22 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-28-20

  1. Either they show it, or they don’t get to go fishing.

    Now if we could just get the weal willed traitor faction led by Romney to play along.

    Put up, or shut up time. The Senate can subpoena too you know…..


    And like every other dud “bombshell” they dropped, it won’t stand up to scrutiny.


  2. It’s aimed at the weak willed traitors.

    And they willing fall for it yet again. It’s like Groundhog Day with these clowns.


    “Democrats ‘Kavanaughing’ Impeachment Trial As Predicted – John Bolton Leak Came as House Case Was Collapsing

    We have seen this show before, it’s all designed to pressure a small number of weak Republican Senators to allow Democrats to turn the Senate into a circus in which the process becomes the punishment.”

    “It has been clear for weeks that the Democrats were seeking to ‘Kavanaugh’ the Senate impeachment trial — to roll out with media help a well-timed series of supposed bombshell accusations whose main purpose was to create a media hysteria to pressure Republican Senators to extend the process.

    The process for the nominee, or in the impeachment framework the president, becomes the punishment and the Democrat campaign strategy.

    That’s what happened in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Once it because clear that Kavanaugh would be confirmed and the hearings were closed, a series of accusers — Christine Blasey Ford, Julie Swetnick, Deborah Ramirez, plus anonymous accusers — were rolled out to reopen the hearings and prolong the process. The accusations were absurd and contradicted by all known evidence, but that was not the point. The Democrats, having invented and honed the skill of Borking nominees, wanted to punish the nominee and damage his legitimacy as a Supreme Court Justice.

    It’s happening with the Trump impeachment trial. The House case collapsed during the presentation, but even more so during the Saturday presentation by Republicans, as described in VIDEO: Trump trial team exposed Adam Schiff’s lies and manipulation behind impeachment:”


  3. And Schiff continues to hide evidence that destroys his narrative.


    ““Evidence and witnesses!” is the constant refrain from the House impeachment managers like Rep. Adam “Shifty” Schiff and Rep. Jerry “Jabba” Nadler even as Schiff had hidden evidence in the form of the transcript for his star-chamber interview with ICIG Michael Atkinson and block witness in the person of himself and the Ukraine phone call whistleblower. The hypocrisy of it all is underscored by the fact that by hiding the whistleblower and the details of his initial contacts with Schiff and the ICIG, Schiff and the House managers are denying President Trump a basic constitutional right — the right to confront one’s accuser. Why the President’s Senate defenders have not hammered this point home is a mystery.

    On the January 26 edition of “Sunday Morning Futures” With Matia Bartiromo on Fox News, Rep. John Ratcliffe brought up again this continuing Schiff cover-up he has mentioned many times only to be ignored by the media who accept Schiff’s fictitious mantra that because of all the other “overwhelming” evidence the whistleblower and his testimony are no longer needed. As noted by PJMedia:

    During the open hearings in the Impeachment Inquisition, Representative John Ratcliffe asked — several times — for the release of the closed-interview transcripts with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. His request was refused: Representative Adam Schiff, the current chair of the House Special Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) had classified the transcript SECRET.

    Now, with impeachment in the Senate for trial, Schiff is still hiding this crucial piece of, dare we say it, evidence. The question is, why? The reason is that the ICIG interview exposes Schiff’s early contacts with the whistleblower which could be classified as witness tampering. It exposes Adam Schiff as a fact witness who should be the first witness called in any Senate witness testimony. It exposes the weakness of the whistleblowers claims and underscores why he should also be called as a witness. Without the whistleblower we aren’t having this conversation and the Senate is not having an impeachment trial.

    The whistleblower’s name is Eric Ciaramella. We know because Adam Schiff told us, at least not intentionally. In a major goof-up, Schiff forgot to redact the name of the whistleblower — Eric Ciaramella — as noted by Gateway Pundit — in a posted PDF of the transcript of Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony. Since then his story has been revealed in spite of efforts by the deep state to conceal it.

    Like the Steele dossier produced through Fusion GPS, the Ukraine “whistleblower’s” letter to the inspector general is largely unverifiable hearsay or outright fiction. Written by a CIA mole assigned to the White House who was not in the room or on the call, it is designed for one purpose — to bring down a sitting and duly elected President

    Now we find Adam Schiff and committee staff had a copy of the letter before it was submitted to the IG. The New York Times published a report that Schiff “learned about the outlines of a C.I.A.. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint.” As the Times related:

    The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it….

    Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

    The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff.

    “Schiff and his staff claim they had no hand in writing or editing the letter and did not coach the so-called whistleblower, even though his letter reads more like a legal brief written by a committee of lawyers. Schiff, with his track record, is not to be believed.

    The whistleblower would not need a lawyer, since Schiff himself would be his protector, and Rep. Ratcliffe knows why:

    Congressman John Ratcliffe (R-TX) a member of the House Intelligence committee, revealed why Schiff is hiding the transcripts:

    Investigative reporter Paul Sperry this week asked, “Why is Schiff still withholding transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s Oct 4 closed-door testimony which lasted 8+ hours? He’s released 15 witness transcripts but is still hiding Atkinson’s. Also, what’s Atkinson’s connection to Obama officials including David Laufman?”

    Congressman Ratcliffe responded to Paul Sperry, “I know why, Paul Sperry. It’s because I asked IG Atkinson about his “investigation” into the contacts between Schiff’s staff and the person who later became the whistleblower. The transcript is classified “secret” so Schiff can prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions.”…

    ICIG Michael Atkinson altered the whistleblower form to allow for second-hand information, which allowed suspected Schiff whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to present a bogus accusation against the President.

    Atkinson, it turns out, was quite an active participant in the anti-Trump coup that was underway. As analyst Elizabeth Vaughn writes, Atkinson was frustrated the DNI’s lack of concern with hearsay and decided to do an end-run:”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. When this charade is over, Schiff needs to pay a high price for his lies, misdeeds, crimes, and disloyalty to his country and office.


    “Trump Is Right. Adam Schiff Has Not Paid For Damaging The Country With Years Of Lies

    Schiff was not telling the truth when he kept dripping out lies to compliant reporters. Because he helped them accomplish their political goals against their nemesis Trump, however, they have not held him accountable.”

    “When President Trump tweeted on Sunday that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was a “CORRUPT POLITICIAN” who “has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!” the media and Democrats loudly protested, as they do, that this was a threat.

    “Schiff ‘has not paid the price’ for impeachment, Trump says in what appears to be veiled threat,” said a Washington Post headline. “Schiff, Calling Trump ‘Wrathful and Vindictive,’ Sees Tweet as a Threat” The New York Times headlined. “Trump makes ‘threat’ against Rep. Adam Schiff,” was the New York Daily News headline. “Adam Schiff: Trump Saying I Should Pay a Price Is ‘Intended to Be’ a Threat,” headlined The Daily Beast. “Trump tweet was ‘threat’ against Adam Schiff, Democrats say,” went the story in USA Today.

    What a ludicrous spin that Democrats and the media pushed in lockstep. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Republicans would “pay a price” for not acquiescing to her demands regarding a Senate impeachment trial, none of these reporters or outlets claimed she was threatening them.

    What price, political or otherwise, has Schiff paid for falsely claiming for years that he had evidence that Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election? Schiff had hundreds of television, radio, and public appearances during the Russia collusion hoax, during which time he used his status as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to lie to Americans about whether the Russia collusion story was true.

    Day after day, week after week, month after month, he fed information to a compliant media about how this collusion was real. When Robert Mueller ended his expansive, multi-year investigation into the question, he didn’t find a single American who had colluded with Russia, not to mention a single Trump campaign affiliate, not to mention Trump. Schiff never apologized for his lies. Here’s an example of one of his false statements, lapped up by Chuck Todd.”


    And the same goes for the lap dog media like Chuck, who again and again spread false info and lies as facts.


  5. They should be uncomfortable when their lies are exposed.



  6. So what you’re saying is liberalism makes everyone around it stupider.



    This report by Chris Stewart of Brightbeam is a blockbuster. It is titled: “The Secret Shame: How America’s Most Progressive Cities Betray Their Commitment to Educational Opportunity For All.” Stewart is a liberal activist from Minnesota who undertook to find out why the Twin Cities’ left-wing public schools have some of the country’s worst achievement gaps between white and minority (black and Indian) students.

    Stewart compared achievement by race in a number of cities that he classified as progressive or conservative. The results didn’t surprise me, but they shocked Stewart. Conservative cities (as ranked by political scientists used as a reference for the study) consistently did a better job of closing student achievement gaps–sometimes, to zero–than progressive cities. This chart sums up the findings:

    Stewart’s group looked at a number of variables that they thought might help to explain these findings. The result:

    Of all the factors we looked at, progressivism is the greatest predictor.

