37 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-30-19

  1. Dems and NTers want to punish Trump for doing his job.

    https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/29/exclusive-rep-andy-biggs-tells-house-dems-stop-punishing-trump-job/

    “Hot Air presents a guest post from Congressman Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, representing eastern Maricopa County. Rep. Biggs also chairs the House Freedom Caucus, elected to that position last month. The views expressed do not represent Hot Air, Townhall, Salem Media Group, or its staff.

    Recently, Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez suggested that we should “decarcerate” convicted felons who sit in American prisons. That’s a new one. Who knows where that boneheaded idea will end up, but Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats have come up with a better idea on how a person can avoid investigation, prosecution, and possible conviction for crimes: run for President of the United States.

    Have you been selling influence or blackmailing foreign leaders for personal gain? Not to worry: you simply throw your hat into the field of presidential candidates. Apparently, the Democrats believe that the Executive Branch is then frozen out of investigating and prosecuting criminal conduct due to a conflict of interest. That is, because you might end up as the opposition party’s nominee, the sitting president and the executive agencies that otherwise would investigate you are paralyzed because no matter how compelling or public the evidence is against you, you are in a special class: a political opponent.

    Wow! It’s like magic. There might be a video of you bragging about holding a country hostage unless that nation’s leader fires the investigator looking into your son’s participation in a corrupt energy company, but you have immunity because you are a potential political opponent.

    It really is a superior way to live one’s life with impunity. It sure beats the heck out of having Democrats in Congress mobilizing to remove you from office because they are afraid that they can’t beat you in a re-election campaign.

    And, it is preferable to having everyone that you know or who has supported you investigated or prosecuted, harassed by a Leftist press, or victimized by congressional leaders urging that her supporters verbally or physically accost President Trump’s backers.

    It is ludicrous to argue that the President of the United States, the person that many Democrats have repeatedly said is “the Chief Law Enforcement Officer” of our country, should be foreclosed from enlisting all available resources to investigate crime and corruption.

    When the corruption takes place in another country and spills over into America, particularly as in the 2016 Presidential election, we should expect that the President of the United States would enlist assistance from the subject state.

    While we should demand that purely political excursions against political opponents be strictly prohibited – for instance, if a certain Democrat President allowed the Internal Revenue Service to attack conservative organizations and individuals or permitted the top brass of the intelligence community and police apparatus to investigate a presidential candidate in order to prevent his election – there should be investigations and prosecutions to deter a repeat of such heinous activities.”

    Like

  2. Pelosi’s backtracking is admitting they’ve bungled the process.

    ————-

    ————–

    But The Sham (patent pending) proceeds anyway.

    Like

  3. Finally. A little honesty from the NYT, such as it is….

    https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2019/10/29/nyt-writer-finally-admits-feels-good-hate-trump/

    “What’s unusual about Weiner’s column is that she openly admits that she watched the video of the booing multiple times, relishing it more and more as she went along. Again, this shouldn’t be in any way unexpected from a liberal columnist, but it’s rather shocking to see one of them admit it in print. After the confession, Weiner launches into what appears at first glance to be some sort of contrition.

    It felt like medicine, like balm for a weary soul. It wasn’t until I’d watched the footage sped up, slowed down and from six angles and heard myself crooning, “Let me taste your tears!” that I started feeling a little sick, as if I’d gorged on Halloween candy.

    I realized that I was gloating. It was not a pleasant realization…

    The booing is fine. It’s my own reaction to the booing that troubles me — the joy I took from Mr. Trump’s pain and the example it sets for my kids.

    If that small excerpt was all you saw of the column you might think that Weiner had reached a moment of self-realization and was on the path to redemption. Don’t be fooled, however. That may be what she’d like you to take away from this essay, but it’s far from the truth. I had to scrub 90% of the article to find those three brief paragraphs. The rest of the lengthy piece is actually a massive justification for why the President should be treated like trash and how Democrats and liberals are so much better.

    Here’s just one of many examples.

