39 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-23-19

  1. Not. Our. Fight.

    Let the hand wringing countries send their young men.

    This started way before us, and it will continue, whether we’re there or not. Let the UN do what it’s supposed to do. Bad things may be happening there, but why are we the ones who are supposed to fix what can’t be, short of a shooting war against our NATO ally? Which then exacerbates the casualties and misery for the locals, and fixes nothing. No thank you.


    “President Trump Understands What Congress Does Not: Syria Is Not America’s War

    Congress should start by tending to its own hypocrisies.”

    “Congress wouldn’t declare war or even approve presidential troop deployments in Syria. But sanctimonious legislators now are preening for the cameras, demanding that U.S. military force remain entangled in that tragic nation, seemingly forever. They show greater concern for foreign fighters acting in their own interest than for American soldiers, as well as civilians who have suffered from blowback to Washington’s succession of Middle Eastern wars.

    It needs to be said bluntly: Syria doesn’t matter for U.S. security. The Assad family has ruled Syria since 1971. The regime was allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War but never attacked America. After steady losses, the Assads even abandoned war with Israel. Rule by father and son has been brutal — like those of assorted American friends: Mubarak, el-Sisi, the Saudi royal family, Bahrain’s al-Khalifas, Iran’s Shah Pahlavi, and even Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, when he was fighting Tehran.

    Syria’s implosion in 2011 only added to the humanitarian tragedy. The Obama administration’s determination to oust President Bashar al-Assad discouraged both sides from negotiating. Yet Syrians, especially among minority Christians and Alawites, warned, à la Louis XV, “après moi, le déluge.” On a visit to Syria last year an Alawite told me that supposedly democratic protesters were chanting “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave.” Religious minorities saw the horrors unleashed when the U.S. ousted a secular dictator next door in Iraq and understandably feared a repeat.

    The (Obama) administration’s efforts were hopelessly ineffective, incompetent, confused, and contradictory. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to train a handful of supposedly moderate insurgents who were promptly killed or captured. The U.S. simultaneously sought to destroy ISIS and its main enemy, the Syrian state. Washington assumed that it could dictate events from thousands of miles away, somehow ousting Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia, which all were invited in by Damascus to defend interests far more pressing to them than those claimed by U.S. officials.

    Even worse, both the Obama and Trump administrations believed they could pacify the Turks with friendly words while arming the Kurds against the Islamic State. And use an illegal deployment of a couple thousand troops — what legal warrant does America have to invade, occupy, and divide the territory of another sovereign state? — to oust Assad, force democratic reform, push out the Iranians, limit Russia’s activities, force Ankara to accept an autonomous state for its mortal enemies, and prevent an Islamic State revival.

    Washington’s couldn’t achieve this ambitious agenda even during the height of Syria’s civil war. And the only goal worth much effort is the last one. The others aren’t likely achievable, wouldn’t do much for American security even if they were, and aren’t worth the cost of more bloody attempts at international social engineering.

    Constraining ISIS today is a task for those most directly threatened: Iraq, Jordan, the Gulf States, Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, and the Kurds. The Islamic State has arrayed itself against every other state and group. They allowed the U.S. to do their dirty work when ISIS was at the height of its military strength. Surely they can take over responsibility for their own defense today. After all, it is in their survival interest.

    The greatest hue and cry has gone up over the alleged “betrayal” of Syrian Kurds, who battled against the Islamic State. Yet many of those screaming the loudest care nothing about Washington’s support for the cruel, corrupt, and irresponsible Saudi regime’s murderous war in Yemen. For these Americans the Kurds’ plight looks mostly like an excuse to keep the U.S. mired in an endless war in the Middle East that cannot be justified on any other grounds. An unconvincing burst of moral concern is not a good reason to concoct a previously undeclared, undebated, unlegislated defense commitment.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The problem is half the country isn’t thinking. They’re partisans with an agenda, the truth be damned.


    That’s the title of an article by Byron York in the Washington Examiner. Byron’s thinking on the subject is consistent with what I have been trying to say the past few weeks.

