way too much about too many powerful men. In reality, he probably would have joined the witness protection program and made life real uncomfortable for some people and that would have been unacceptable so he needed to go away. His useful purpose was over.

    • M. Noonan November 19, 2019 / 8:11 pm

      Pretty much. Now: who is taking over his job? Someone is still out there procuring. Here’s something interesting to think about: story I’ve heard is that Manson was an early procurer. Think about it – a good number of his girls were underage. He hung out with some pretty impressive people in Hollywood, given his official bio of broke hippie weirdo. One of the people Charlie hung out with was Terry Melcher a record producer who was Doris Day’s natural son and the adopted son of Martin Melcher, a film producer. Given what we’re finding out, the sorts of people who produce records and movies have to be under suspicion…and for a long time. And just how in heck did Manson know where Sharon Tate lived? Do you know where any famous actors live? This was long before Google, ya dig? And, of course, Tate was married to Polanski, who skipped town a few years later to avoid charges of raping a minor. You wonder and wonder and wonder…who is connected to whom? For how long?

  2. Retired Spook November 19, 2019 / 7:29 pm

    Turns out Mayor Pete is reeeeeeallly in touch with black people, just not from this country. Oops!

  3. Retired Spook November 19, 2019 / 7:47 pm


    REMFs? I don’t think I’ve heard that term since I retired. LOL!! (great description, BTW.)

  4. Retired Spook November 20, 2019 / 12:17 am

    It appears from his Wiki page that Lt. Col. Vindman spent 7 years as a major before being promoted to Lt. Col., which is a bit long. The typical time in grade as an 04 (major) is 4 years. Without knowing the details, it’s hard to say, but it appears he was passed over for promotion 2 or 3 times. Kind of makes me wonder how he got in the position he was in. I’ll bet some Obama holdover in HR was looking out for him.

    • Amazona November 20, 2019 / 10:04 am

      His current superiors don’t seem to think much of him, either.

  5. Cluster November 20, 2019 / 10:04 am

    Look at this headline:

    Republican witnesses aren’t helping Trump…

    And here I thought that when Volker and Taylor were asked point blank if they knew of any bribe the POTUS engaged in, and/or if any Ukraine official including Zelnsky felt any pressure to investigate Burisma, Bidens, or 2016 in exchange for aid, they both said emphatically ….. NO.

    So how is that nor helping Trump. We have a political faction in this country who willfully ignore reality and create one of their own.

    • Amazona November 20, 2019 / 10:42 am

      Not only are Pelosi and the gang trying to shift the focus from the phrase “quid pro quo” to “bribery” because that is a word in the list of criteria for impeachment, they are also trying to flip the meaning around, from a president being impeachable for ACCEPTING a bribe (the original intent of the Founders when they used that word) to a president being impeachable for OFFERING a bribe. (And, of course, the alleged offering of this alleged bribe also depends on how someone FEELS about the idea of an exchange of benefits between two nations, a FEELING that seems to be linked to who might be inconvenienced by the efforts of the nation allegedly trading an investigation for aid.)

      Almost all diplomacy can be boiled down to bribery. It’s almost always “If we give you this, we want that in return”. Why are we even thinking of giving aid to Ukraine? Any aid to Ukraine is a form of bribery—-“If we give you this aid, we want you to be on our side against Russia”. Under Obama, aid to Ukraine seemed to be just a money laundering scheme, running American dollars through some Ukrainian crooks so a lot of it could be funneled back to our Secretary of State and our Vice President. But that’s not the way it is supposed to work.

      Obama just handed out billions with no conditions attached, whether to Ukraine or Iran. So let the Dems argue that this the standard they want to maintain. That would be an interesting debate. But the usual standard is, to use the now-worn-out phrase, a quid pro quo.

      Sanctions, against any nation for any reason, are a form of bribery: “If you will give us what we want, we will lift the sanctions”.

      There seems to be a little pushback against letting the Dems set the semantic framework for discussion of “bribery” but not enough. It’s time to make it clear that the word is included in criteria for impeachment not as a fear that the president might bribe someone but that the president might accept a bribe, and it’s time to make it clear that the Dems are trying to imply that the normal exchange of benefits inherent in any diplomatic interaction is somehow criminal, is somehow a “bribe”.