    We — Democrats, liberals, progressives, the resistance, whatever you call the other side — are supposed to be better than that. We’re supposed to be the party of the downtrodden and the less fortunate. While Republicans support the fat-cat billionaires, we stand up for the workers. While they put kids in cages, we work to reunite them with their families. When they build walls, we say, All are welcome here. For them, the cruelty is the point. For us, kindness matters. When they go low, we go high.

    There’s plenty more where that came from. I’m not sure if this is a case of actual delusion or willful ignorance, but it’s an excellent example of how many of our liberal, intellectual betters see themselves. (Or at least claim to see themselves in public.) It’s not a question of differences in policy or your approach to good governance. Conservatives are simply bad people. They are evil and relish the pain they inflict on puppies. And it’s only right and proper that we treat them like garbage and relish their abuse.”

    Like

  4. ‘Your Past Is Terrible, and Your Future Is Terrible’

    That’s what they’re teaching the kids. From Dennis Prager….

    https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/29/your-past-is-terrible-and-your-future-is-terrible-what-the-left-tells-young-americans/

    “America’s history, according to the Left, is a story of genocide, slavery, racism, patriarchy, and colonialism. That’s a terrible lesson for young people.”

    “Here are some of the messages the Left has been giving America’s young people:

    Your past is terrible, and your future is terrible

    The American past is a story of genocide, slavery, racism, patriarchy, and colonialism. You should be ashamed of it.

    As regards your future, your very existence is in jeopardy. You may well die at a young age unless society completely shifts from fossil fuels to wind and solar power. In fact, your future is so bleak you should probably not consider getting married and having children.

    If you are a girl, you should know that American society has contempt for you. You will be paid less than a man for the exact same work and exact same number of hours of work. You will have between a 1-in-4 and 1-in-3 chance of being sexually assaulted if you attend college. There is a glass ceiling that will prevent you from professional success. And professional success, not marriage and family, is what you should concentrate on.

    That none of the above is true is irrelevant to the Left. What is relevant to the Left is that these messages make young women leftists—because they make them angry (virtually all leftists are angry), sad (there are happy liberals and happy conservatives but very few happy leftists) and lonely (singles are overwhelmingly on the Left).

    If you are young and black, the most important thing for you to know is that this country loathes you—that racism is “part of our DNA,” as President Barack Obama put it—and that just being black gets you suspended or expelled from school, shot by police, denied the vote whenever possible, and disproportionately imprisoned.

    Again, almost none of that is true. But a happy black person—let alone a black person grateful for being an American—is much less likely to support the Left.

    If you are a young Latino, know the white majority is so xenophobic that if it could, it would expel you from the country.

    If you are a white male, you are the recipient of unearned privilege, and you are a racist.

    Boys and girls, you need to know from as young an age as possible that there is actually no such thing as “boys and girls.” That is why your teachers have been told not to refer to you as “boys and girls” but only as “students.”

    Young people, you should know that there is no God. So don’t look to God or religion for meaning. They are for the emotionally handicapped and for intellectual lightweights. For meaning, look to social action.

    Christianity, the religion of the great majority of Americans since America’s Founding, the religion of nearly all your parents or grandparents, justified slavery, the slaughter of Native Americans, and the persecution of gays. And in our time, most people who call themselves believing Christians are bigots and hypocrites. Whatever good was achieved was done so by believers with secular Enlightenment values, not Judeo-Christian values. Islam, on the other hand, has always been a religion of peace.”

    Like

  5. A sham.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/adam-schiff-vindman-devin-nunes-impeachment

    “Schiff ‘interrupted continually’ to ‘coach’ latest Trump impeachment witness: Nunes”

    “Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, accused the panel’s Democrat chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, of coaching a Trump impeachment inquiry witness during closed-door testimony on Capitol Hill.

    “I have never in my life seen anything like what happened today,” Nunes, R-Calif., told “Hannity” on Tuesday, referring to the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

    The scene was unprecedented, Nunes said.

    “I mean, they’ve been bad at most of these depositions, but to interrupt us continually to coach the witness, to decide… what we’re going to be able to ask the witness.”