    Byron identifies five possible explanations for the temporary withholding of military aid to Ukraine that have been put forth by one party or another. The first three are: (1) Trump’s general dislike of foreign aid, (2) his concern that other countries aren’t doing enough, (3) his general concern about corruption in Ukraine.

    All are legitimate, perfectly non-corrupt reasons for withholding aid. However, Trump’s enemies insist they are not the real reasons or, at a minimum, that additional reasons were also in play.

    The alleged additional reasons are: (4) Trump’s desire to see Ukraine assist in an inquiry into matters relating to the investigation of Russia interference in the 2016 campaign and (5) Trump’s desire to see Ukraine investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden and actions by Joe Biden to further these interests.

    That Trump had these desires seems evident from the unofficial transcript of his famous phone conversation with Ukraine’s president. Whether they were the reasons for the temporary withholding of aid is less clear.

    Byron agrees that motive (5) would be an improper reason for withholding aid. But he disputes, as I have, that motive (4) would be:

    Trump’s desire to see Ukraine assist in the 2016 “investigation of the investigation” was entirely reasonable. . .In fact, some part of the U.S. government has been investigating the 2016 election since at least mid-2016.

    There is still an investigation going on — Durham’s — and it would not be unusual for the government to want Ukraine to cooperate. After all, Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation sought and received the cooperation of several foreign countries. Investigating 2016 is something that has been standard procedure for the last few years.

    As to motive (5) — Trump’s desire to investigate the Bidens — Byron makes an important point: Mick Mulvaney unequivocally denied that it factored into the decision to withhold aid. The mainstream media, though, has suggested otherwise:

    Some press coverage conflated the two and reported that Mulvaney had admitted Trump held up the aid while demanding Ukraine “investigate Democrats.” Mulvaney, the New York Times said, “told reporters that military aid was held back in part to prod Ukraine to investigate Democrats.” The Washington Post reported that Mulvaney admitted “that Trump withheld aid meant for Ukraine to push the government there to investigate Democrats.”

    Not so:

    Investigating the roots of the Trump-Russia investigation is not “investigating Democrats.” It is investigating the actions of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies during the 2016 campaign. Holding back aid to force Ukraine to investigate the Bidens would be “investigating Democrats,” but Mulvaney specifically denied that Trump did that.

    As far as I can from information available to the public, the evidence so far does not establish that aid was conditioned on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.”


  3. The York piece.


    “So there they are — the five reasons behind Trump’s action on Ukraine. The first three are not only entirely legitimate but unremarkable. But there has been considerable controversy and confusion about the last two.

    Trump’s desire to see Ukraine assist in the 2016 “investigation of the investigation” was entirely reasonable. Mulvaney referred to “whether or not [Ukraine was] cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice — that’s completely legitimate.” In fact, some part of the U.S. government has been investigating the 2016 election since at least mid-2016. There is still an investigation going on — Durham’s — and it would not be unusual for the government to want Ukraine to cooperate. After all, Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation sought and received the cooperation of several foreign countries. Investigating 2016 is something that has been standard procedure for the last few years.

    It is the final reason — Trump’s desire to see Ukraine investigate the Bidens — that set off the Ukraine affair. It differs fundamentally from the other four in that it would involve an investigation of a current political rival of the president. While a few Republicans and commentators have sought to defend Trump’s request, others have suggested that the president should admit that it was improper but argue that it was simply not bad enough to warrant impeachment. “A truthful and sound defense,” National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote recently, “would give ground on the impropriety of the focus on the Bidens, but emphasize that nothing came from any pressure campaign, which was quickly abandoned.”

    One fact that has gotten lost in the Mulvaney controversy is that the chief of staff clearly said Trump held up aid to Ukraine in part because he, Trump, wanted Ukraine to assist in the Durham investigation. At the same time, Mulvaney just as clearly denied that investigating the Bidens played any role in Trump’s decision to withhold aid.

    Some press coverage conflated the two and reported that Mulvaney had admitted Trump held up the aid while demanding Ukraine “investigate Democrats.” Mulvaney, the New York Times said, “told reporters that military aid was held back in part to prod Ukraine to investigate Democrats.” The Washington Post reported that Mulvaney admitted “that Trump withheld aid meant for Ukraine to push the government there to investigate Democrats.”