  6. Amazona November 20, 2019 / 10:09 am

    Re: efforts to get Trump’s tax returns. The reason given is to “further investigate” the assertion that he somehow broke the law by paying women to not talk about sleeping with him,

    Now, that’s patently absurd. He admitted that he paid them. They don’t need copies of cancelled checks to prove it, and I really doubt there is some line on his tax returns for “Bimbo Payoffs”.

    And the returns are for the period before he became president. So what are they looking for? More to the point, what are they hoping for?

    They are hoping to find something, anything, they can use to challenge something he did, something he said, something he said he did, etc. It is nothing more than another fishing expedition.

  7. Amazona November 20, 2019 / 10:16 am

    OK, we’ve covered the impeachment charade pretty well so far. And we’ve addressed various lies about how the climate is changing and why. But I found this very interesting: emphasis mine

    Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

    U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said that the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

    Christine Stewart, Canada’s former Minister of the Environment said: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. … Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    See? It’s always necessary to look behind the curtain, whether it is to find the true motive for the leaders of the climate change hysteria or why the Left wants to see Trump’s tax returns. When it comes to the Left, the alleged reason for anything is seldom the real reason. But, as we are learning, if we are patient they will eventually tell us what they are really up to.

    Case in point: Obama telling us that his real goal was to “fundamentally transform this nation”.

    Case in point: emphasis mine: Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” is more about drastically overhauling the American economy than it is about combatting climate change, her top aide admitted.

    Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday.

    “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.

    “No matter if the science is all phony? What a perfect metaphor for everything the Left does. So what if the superficial explanation is fake, what matters is the real intent hiding behind it. And they find this completely acceptable. As a matter of fact, it is a description of Leftist strategy—-come up with something the average mindless sheeple will find appealing or compelling, state it as the desired goal, and then under cover of the lie pursue the true agenda.

    • Retired Spook November 20, 2019 / 11:57 am

      Even as Rep. Jim Jordan began to ask questions about Vindman’s judgment as brought up by his former boss, Vindman was ready, reading Fiona Hill’s glowing performance evaluation into the record. In her opinion, Vindman is a “top 1 percent military officer,” so who’s to question those credentials?

      If that were actually the case, he would have been promoted from major to lt. col. “below the zone,” that is, in 3 years, not 7 as was actually the case.

      • Amazona November 20, 2019 / 12:20 pm

        What were/are Fiona Hill’s qualifications to judge and evaluate a military office and his performance of his military duties? What research did she do into his military history, advancement history, evaluations by his other superiors, etc?

  8. Amazona November 20, 2019 / 12:08 pm

    What? Fake News? A dishonest headline? Oh, no, say it ain’t so!

    But, alas, it has happened again:


    ‘At the express direction of the president’: Amb. Sondland will testify there was a quid pro quo linking Ukraine aid to a Biden investigation

    This implies that the President said this to Sondland. Yet in his statement Sondland is clear that he got his impressions from Rudy Giuliani.

    In Sondland’s statement he says the “quid pro quo” was about arranging a White House visit for Zelensky (not release of funds) in exchange for a public statement about investigations, a demand that came from Giuliani who was assumed to be “…expressing the desires of the President of the United States…” and then he adds his own personal belief “…that these investigations were important to the President.”

    “Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky” in exchange for “a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma.” He also said Giuliani “was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

    It’s important to sort out what was requested by whom—it was through Giuliani with the assumption that he was conveying the exact, precise, unedited wish of the President, with no interjection of his own personality, preferences or projections of what he thought the President “really wanted”. The reaction to Giuliani is influenced by the existing belief of Sondland that “…we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

    Later, Sondland said he came to believe that military aid to Ukraine was suspended “until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations.” Note the key elements of this statement. One is that he “came to believe” this, and the other is that the release of the aid was not contingent upon opening investigations but merely on publicly stating they would be opened”—which he later relates to the need for “transparency”.

    And here we are back to assumptions, beliefs and projections—the very core of the entire allegation. He as much as admits this when he says I was first informed that the White House was withholding security aid to Ukraine during conversations with Ambassador Taylor on July 18, 2019. However, as I testified before, I was never able to obtain a clear answer regarding the specific reason for the hold, whether it was bureaucratic in nature — which often happens — or reflected some other concern in the interagency process. I never participated in any of the subsequent DOD or DOS review meetings.that others have described, so I cannot speak to what was discussed in those settings.

    Shortly after he writes this he admits that In the absence of any credible explanation for the hold, I came to the conclusion that the aid, like the White House visit, was jeopardized.