    Nunes slammed Schiff, D-Calif., for refusing to allow Republicans to not yet call witnesses of their own, which he also said has never happened to him in Congress.

    “And, to see someone coach a witness, this isn’t the first time that Schiff — Schiff is very good at coaching witnesses.”

    He said Schiff’s staff previously met with the yet-unnamed Ukraine whistleblower, again calling the entire impeachment inquiry process under Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., “unprecedented.”

    In a fiery news conference earlier Tuesday, other GOP lawmakers said Schiff prevented a witness in the latest impeachment hearing from answering certain questions from Republican members.”

    ——————

    It’s a sham.

    Like

  6. Now about that latest star chamber witness……

    Yet another with no direct knowledge.

    https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/29/dems-star-witness-never-had-direct-contact-with-trump-had-concerns-about-ukraine-phone-call/

    “Dems’ ‘Star Witness’ Never Had Direct Contact with Trump, Had ‘Concerns’ About Ukraine Phone Call”

    “As part of the House’s impeachment “inquiry,” an active duty officer on the National Security Council testified Tuesday that he’d had concerns about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and reported his concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel.

    Appearing at a closed door deposition before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman said that he “listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President.”

    Vindman made a point of saying that the American people already have the most important piece of evidence, the transcript of the phone call. “As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said,” he noted.

    Vindman also admitted that he’d never had any contact or communication with President Trump, about Ukraine or anything else.

    “I have never had direct contact or communications with the President,” he said.

    In his testimony, Vindman noted that the president made the call at the behest of the NSC after Zelenskyy’s party won the Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory, undermining allegations that the call was part of a “quid pro quo” conspiracy.

    “The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him,” Vindman said.”

    ————-

    Smells like a set-up.

    Like

  7. Can’t criticize him because he’s a veteran?

    Well this veteran says hogwash to that BS. He’s playing politics, a no-no, and he knows it. He deserves criticism for undermining his CoC.

    Like

  8. Impeach first, find a crime later.

    Dershowitz nails it.

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15069/impeachers-new-crimes

    “The search for the perfect impeachable offense against President Trump is reminiscent of overzealous prosecutors who target the defendant first and then search for the crime with which to charge him. Or to paraphrase the former head of the Soviet secret police to Stalin: show me the man and I will find you the crime.

    All civil libertarians should be concerned about an Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that such a crime has actually been committed.

    Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders.

    Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

    The effort to find (or create) impeachable offense against President Donald Trump has now moved from the subjects of the Mueller investigation — collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice — to alleged recent political “sins”: “quid pro quo” with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress.

    The goal of the impeach-at-any-cost cadre has always been the same: impeach and remove Trump, regardless of whether or not he did anything warranting removal. The means — the alleged impeachable offenses — have changed, as earlier ones have proved meritless. The search for the perfect impeachable offense against Trump is reminiscent of overzealous prosecutors who target the defendant first and then search for the crime with which to charge him. Or to paraphrase the former head of the Soviet secret police to Stalin: show me the man and I will find you the crime.

    Although this is not Stalin’s Soviet Union, all civil libertarians should be concerned about an Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that such a crime has actually been committed.

    Before we get to the current search, a word about what constitutes an impeachable crime under the constitution, whose criteria are limited to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. There is a debate among students of the constitution over the intended meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Some believe that these words encompass non-criminal behavior. Others, I among them, interpret these words more literally, requiring at the least criminal-like behavior, if not the actual violation of a criminal statute.

    What is not debatable is that “maladministration” is an impermissible ground for impeachment. Why is that not debatable? Because it was already debated and explicitly rejected by the framers at the constitutional convention. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, opposed such open-ended criteria, lest they make the tenure of the president subject to the political will of Congress. Such criteria would turn our republic into a parliamentary democracy in which the leader — the prime minister — is subject to removal by a simple vote of no confidence by a majority of legislators. Instead, the framers demanded the more specific criminal-like criteria ultimately adopted by the convention and the states.