    But that is not what Mulvaney said at all. Investigating the roots of the Trump-Russia investigation is not “investigating Democrats.” It is investigating the actions of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies during the 2016 campaign. Holding back aid to force Ukraine to investigate the Bidens would be “investigating Democrats,” but Mulvaney specifically denied that Trump did that.

    So the story is more complicated than some press coverage suggests. Four of Trump’s reasons for withholding aid were legitimate. The fifth was not. But the fact remains that the president had acceptable reasons to temporarily hold back aid. There’s more to the story than just Trump’s fifth reason. And on that, perhaps the president should just take Lowry’s advice and move on.”


  4. Lindsey Graham and Nunes were in rare form last night. 🙂

    Ricky, you need to watch all 35 minutes so you can educate yourself.

    In 2 minutes Radcliffe destroyed the latest whistleblower. But you don’t know that because they’re hiding it and all the testimony from the public. Every witness has denied what Dems and you are pushing, but again, that’s hidden by Dems.

    The good stuff starts around the 15:00 minute mark.


  5. The Supreme Court is about to shrink govt, and destroy yet another piece of Obama’s failed legacy. 🙂


    “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concentrates power in the hands of a single, unelected, unaccountable official.

    Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear what could end up being the most consequential case of the term — in a year where the justices are already taking up employment discrimination, the Second Amendment, abortion, DACA, school choice, and other issues of higher political salience. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Court will decide the constitutionality of an agency long criticized not just by the business community and free-market-oriented politicians but also by constitutional scholars who see major problems with its structure as a single-director agency seemingly unaccountable to the president or anyone else.

    The lawsuit was brought by a law firm that assists in resolving personal-debt issues, among other legal work that puts it in the crosshairs of those who, like Senator Elizabeth Warren, want greater regulation of consumer-facing financial services. When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Warren helped design as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, began an investigation into the firm’s practices, Seila Law argued that the agency’s structure was constitutionally defective. A federal district court in Santa Ana, Calif., rejected that claim, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed its ruling.

    The CFPB is the most independent of independent agencies, with power to make rules, enforce them, adjudicate violations in its own administrative hearings, and punish wrongdoers. And yet a single director heads the agency, one who can be removed only “for cause” — malfeasance rather than, say, a change in presidential policy priorities. The CFPB doesn’t even need Congress to approve its budget, because its funding requests are rubber-stamped by another agency insulated from political control: the Federal Reserve. The CFPB has regulatory authority over 19 federal consumer-protection laws. This concentration of power in the hands of a single, unelected, unaccountable official is unprecedented and cannot be squared with the Constitution’s structure, or with its purpose of protecting individual liberty from government overreach.

    The Constitution created three co-equal branches keeping one another in check to promote liberty and prevent any single person or entity from growing too powerful. During the 20th century, however, the federal government began creating “independent agencies,” typically headed by multiple commissioners appointed by the president; think of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Federal Communications Commission.

    The Supreme Court has held such multi-member commissions to be constitutional, but most of these agencies include various other mechanisms to check their powers, such as staggered terms (meaning that a new president cannot replace the whole commission at once, but can fill some seats on it); limitations on how many members of a given political party may sit on the commission at a time; and a multi-member structure through which the commission discusses potential actions and moves forward only with a majority or consensus decision.

    Then Congress created the new type of agency that is the CFPB. Without multiple leaders to appoint, there can be no staggered terms, no partisanship restriction, and no discussion among commissioners. Neither the executive nor the legislative branch can truly check the CFPB director, who again cannot be removed from office except for cause, and whose budget bypasses Congress. (Warren herself was supposed to be the first director, but President Obama ended up passing her over owing to near-unanimous Republican opposition; it wasn’t until 2013 that Senate Democrats exercised the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters for executive and lower-court nominees.)

    Worst of all, the CFPB exercises significant executive power, in addition to elements of legislative and judicial functions, in its field of consumer-finance regulation. This creates serious constitutional problems for an agency that is unaccountable to the political branches — and, thus, to the people. The Constitution does not permit the unaccountable CFPB to exert such significant and varied power over an important aspect of American life.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Yawn.