    In other words, in the vacuum of lack of any information whatsoever about the reason for the aid being delayed, he just jumped to a conclusion and invented what he seemed to think was a plausible reason. I read a little peevishness into this, as he made a point of stating that all these discussions went on without him.

    I think this statement from Sondland reinforces his statement “Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky” in exchange for “a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma.”

    Sondland explains the linking of the White House visit (NOT the release of financial aid) to an announcement of investigations. From his opening statement:

    While I am now aware of accounts of the meeting from Dr. Hill and Lt. Col. Vindman, their recollections of those events simply don’t square with my own or with those of Ambassador Volker or Secretary Perry. I recall mentioning the pre-requisite of investigations before any White House call or meeting. But I do not recall any yelling or screaming as others have said. Instead, after the meeting, Ambassador Bolton walked outside with the group, and we all took pictures together on the White House lawn.

    Most important, those recollections of protest do not square with the documentary record of our interactions with the NSC in the days and weeks that followed. We kept the NSC apprised of our efforts, including, specifically, our efforts to secure a public statement from the Ukrainians that would satisfy President Trump’s concerns.

    For example, on July 13, just three days after the July 10 meeting, I emailed Tim Morrison. He had just assumed Dr. Hill’s post as NSC Eurasia Director, and I met him that day for the first time. I wrote to Mr. Morrison (with these exact words):

    “The call between Zelensky and Potus should happen before 7/21. (Parliamentary Elections) Sole purpose is for Zelensky to give Potus assurances of ‘new sheriff’ in town. Corruption ending, unbundling moving forward and any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. Goal is for Potus to invite him to Oval. Volker,
    Perry, Bolton and I strongly recommend.”

    Once again, the conversation is about insisting that a public statement be made about Corruption ending, unbundling moving forward and any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently as a condition of a White House visit. Way back then, all involved parties were talking about “hampered investigations” being “allowed to move forward transparently”—that is, with public notice that this is happening.

    When you read Sondland’s entire statement, as I did, one thing is very clear, and that is the resentment of being told to work with Giuliani. Sondland echoes the resentment seen in other testimony from other State Department people about what they saw as an invasion of their turf and butting into areas where they thought they should be the only authority. We cannot overestimate the impact of these resentments on the eventual subjective reactions and assumptions. For example, Sondland says Let me say again: We weren’t happy with the President’s directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believed then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the President’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters.

    BTW, all of the sniping about Giuliani is based on the identification of him only as Trump’s “personal lawyer” though I think it obvious that in these cases he was acting as a presidential envoy, not as a personal lawyer.

    Sondland’s comments on the phone call: I first read the transcript on September 25, the same day it was publicly released. All I had heard at the time was that the call had gone well.

    Looking back, I find it very odd that neither I, nor Ambassador Taylor, nor Ambassador Volker ever received a detailed read-out of that call with the Biden references. Now, there are people who say they had concerns about that call. No one shared any concerns about the call
    with me at the time,
    when it would have been very helpful to know.

  9. Amazona November 20, 2019 / 12:46 pm
  10. Ryan Murphy November 20, 2019 / 4:57 pm

    Drudge? Seriously?

  11. Retired Spook November 20, 2019 / 11:46 pm

    The Democrats’ impeachment effort reminds me of this poster.

  12. Cluster November 21, 2019 / 9:47 am

    Just imagine for a moment that Don. Jr. had a baby out of wed lock and continually lied about it until he was caught. Do you think the media might cover that? And if Hunter lied about this … what else has he lied about? Do you think that might be a question some “journalists” would want answers to?

    Hunter Biden, 49, is the father of Lunden Roberts’s child, DNA testing has shown, according to court papers filed in Independence County, Arkansas, Wednesday. Hunter is not expected to challenge the results, according to legal documents. Roberts wants Hunter to pay child support for their baby, who she argues could be eligible for Secret Service protection because of grandpa Joe Biden. She is seeking for the court to seal case records to protect the child’s identity out of fear of safety for the baby, citing presidential candidate Joe’s political status. In previous filings, Roberts said her child was born in August last year. She referred to the infant as ‘Baby Doe’ and did not say whether it is a boy or girl. That would make the child’s current age around 15 months. Last month, Roberts claimed Hunter had privately admitted to her that he was her child’s father, but continued to lie about it to the press. Hunter had previously denied all allegations and demanded the suit be tossed.