    Congress does not have the constitutional authority to change these criteria without amending the Constitution. To paraphrase what many Democratic legislators are now saying: members of Congress are not above the law; they take an oath to apply the Constitution, not to ignore its specific criteria. Congresswoman Maxine Waters placed herself above the law when she said:

    “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ and we define that.”

    So, the question remains: did President Trump commit impeachable offenses when he spoke on the phone to the president of Ukraine and/or when he directed members of the Executive Branch to refuse to cooperate, absent a court order, with congressional Democrats who are seeking his impeachment?

    The answers are plainly no and no. There is a constitutionally significant difference between a political “sin,” on the one hand, and a crime or impeachable offenses, on the other.

    Even taking the worst-case scenario regarding Ukraine — a quid pro quo exchange of foreign aid for a political favor — that might be a political sin, but not a crime or impeachable offense.”

    Like

  9. Like

  10. Yeah Ricky, such great men…. NOT!

    Mueller should be in jail, but age and senility got him first. He was a fraud who continued to lie even after the truth was out.

    The next 2 are just your current favs. They’ll fall too. Your kind always do.

    I addressed the Vindman thing above. So he’s a vet, big deal. Him and about 20 million others. Are we now free from criticism too? If so, you have some apologizing to do, even more than before. But you don’t have that kind of decency in you. And you have the nerve to think Trump is the problem. He’s the answer, to people and politics like yours. You made Trump. Enjoy!

    And if you use men as pin-ups, that says way more about you than I care to know.

    Like

  11. And for the record, because I’m sure your wondering, yes, I did find some tweets of yours in the spam folder.

    But they were deleted, not because I deleted in mass, but because you’re not gonna post trash that questions the salvation of those who dare disagree with you politically. That’s not a matter you have any say in. You don’t get to make that type of accusation here any more. Do it, and I’ll delete it every time.

    Got it?

    Like

  12. Guess who doesn’t have the votes? 🙂

    ————

    Like

  13. Oh look Ricky, another of your heroes is exposed as a traitor. That seems to be a theme among your heroes doesn’t it? Southern Generals, Deep Staters, fake conservative pundits who sell out their so-called values to the left because Orange Man Bad…..

    Definitely a theme here.

    Ol’ Max (CNN’s favorite fake conservative) can delete it, but the internet remembers, and took screen shots. 😂🤣😂🤣

    https://www.mediaite.com/print/max-boot-deletes-line-in-washington-post-op-ed-where-he-claims-isis-leader-did-not-die-a-coward/

    “CNN’s Max Boot Deletes Line in Washington Post Op-Ed Where He Claims ISIS Leader Did Not Die a ‘Coward’”

    “Washington Post columnist and CNN analyst Max Boot deleted a line from his Monday column which argued that because ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi “blew himself up,” he did not die a “coward.”

    Boot’s controversial article, titled, “Baghdadi’s death could have been Trump’s finest hour. He messed it up anyway,” was written in response to Baghdadi’s suicide, which also killed three of his children, during a US Special Operations raid.

    The article originally contained the line, “The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was, in any case, contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up.””

    Like

  14. Like I said, sooner or later, all your heroes fall.

    This didn’t take long at all. One day. Just because you say it so, and desperately want it to be so, doesn’t make it so.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/vindman_another_impeachment_witness_whos_not_exactly_unimpeachable.html

    “Vindman: Another impeachment witness who’s not exactly unimpeachable”

    “It’s happening again.

    The Democrats have trotted out for the cameras another supposedly unimpeachable impeachment hearing witness, building him up as the Ultimate Trump Slayer, the trump-Trump trump card, the reason it’s now all over for President Trump. We’ve seen this show before, first, during the Mueller special counsel affair. Then with NSC aide Fiona Hill. Then, with U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor. The cold hard facts show something different.

    This time it was National Security Council aide Alexander Vindman, billed as the top Ukraine man for the president, reporting to former top Russia hand Fiona Hill, an NSC aide who had Joe Biden write the top blurb to her 2012 scholarly book on Vladimir Putin. Like Hill, Vindman was sold to the public by the Democrats as someone unimpeachable — nonpartisan, objective, and in his case a decorated war veteran and the ultimate immigrant success story, in reference to his background as a 1979 Ukrainian Jewish refugee emigrating from the old Soviet Union.