    They got him this time for sure….. 🙄

    Keep in mind how fraudulent this all is when Dems use this charade to vote for impeachment.

    But as Graham noted above, it’s illegitimate, and won’t even get a vote. 🙂


    “It really doesn’t matter what any of these witnesses tell the Impeachment Folly ringleaders, the story is already written. The ringleaders will tell this story to the public via their media conduits even if their “witnesses” do not cooperate and affirm their fairy tale. Because this process is taking place in secret, we can only assume the Democrats have something to hide. There would be no reason to conceal the process if things are as they are portrayed in their media leaks. So along those lines…

    Democrat leakers tell resistance tabloid The Hill that they obtained EXPLOSIVE testimony from the punk a$$ bureaucrat they shuffled into their impeachment star chamber yesterday.

    William Taylor, the head of the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, informed House lawmakers he was told nearly $400 million in military aid was contingent on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, the Burisma energy company and 2016 election interference.

    Taylor’s testimony, that he understood the Trump administration was pushing for a quid pro quo, added more fuel to the Democrats’ hard-charging investigation.

    “[T]he push to make President Zelensky publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the regular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani,” he told House investigators.

    Thankfully, we have The Hill. Democrats do not want people to hear for themselves but want to dish out carefully selected morsels of propaganda for the dummies swallow in snuff stories published by outlets like The Hill.

    According to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, yesterday’s inquisition wasn’t exactly as The Hill and Adam Schiff reports. “In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy Taylor’s whole argument,” McCarthy said.

    “Adam Schiff won’t let us talk about what happened,” McCarthy said regarding U.S. diplomat to Ukraine Bill Taylor’s closed-door hearing on Capitol Hill. “There is no quid pro quo.”

    “The one thing that you find out in this process is all this information is just like that whistleblower… everything is second-, third-, and fourth-hand information,” he said.”


  7. If you want to educate yourself, read Ambassador Bill Taylor’s opening statement.

    Taylor was the human smoking gun. Trump is going to be impeached. Then it will be up to the Senate.


  8. 7:02

    We entertained ourselves by discussing and researching a variation of this question for some length while on a recent trip:

    Who has a higher combined current IQ:
    1. Trump and Nunes; or
    2. Schiff and an adult chimpanzee.

    We figured they would be within 10 points of each other, somewhere around 170.


  9. You talk about IQ’s?

    You who ignore the facts and fall for every piece of propaganda they feed you?

    You who claim to be so pure and clean, unlike that Trump and his followers. Yet it’s you who lies, spreads false info, pushes propaganda, slanders and maligns an innocent man at every turn. You’ve aligned with baby killers and the anti-Christian zealots in govt because your obsession with Trump has made you unable to comprehend reality. You’ve become what you accuse him of being, a charlatan, a man pretending to be something he’s not, a sham, a fraud, and a liar.

    You are the made up Trump you’re raging about.

    Seriously Ricky, get help.


  10. And let’s talk about the legal aspect of all this for a minute.

    You claim to be a lawyer, yet the law means nothing to you. No due process for Trump. No right to face and question his accusers. No right to read the evidence or crimes alleged, and no disclosure of such by his inquisitors. You’re championing fraud, corruption, and an assault on all legal norms. These are basic rights, as you should know, yet you’d cast all that, the very foundations of our legal system aside to get Trump. You Sir, and your pathetic ilk, are the problem. Not Trump. You.

    You should be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt you have the decency.


  11. Lynching, it’s only bad when an R says it.



  12. Here’s more from Lindsey Graham.

    And he’s telling you the same thing I just did Ricky.


    “Graham backs Trump: ‘This is a lynching in every sense'”

    “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday said President Trump is absolutely right to call the House impeachment process a “lynching.”

    “This is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American,” Graham said to reporters.”

    ““I’ve never seen a situation in my lifetime as a lawyer where somebody is accused of a major misconduct who cannot confront the accuser, call witnesses on their behalf and have the discussion in the light of day so the public can judge,” he said.

    Graham made his comments after Trump caused a firestorm by tweeting that the House impeachment inquiry is a “lynching.”