    • Amazona November 21, 2019 / 10:00 am

      Don’t forget—-in your scenario of a media pile-on to savage Don Jr. he would also have fathered the baby while bedding his dead brother’s wife.

      • Cluster November 21, 2019 / 11:00 am

        OOOOOH even more salacious. Let’s not forget, if and when impeachment gets to the Senate, Adam Schiff’s communist style rules no longer apply and people like Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, the whistle blower, and Alexandra Chalupa will be called to testify. That will be a fun day.

  13. Amazona November 21, 2019 / 10:07 am

    From an excellent article on the incremental descent into depravity defined as good and moral:

    There can be no authority higher than that of the humans in control, no objectives better than the policies they themselves dictate and no criteria by which the “goodness” of those objectives is independently assessed. The government has decided that X should be done, and, therefore, X is good and shall be done. Any means by which X is achieved is, therefore, also good — as long as the government says so. This is how the government could order the Chinese people to perpetrate inhuman crimes against the most innocent, and the Chinese people would do it.

    We are sooooo close here in the United States, too. So close that abortion activists can almost taste it.

  14. Amazona November 21, 2019 / 10:25 am

    I ran across a funny comment on another blog, referring to SCUM: So-Called-Unbiased-Media

    • Cluster November 21, 2019 / 11:09 am

      So Called Unbiased Media …. LOVE IT

      And speaking of … Ken Starr rushed to judgement yesterday and said that Sondland’s testimony indicted the POTUS and that Republican Senate members should ask the President to resign. Then the afternoon session started and we learned that Sondland was only speaking about what he “presumed” ….. ????

      Any retraction from Starr?

      • Amazona November 21, 2019 / 7:25 pm

        Yes, I heard a fragment of something on the radio about him changing his tune and saying you can’t convict on presumptions.

  15. Retired Spook November 21, 2019 / 3:25 pm

    The YCMTSU file just keeps getting thicker and thicker.

    The Biden campaign ended up with egg on its face on Wednesday when they sent out an email about their candidate’s performance in the Democratic debate several hours before it started.

    The email’s headline read, “Did I make you proud?”

    “I’m leaving the fifth Democratic debate now,” Biden’s email claimed. “I hope I made you proud out there and I hope I made it clear to the world why our campaign is so important.

    The campaign was mocked on social media for the blunder.

    • Cluster November 21, 2019 / 4:23 pm

      Biden is getting harder to watch by the day. I am convinced he has the early stages of dementia and someone close to him should step in and stop this.

  16. Cluster November 21, 2019 / 4:17 pm

    The lies and deflections continue:

    White House’s former top Russian aide savages Trump’s defenders in impeachment testimony saying their claim Ukraine interfered in 2016 election is a Vladimir Putin lie designed to ‘destroy the faith of American people in our democracy’

    These are smart people right? Do they not read the news?

    • Amazona November 21, 2019 / 7:41 pm

      I would think officials in Ukraine would be insulted to learn that their legal system is so disrespected by the Left that a trial, conviction and sentencing for interfering in the U.S. election are all simply ignored in the course of their lying about only Russia meddling in our election.

      I have noticed the media effort to conflate the two kinds of interference from the two nations, Russia and Ukraine. From what I remember about Russian interference, the overt interference amounted to general “meddling”—using web bots to plant all sorts of controversial comments to generate all sorts of responses, but not acting for or against either candidate. It was described as just generic troublemaking, another effort to stir up trouble and conflict and to destabilize our society. The little overt action I know of from Russia was the Russian agent who worked with Steele to put together the fake dossier, and that was all instigated by the Dems and paid for by the Dems.

      On the other hand, many officials in Ukraine overtly acted to try to defeat Trump and get Hillary elected. They worked with the DNC, they promoted the invention and spreading of harmful gossip not just about Trump but about Manafort, and they were active and partisan.

      The two kinds and degrees of interference are very different.

      • Cluster November 21, 2019 / 8:28 pm

        And of the two, Ukraine’s was more egregious and more personal. Even Fiona Hill admitted today that Ukraine officials openly supported Clinton and said disparaging things of Trump and that Trump would have every right to feel aggrieved. Yet this is just dismissed by the media as is Biden’s involvement with a very corrupt company in Ukraine … hard to believe

  17. Cluster November 21, 2019 / 4:30 pm

    I am honestly stunned by the number of Democrats who have the audacity to declare such concern for Ukraine’s defense and it’s sovereignty following 8 years of sheer neglect of Ukraine under Obama. Why is this hypocrisy never mentioned in the media? Oh wait …

  18. Amazona November 21, 2019 / 9:30 pm

    I posted this three days ago but it is worth revisiting.