    Here are some problems with that “narrative”:”

    First, the public relations buildup, which was twofold.

    The New York Times, in the space of less than a day it seems, given the short notice of the announcement of the impeachment witnesses, put out a long and positively hagiographically glowing profile, with oodles of tiny detail that can’t be found on Google. Think they had some help for the big Hollywood-style buildup of Vindman, from the Democrats putting on this show? I am going to guess yes.

    The other thing was Vindman’s showing up for the cameras in a spotless military uniform, medals gleaming from his chest. The guy always wore a suit and tie to his NSC job. Let’s call that what it is, some public relations manipulations to keep Republicans from seeming too mean to him by asking him tough questions. And of course, a bid to win the public over to impeachment, given that the public still respects the troops. If this trooper says something, why then all of them must think the same. They never extended such courtesies to, say, Oliver North, or Michael Flynn, but now a uniform is useful for their purposes, one that neither they nor Vindman in his NSC job ever had use for before. Packaging. And in any case, all kinds of people have military medals because combat does not distinguish on political opinions. In other words, many medals are worn by #NeverTrumps. The same deal goes for Jewish emigres from the USSR: Two words: Max Boot. The public relations buildup is attempting to trump facts with emotional imagery.

    There’s more. During the question and answer section, Vindman attempted to make changes to an official transcript, given that he was in on the July call between Ukraine’s president and President Trump. The reportage suggests that President Trump’s transcript was dishonestly concealing references to Burisma. But there are a lot of reasons an ellipsis could have been used – the tape didn’t catch the word, etc. Vindman argues that he knew the word that quite possibly the machine did not. He also was quick to run to lawyers, and like Taylor, seemed to be obsessed with chain of command, which the commander in chief does not have to follow in precisely the way Vindman prefers. Correct the record? It certainly also was a convenient opportunity for a #NeverTrump to place in the words he wanted. The Times says he tried to ‘correct’ the transcript. He may just as easily been trying to insert words in that were never said out of a #NeverTrump political motivation.”

    ——————

    Womp, womp, womp….

    Try again Ricky.

    Like

  15. And what about his obvious conflicts of interest?

    “Here’s more – he apparently worked as a registered foreign agent for Ukraine — which is an astonishing conflict of interest with work on the National Security Council, and leaking presidential transcripts to Ukraine. That’s probably the biggest conflict of interest of all. Mister Probity? Thus far the evidence doesn’t show it. Here are some choice tweets and important links from those who have looked into this even further.”

    ———–

    Because he’s a fraud and a deep state hack.

    ——————-

    It is seditious.

    Like

  16. This is your pin-up hero?

    Wow. You need help.

    ————-

    Like

  17. I don’t remember reading, much less attempting to post, any article questioning the salvation of Trumpkins. Could you be referring to the recent Michael Gerson column? I thought it made a different point.

    Like

  18. I went back and reread Gerson’s 10/28/19 column. I will not attempt to post it here. Those who are interested can find it. Amazingly, the column may be harsher than anything I have posted here. However, I did not see where it questioned anyone’s salvation. It makes another point about as well as that point can be made.

    Like

  19. Jonah Goldberg, of all people, gives some very good advice to Trump.

    Like

  20. You posted a tweet over the weekend that did just that. Perhaps you need to read beyond the 160 character one liners and click the links attached to what you posted.

    Like

  21. The truth of what?

    That yet again, there is no crime. You must be referring to the fact that once again, the truth will come out and the whole sham will fall apart.

    So are you ever gonna get around to admitting how wrong you were about all things Russia, Russia, Russia? Or just keep plodding ahead with the next piece of crap they give you to fling?

    Asking for a friend……

    And is it too much for you to type your name in the comment bar? Not that I blame you, I wouldn’t want my name attached to such garbage either, but you seem into it, so own it. Try it. You can do it!