    Graham backed up the president, saying, “I think that’s pretty well accurate.”

    “I think lynching is being seen as somebody taking the law in their own hands and out to get somebody for no good reason,” he said.

    Asked if he could understand why African Americans would be offended by the comparison, Graham stood his ground.

    “Yes, African Americans have [been] lynched. Other people have been lynched throughout history. What does lynching mean? That a mob grabs you, they don’t give you a chance to defend yourself, they don’t tell you what happened to you, they just destroy you. That’s exactly what’s happening in the United States House of Representatives right now,” he said.

    “In every sense, this is a mob taking over the rule of law. This is fundamentally un-American and until it changes, I will fight back as hard as I can,” he said of House Democrats.

    Graham later clarified that he was comparing the House inquiry to a “political lynching.”

    He also argued that the media wouldn’t be offended if the word was used to describe Republicans running an investigation into a Democrat president.
    “If Republicans were doing this you would be okay with calling it a political lynching because that’s literally what it is,” he said. “


  13. Yawn.

    We in the media have our Dem talking points, and we’re going with them, facts be damned.



  14. More lies exposed.

    This is why Dems don’t want Trump and his team talking to foreign govts. Because it exposes their crimes.

    And yet another thing Ricky got wrong.


    “Durham’s probe into possible FBI misconduct expanded based on new evidence, sources say”

    “U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe has expanded based on new evidence uncovered during a recent trip to Rome with Attorney General Bill Barr, sources told Fox News on Tuesday.

    The sources said Durham was “very interested” to question former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump critic who recently dismissed the idea.

    The two Obama administration officials were at the helm when the unverified and largely discredited Steele dossier, written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, was used to justify a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.

    In Italy, Barr reportedly told embassy officials he “needed a conference room to meet high-level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in.”

    A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice told The Daily Beast earlier this month that Barr and Durham were played a taped deposition made by Joseph Mifsud, the professor who allegedly told ex-Trump aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Mifsud reportedly was explaining to authorities in the deposition why people would want to harm him, and why he needed police protection.

    Papadopoulos has suggested he was connected with Mifsud as part of a setup orchestrated by intelligence agencies.

    President Trump last month informed several countries that Barr would be contacting the appropriate law enforcement entities in each country, according to a DOJ official. When Barr was in Italy that month, he spoke to law enforcement officials there about Durham’s review, the source told Fox News.

    Additionally, documents obtained by Fox News confirmed that Australia proactively offered support for Barr’s review, and seemingly contradicted reporting that Trump was pressuring other countries to assist.

    Separately, Fox News on Tuesday reviewed email correspondence showing that one of then-candidate Trump’s advisers recently was notified by an email service provider that the provider had received a legal demand for data associated with the user’s email account — and that the request was “served by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.””


  15. Trump: From his extreme sensitivity to his grades, his threats against his former schools if they released his grades and the behavior that led to all the bankruptcies, we can safely conclude that Trump’s IQ was never above average. (100). Analysis of his current vocabulary versus his vocabulary 30 years ago shows significant cognitive decline. We will be generous and give him an 85.

    Nunes: Though his family was wealthy, he chose a very easy major at a third-level school. Compare him to Maxine Waters. They are well-matched. Again, we will be generous and give him an 85.

    The chimp: This one is harder. There are many conflicting studies, but we will take a middle number and give him a 25.

    Schiff: So he needs to make a 146. With solid degrees from Harvard and Stanford, that is right in the range where I would expect him to score. Other Members of the House or Senate who might compete with Schiff intellectually would be Cruz and Sasse, but I would not bet against Schiff.

    You could substitute Hannity, Gohmert or Gaetz for Trump or Nunes, and I don’t think it would make any difference. Lindsay Graham is no genius, but his primary problem is that he lacks a backbone even if his brain is near normal.


  16. Bluff, called.



  17. ————

    Finally! They show some spine. 🙂


  18. And here’s the part Ricky and the WaPo left out.

    They want to be spoon fed only Democrat approved leaks.

    The 15 page opening statement Schiff helped him right is nice and all, but it doesn’t stand up to being challenged. But they won’t let you see that part. Can’t have the truth getting out.