    The slush fund is reportedly run by former Secretary of State John Kerry, John Kerry Jr., another Kerry family member and Hunter Biden, Michael Coudrey reported.

    “Leaked documents from the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s office indicate complex money transfers from foreign sources into the control of a ‘slush fund’ owned and operated by Devon Archer, John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr, and Hunter Biden,” he said.

    So we had John Kerry and Joe Biden, the Secretary of State and the Vice President, manipulating relations and influence in foreign nations to send money to a company run by their sons and their good friend, Devon Archer. This article includes another Kerry son and Kerry himself as recipients of funds through Ukrainian corruption. Are we to believe that Joe never received any financial reward for his efforts to siphon vast sums of money to or through his son? He certainly needed the money more than Kerry did (unless Teresa stopped his allowance) and he was part of the pressuring of foreign nations.

    As much as rabid mouth-breathing Dems want to harm Trump, I think the real motive behind the impeachment charade is to distract from investigations that pose much greater threats to entrenched Liberals than we realize. Certainly a Trump loss next year would protect the Dems from fallout from their various crimes.

    We have (1) the weaponization of federal agencies to spy on American citizens, for political reasons, which can and might lead right back to Obama (and maybe Joe Biden); (2) various perjuries and illegal activities associated with the FISA warrants; (3) the Dem collusion with Ukraine to influence the American election, also leading back to the White House; (4) Ukrainian corruption funding a company linked to Kerry and Biden through their sons and possibly enriching them as well, after they used their positions to funnel foreign money into that company and other Kerry/Biden connections; (5) the actual activities of Kerry and Biden which led foreign money to be paid to their sons, investigation of which is likely to show real examples of bribery and extortion. This doesn’t even get into Crowdstrike and the fake hacking of the DNC server, or anything to do with Hillary and her multiple violations of the Espionage Act—which, by the way, also lead back to the Obama White House and Barry himself and spread as far as Anthony Wiener, old Carlos Danger himself.

    Who knows, there might even be time and energy left over to investigate the Dem House hiring of spies and putting them in charge of their servers, etc. That’s a little bit of corruption that got lost in the weeds of the recent hysteria on the Dem side of the aisle. Debbie refusing to fire that guy—-Cluster, you paid a lot of attention to that mess.

    I really hope the RNC is putting together dossiers on each of the Dem Congresscritters associated with each of these violations, particularly those running for office next year.

    • Cluster November 22, 2019 / 9:59 am

      The Awan family story has never been looked into and I think there is something very nefarious there. Who hires a Pakastani family with no IT experience to run the DNC network and then look the other way when they flee back to Pakistan with a suit case full of cash??? Nothing to see here.

  19. Amazona November 22, 2019 / 2:00 am

    It looks like the Biden/Kerry mob didn’t need to go all the way to Ukraine or China to collect millions/billions. Papa Joe and good buddy Barry sent a few million their way right here in the U.S.

    (Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) An investment firm linked to former Vice President Joe Biden‘s son Hunter and two close associates of former Secretary of State John Kerry received $130 million in government bailout funds, which it routed to an offshore account used to avoid paying taxes of its own.

    The investigation by the Washington Examiner into Rosemont Capital revealed that the company was a select few approved for a loan under the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility program in 2009, Joe Biden’s first year as vice president during the Obama administration.

    That same year, Hunter Biden co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners with Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, and a senior Kerry adviser, Devin Archer.
    Rosemont Seneca shared the same address and phone number as Rosemont Capital, which held a 50 percent stake in the subsidiary, according to records from the Securities and Exchange Commission reviewed by the Examiner.

    Three weeks after its incorporation, the parent company was granted $13.4 million to invest in student loans and $11.1 million to invest in subprime auto loans. Within five months, that amount had ballooned to $130 million total.

  20. Cluster November 22, 2019 / 10:29 am

    Here’s the latest from “conservative” Peggy Noonan:

    Look, the case has been made. Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain.