    Like

  22. And don’t look now, but another of your pin-up heroes is about to be exposed. Again.

    Ol’ Jim better speed up that trip to NZ.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/chuck-grassley-rips-comey-you-missed-key-evidence-in-clinton-investigation-im-going-to-find-it?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

    “Chuck Grassley Rips Comey: You Missed Key Evidence In Clinton Investigation. I’m Going To Find It.”

    “On Tuesday, Senator Charles Grassley released a statement slamming former FBI Director James Comey for his failure during the Hillary Clinton investigation to find out that government officials deliberately transmitted classified information on unclassified systems.

    Grassley stated:

    “The State Department report said: “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations.” That clearly says some individuals deliberately transmitted classified information on unclassified systems. Those individuals were subject to security sanctions but the State Department failed to describe who the violators were and what the sanctions were. Those answers ought to be forthcoming and I intend to follow up. Ensuring the proper handling of highly classified information is an issue that should garner bipartisan support.”

    “Grassley noted that he had recently released a report from the State Department that noted Clinton’s use of a non-government server for government business caused 588 security violations for mishandling classified information. He continued, “If the average American did that, they’d lose their clearance, their job, and might even go to jail.”

    Grassley pointed out Comey’s July 5, 2016, public statement exonerating Clinton. He noted that Comey’s initial draft stated, ‘“There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified material” as well as “Similarly, the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the up-classified emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.”

    Grassley noted, “Gross Negligence is a criminal standard under Title 18, Section 793.” He pointed out that Comey’s later version stated, “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

    Grassley wrote, “And that was before he finished the investigation and interviewed 17 witnesses, including Secretary Clinton. Comey never once said that some individuals deliberately sent classified information on unclassified systems. According to State’s findings, he should have. Clearly, deliberate conduct rises beyond gross negligence.”

    ——

    Jim’s a fraud. He’s a partisan hack.

    Like

  23. So he didn’t commit suicide, he was suicided?

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/forensic-pathologist-jeffrey-epstein-homicide-suicide

    “Jeffrey Epstein’s autopsy more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicide, Dr. Michael Baden reveals”

    The body of disgraced money man and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his Manhattan federal prison cell in August, bore telltale signs of homicide despite an official ruling that he killed himself, a pioneering forensic pathologist revealed to “Fox & Friends” in an exclusive interview Wednesday.

    The bombshell claim by Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner who has worked on high-profile cases during a five-decade medical career, is certain to reignite suspicions that surfaced immediately after Epstein, who was awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges involving underage girls, was discovered dead in his cell on Aug. 10. Baden, who was hired by Epstein’s brother and observed the autopsy, told Fox News its findings are more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicidal hanging. He noted that the 66-year-old Epstein had two fractures on the left and right sides of his larynx, specifically the thyroid cartilage or Adam’s apple, as well as one fracture on the left hyoid bone above the Adam’s apple, Baden told Fox News.

    “Those three fractures are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation,” Baden, who is also a Fox News contributor, said.

    While there’s not enough information to be conclusive yet, the three fractures were “rare,” said Baden, who’s probed cases involving O.J. Simpson, President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, record producer Phil Spector, New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez and many others.”

    Like

  24. Re 2:28
    I suspected as much immediately after his death.
    The description of the situation defies logic.
    Something like that can’t happen without outside help.

    Like

  25. Pres. Trump released the transcript of the call, thus check-mating the Dems. Now the Dems are extremely desperate, b/c the transcript doesn’t say what they had hoped it would say, it doesn’t say what their primary impeachment charge says that the content of the call contained – i.e. there is no ‘deal’ in the call.

    Americans can read the transcript, so now what the Dems are trying to do through Vidman and others is to suggest that the transcript itself is not authentic, and someone is hiding something. Yet even the NY Times quoted a key Ukranian official who said that the transcript is “accurate and comprehensive,” and that significant info was not ommitted.

    Furthermore, Catherine Herridge had previously reported that the ‘whistleblower’ himself wrote in his memo that the “standard practice” was for the “White House situation room to produce a word-for-word transcript that memorializes the call.”