  19. Poor Ricky.


    But for some reason, Schiff won’t release the transcript…..


  20. A good summary of where we are after Taylor’s testimony. If the Democrats put their Constitutional duties above political considerations, they will impeach. Then there will be a character test for Republican Senators.


  21. —————-

    And the mushrooms like it that way, right Ricky?


  22. That’s it Ricky, keep peddling that propaganda! 🙂

    This is what you’re defending. It just further exposes you. Shame on you.


    All of this could be cleared up. Just release the transcripts.

    But they won’t. They can’t. They dare not do so, or it all falls apart.


  23. Quick Ricky, get to slandering these new R’s who’ve dared speak against your ill wishes too. Can’t let Trump and Nunes get all the glory. 🙂

    Add Zeldin, Meadows, and the other 20 or so. Make a list hack.

    You’ll be busy, between that and posting all those leftist hot takes from The Week and all. Best make coffee. It’s gonna be a late one. 🙂

    The trick is, you need to stop digging Ricky.


  24. 11:58 You can tell The Cult is in trouble when it sends its dumbest members to disrupt proceedings like they were union thugs, antifa members or pro-abortion activists. Have Gaetz and Gohmert now chained themselves to conference room tables or bathroom doors?


  25. Trump is his own worst enemy, so I’m guessing he ordered his flunky Gaetz and the other half-wits to pull this stunt.


  26. Like

  27. And as always with Ricky’s latest leftist hot takes, it’s that hack so-called conservative sell out Kristol and his anonymous sources.

    That’s it Ricky, keep digging.

    There’s no saving face left for you. That you continue to support this miscarriage of justice is telling. And not in a good way.

    More inconvenient questions that you hacks keep ignoring.

    Why does Ricky support third world communist tactics?

    Why does Ricky support destroying the foundations of our legal system to get Trump?


    I could go on all day. But I’ve grown bored now.


  28. Breaking News……

    “Breaking: Trump Defends Syria Withdrawal, Announces Turk-Kurd Permanent Ceasefire Agreement; Update: Kurdish Commander Thanks Trump”


    “It’s too early for congratulations, Donald Trump admits, but his presser this morning definitely had the look of a victory lap. Trump announced that the temporary cease-fire between Turkey and the Kurdish forces in Syria has now been made permanent in a new agreement. Trump insisted that his decision to abruptly withdraw from the contested border areas created the opening for potential peace in the region.

    “This was an outcome created by us, the United States, and nobody else. No other nation,” Trump claimed, while blaming the countries in the region for involving us in their “ancient tribal conflicts.” Declaring that his course will always be “victory for America,” Trump said that he would ensure that American troops would only be deployed in the future in service to a “vital national interest,” and only when a path to victory is clearly defined:

    Even if the ceasefire collapses, Trump noted, we won’t come back. “Let someone else fight over this long-bloodstained sand,” Trump declared, and called on other nations to do their part in policing peace. That has its own implications for the region; which nations will fill the vacuum left behind the US withdrawal? Do we really want Iran and/or Russia becoming the policeman in the region? Saudi Arabia already has enough of Iran playing policeman in Yemen and parts of Syria, and Jordan and Israel won’t much care for that idea either.

    However, this is entirely consistent with Trump’s election campaign rhetoric. In fact, this speech sounded almost like a sequel to his 2016 agenda, with claims of progress and determination to get the rest of it accomplished. Clearly the criticism from both sides of the aisle over his Syria withdrawal has not dented Trump’s resolve to see through his disengagement policies; it sounds more like he’s doubling down and hoping to accelerate the process.”


    A politician hell bent on keeping his promises to voters. Oh…. the horror…..


  29. Like

  30. Taylor is yet another person with an anti-Trump ax to grind who has bought into the losing Dem narrative of “We’ve definitely got Trump now.” Only as usual, they have nothing.

    They really are looking totally ridiculous… what a sad state of affairs.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. “What is Adam Schiff trying to hide?” — Rep. Steve Scalise


    Shut it down. 🙂


  32. —————


  33. ——————

    Because it’s a sham, wrapped in a fraud, stuffed in a hoax, delivered by con men, and run by an un-American clown.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.