    The case has been made???? The only thing revealed this week is that everyone’s “presumption” of what Trump thought or wanted was wrong. It was nothing more than a string of career diplomats upset that Trump was not deferring to their “expertise”. Fiona Hill was the latest to say that Trump was ignoring all of their hard work and pursuing another course. Any just a little common sense that Peggy over looks is that any investigation by Ukraine into corruption will help the President politically and maybe that is why they object so loudly …… I think THEY ALL KNOW THERE IS DIRT IN UKRAINE ON A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THEY GO TO COCKTAIL PARTIES WITH.

    My hope is that House Dems impeach along partisan lines, throw it to the Senate while the Durham investigation is completed and we can merge the two investigations and have one big hearing including witness testimony from Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Strozk, and Lisa Page who I think will flip and become the star witness.

    • Amazona November 22, 2019 / 10:45 am

      “The case is made” for the new concept of judging based on attribution of intent, assignment of motive and assumption of guilt, even when these all demand leaping to conclusions not supported by actual evidence.

      And if “for political gain” is an impeachable offense, then every single Democrat voting for impeachment should be impeached, because every single thing they have done since Trump’s election has been for political gain.

      • Cluster November 22, 2019 / 11:18 am

        because every single thing they have done since Trump’s election has been for political gain.


  21. Retired Spook November 22, 2019 / 12:51 pm

    I’ve been kind of off the grid this past week or so. I got a new computer late last week, and the learning curve from Windows 7 to Windows 10 plus an update from Microsoft Office 2007 to the new version has been a challenge for this old computer illiterate septuagenarian. By the time my grandson-in-law got the new version of Outlook to work, I had a backlog of several hundred emails.
    Not sure that I like all the new stuff, or even agree that it’s better than the old stuff, but it is what it is.

    Anyway, I’ve been mostly out of the loop WRT the impeachment hearings. I watched a little of the first day — enough to know that it was largely a waste of time. It appears each side is claiming victory. I guess the House impeachment vote inn early December will determine whether or not that’s true. My guess is that 100% of Republicans will vote against it as well as more than the two Democrats who voted no on the impeachment inquiry vote. If the Democrats proceed to a trial in the Senate after that, I guess they deserve what they get.

    The worst outcome, IMO, would be for the Senate to vote, along partisan lines, for a directed acquittal without a trial, which would essentially be the Republicans providing cover for the Democrats. While that outcome wouldn’t surprise me given the level of political incest inside the Beltway, it would be terrible for the country. The American people deserve the truth on everything that’s happened in the last 4 or 5 years regardless how the chips fall, and the only way that’s going to happen is a lengthy Senate trial run by Republicans House Managers like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Devin Nunes, Elise Stefanik and John Ratcliffe. I have nearly zero confidence, at this point, that the Justice Dept. IG, Horowitz, is EVER going to issue his report, which has been “imminent” since last spring, although I’m hoping to be wrong on this. I have a little more confidence that John Durham will come out with a report, probably next spring, that will be incredibly damaging to Deep Staters from both parties and result in a number of indictments.

    • Amazona November 22, 2019 / 1:52 pm

      I also had a hard transition to Windows 10. Finding things on the hard drive is more complicated, and the organization of data is, in my opinion, unnecessarily complicated. It has bells and whistles I find annoying. In our office we had new Lenovo computers custom-designed with Windows 7 because Quickbooks either didn’t work well on Windows 10 or the transition had problems, I forget which. But, silver lining, it is far better than Windows 8, which died a quick and merciful death.

      I understood and agreed with McConnell’s statement that the Senate would not accept an impeachment verdict based on hearsay, and at the time that seemed like a reasonable statement. But as Schiff, et al, kept doubling down on the lies and emoting that form the foundation of the impeachment sham, I find it more and more important to rip the thin veneer of legality off the whole mess and expose it for what it is. I think that Schiff and his cronies took McConnell’s statement as a promise that they could keep escalating the insanity and it would never see the light of a real trial held to real legal standards. Time to destroy that theory.

      I think it is now a foregone conclusion that the Senate will hold a trial, if the House votes to impeach—and that is not a given. A forceful closing statement, if the Republicans are allowed to give one, pointing out that a vote to impeach is really a vote to damage a president and exert improper influence on an upcoming election based on nothing more than how some anti-Trump people FELT about what he said, should make some Dems stop and think about how a vote will be seen back home.