    Now the Dems are trapped in impeachment limbo – the President is defeating them at every turn…

    Like

  26. When you’ve lost Brokaw……

    https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/30/brokaw-mitchell-house-dems-dont-really-goods-trump/

    “Brokaw To Mitchell: House Dems Don’t Really Have “The Goods” On Trump, Do They?”

    “To channel my inner Lloyd Bentsen: Tom Brokaw knows Watergate. Watergate is a personal project of Tom Brokaw’s. And this, House Democrats, is no Watergate. NBC’s anchor emeritus has embarked on a tour in support of his new look at the 1970s scandal, The Fall of Richard Nixon, and tells MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that the current impeachment effort against Donald Trump lacks “the goods.”

    The case against Richard Nixon had bipartisan credibility because it was based on actual crimes, Brokaw points out, that had been well-established. In this case, Brokaw says, Democrats are pushing a remedy without establishing a clear need for one, other than their own political interests:”

    Like

  27. “All my heroes have now become ghosts
    Sold their sorrow to the ones who paid the most
    All my heroes are dead and gone
    But inside of me
    They still live on”

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/10/30/ag-barr-delivers-a-professional-knifing-of-james-comey-and-his-tenure-as-fbi-dire-n2555573

    “AG Barr Delivers A Professional Knifing Of James Comey And His Tenure As FBI Director”

    —–

    “Attorney General Bill Barr, in an interview with Fox News, defended the independence and integrity of the politically contentious probe being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the handling of the Russia investigation – while taking a swipe at James Comey’s past leadership of the FBI.

    Fox News reported last week that the probe into the 2016 origins of the Russia meddling case has escalated from a review to a criminal investigation, a development that spurred Democratic claims that the department was becoming a tool for President Trump’s “political revenge.”

    Barr, speaking Monday to Fox News on the sidelines of a law enforcement event in Chicago, rejected Democrats’ claims he is acting as Trump’s personal lawyer.

    “That’s completely wrong and there is no basis for it, and I act on behalf of the United States,” Barr said.

    The attorney general said that while he’s assisting in connecting Durham with countries that could have valuable information, Durham is running the show.

    “He is in charge of the investigation, I’m not doing the investigation,” Barr said, while describing Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, as “thorough and fair” and saying he’s making progress.

    Further, Barr took an implicit swipe at Comey as he maintained current FBI Director Christopher Wray is cooperating.

    “I do want to say that one of the reasons Mr. Durham is able to make the kind of progress he’s making is because Director Wray and his team at the FBI have just been outstanding in support and responsiveness given to Mr. Durham,” Barr said. “As you know, I’ve said previously that I felt there was a failure of leadership at the bureau in 2016 and part of 2017, but since Director Wray and his team have taken over there’s been a world of change. I think that he is restoring the steady professionalism that’s been a hallmark of the FBI. I really appreciate his leadership there.”

    That’s a very professional knifing, but also a nice hat tip to current FBI Director Chris Wray. As many already know, the FBI is also the go-to agency for domestic surveillance and intelligence. It has the power to ruin people, and the Trump White House and those in its orbit have been targeted in the past. Trump aside, you cannot have the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency behaving like Democratic operatives—and that can be applied to other institutions that are supposed to be apolitical. Enforcing the law and national security, two areas where this principle should be exhibited, have become a huge problem concerning the Trump White House.

    Like

  28. ———–

    🙂

    Like

  29. Ethics and Schiff in the same sentence?

    Oh wait, I see…… he violated them.

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/10/30/matt-gaetz-files-ethics-complaint-against-adam-schiff-n2555622

    “Florida GOP Congressman Matt Gaetz has filed an ethics complaint against House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff for the way he has been handling the impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump. Specifically, Rep. Gaetz says that Schiff has been “distorting @POTUS ’s call with President Zelensky, Lying to the public about ‘Russian collusion’, and blocking members of Congress from attending impeachment depositions.” ”

    Like

  30. Ricky at 8:03PM….

    You do realize you just posted an F bomb, and that I’ll be deleting that too.

    Your sources and the people they retweet are foul mouthed idiots.

    Like

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.