      Think about what a trial could accomplish. For one thing, it would not only allow information about the corruption not only of Joe Biden but of John Kerry, in directing benefits to nations which then enriched their sons and business associates in return, it could point out that the Dems appear to endorse this kind of activity from their leaders and officials, given their determination to block investigations into it. Once the Dems opened the door to discussion of Hunter Biden and his ties to Ukraine, the Republicans can swing it all the way open and shine light on the elaborate money laundering scheme implemented by Joe Biden and John Kerry, not just whether Hunter was qualified to sit on Burisma’s BOD. I’d go for it. The opportunity to link the influence of the Secretary of State and the Vice President in sending billions to foreign nations and the fact that millions of these dollars found their way back to Biden/Kerry-related enterprises is just too good to pass up.

      I do think a lot is coming out on the Russia Hoax, which is perfect timing to tie into the Ukraine Hoax. That will be a fun tangle to unravel, leading as it inevitably would all the way back to the Obama White House. Re: Ukraine: I’ve always felt that the reference to Crowdstrike was the spark that lit the fuse on the Burisma bomb, and that the Left was willing to sacrifice the Bidens and even a Congressional majority to protect the players in that whole convoluted scheme. Re: Russian Hoax, we already have word that a top FBI person is going to be indicted for criminal activity, a signal that the Horowitz report is actually going to be released. I doubt that Lindsay Graham would have committed to a December 8 reveal without getting the go-ahead from Horowitz.

      (Note to self: Be sure to remember to link opposition to Horowitz report to anti-Semitism.)

      • Retired Spook November 22, 2019 / 5:45 pm

        The opportunity to link the influence of the Secretary of State and the Vice President in sending billions to foreign nations and the fact that millions of these dollars found their way back to Biden/Kerry-related enterprises is just too good to pass up.


        In the last days of the Obama administration, Vice President Joe Biden took a “swan song” trip to Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt country where he had been the administration’s “point person.” On the eve of this trip, the country announced it would end a criminal investigation into a company connected to the loss of $1.8 billion in aid funding — a company whose board of directors included Biden’s son Hunter.

        The Biden family’s dealings with this Ukrainian company involved getting one of the country’s most notorious mob bankers, Ihor Kolomoisky, off the U.S. government visa ban list. Under Biden’s leadership, $3 billion in aid went to Ukraine, and his son’s company was implicated in the disappearance of $1.8 billion of that money.

        When the dust settles I think the amount of USAID money that went missing in Ukraine during the Obama administration will be a lot more than the $1.8 Billion that disappeared down the Burisma rabbit hole. Trump should be applauded, not impeached for wanting to get to the bottom of it before shoving more money at Ukraine.

  22. fieldingclaymore November 22, 2019 / 3:51 pm

    • Retired Spook November 22, 2019 / 5:38 pm

      OMG!! Not Steve Doocy. We’ll have to ignore everything we thought we knew//sarc off

      • Cluster November 22, 2019 / 7:34 pm

        Crowdstrike does have the server. Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave it to them so the FBI wouldn’t have it and Crowdstrike was charged by the DNC to “investigate” the server, which is now most likely in Ukraine. It makes you wonder what the Awan family got away with. My suspicion is that much of the $1.8 billion (and more) of foreign aid that Spook posted about ended up in a lot of different pockets, including terrorists and the Biden’s. I think a lot of nefarious people including some of our own, have been feeding at the trough of foreign aid.

    • Amazona November 22, 2019 / 10:23 pm

      Crowdstrike is the only source of the claim that the purloined DNC emails were taken via a Russian hack. The FBI was denied access to investigate the alleged hacking, and the DNC instead turned its servers over to Crowdstrike, which eventually issued a conclusion that the servers had been “hacked”.

      Julian Assange repeated, over and over again, that the information from the server was handed to someone, person to person, in a park in DC. When the FBI finally got access, the evidence had been so corrupted it was impossible to determine anything, though some blatantly obvious “clues” were left behind to indicate Russian involvement. But the FBI said that Russian hacking was far more sophisticated than the clumsy fingerprints they speculated were planted, rather than simply left behind.

      Later investigation showed that the information was transferred at speeds greater than could have been achieved in an electronic intrusion, and had to have been copied in a computer-to-computer or computer-to-storage-device.

      Poor little Libs and their mindless sheeple apologists, stuck with the worn-out phrase “conspiracy theory”.

Comments are closed.