    The Brightbeam study does not attempt to explain the causation that its numbers clearly reveal, but calls on those who run progressive school districts to rethink their assumptions. Bacon’s Rebellion offers some obvious possibilities:

    * Agency. By blaming racism and discrimination for the woes afflicting minority communities, progressives deprive minority students of agency — the sense that they control their own destinies and that their efforts will make a difference. If minority students see themselves as victims of systemic racism, why bother working hard and “acting white”?

    * Discipline. Progressives have implemented “social justice” approaches to school and classroom discipline on the grounds that suspensions and other punishments disproportionately affect minorities. The resulting breakdown in classroom discipline has the perverse effect of disproportionately harming the minority students whose classes are being disrupted.

    * Lower standards. As an offshoot of the “self esteem” movement, progressive educators don’t want to damage the self-esteem of minority students. Accordingly, they have lower expectations and set lower standards for minorities to offset the advantages that white students have from “white privilege.””


    Read more here…..

    Click to access The-Secret-Shame_v4.pdf


  7. The problem with pedophiles like Epstein, Clinton, and the Prince is that they lie and cover for each other lest they be exposed too. And it’s even worse when govt corruption shields these pervs from justice, like clearly is happening with Clinton and the Prince.


    “Epstein Prosecutor: Prince Andrew Has Provided “Zero Cooperation” Even After FBI Request”

    “And we all have zero surprise over it. Buckingham Palace insisted that Prince Andrew would cooperate with an FBI investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking of underage girls. In fact, Prince Andrew himself declared his willingness to cooperate with investigators:

    Prince Andrew, following a disastrous TV interview over his ties to Mr. Epstein, said in a statement late last year that he was willing to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in their investigations into the disgraced financier and his associates.

    “Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required,” his statement said.

    Guess what? The FBI decided it was “required.” To no one’s great shock, the royal has clammed up in response to their inquiry:

    A U.S. prosecutor overseeing the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation said Monday that Britain’s Prince Andrew has been uncooperative in the inquiry so far.

    Speaking at a news conference outside Epstein’s New York mansion, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, said prosecutors and the FBI had contacted Prince Andrew’s lawyers and asked to interview him.

    “To date, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation,” Berman said.

    That’s a rather strong statement coming from the Department of Justice. Normally, they decline to comment on ongoing investigations, preferring to perform their tasks quietly to prevent … well, what happened in the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump investigations. In this case, everyone already knows about the Epstein probe, but publicly singling out particular witnesses and potential targets still presents a risk for the DoJ. If Berman’s going public, it’s not because the FBI’s playing phone tag with Prince Andrew. The FBI must have gotten seriously stonewalled for it to hit this pitch.

    Contrast that with the relative radio silence on a figure closer to Epstein in his trafficking ring. What has the FBI heard from Ghislaine Maxwell? The DoJ’s been very quiet about their interest in her, and yet the Daily Mail reports on new developments with Maxwell — and those also involve Andrew Windsor:

    Ghislaine Maxwell was so close to Prince Andrew she visited him at Buckingham Palace up to four times a day, an ex-cop claims.

    The British socialite, accused of being a fixer for depraved paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, also allegedly enjoyed intimate picnics with Andrew in the grounds – in view of the Queen’s bedroom window.

    The revelations by former Met cop Paul Page, who was a protection officer for Andrew from 1998 to 2004, come as the prince faces further scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein.

    Page says that the palace took steps to keep the meetings quiet even at that time, prior to Epstein’s first arrest:”


  8. Remember this the next time you catch the vapors and think about voting for a Democrat.


    “Pete Buttigieg Tells Pro-Life Democrat That She Doesn’t Belong in the Democratic Party”

    “At a recent campaign event, South Bend Mayor and presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg (D-Ind.) told a woman who identified as a pro-life Democrat that her views on abortion are not welcome in the Democratic Party, as the Daily Wire reports.

    Describing herself as a “pro-life Democrat,” Kristin Day addressed Buttigieg by asking him if he wanted “the support of pro-life Democrats,” of which she said there are about 21 million in the country. She also asked if would support “more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure that the diversity and inclusion really does include everybody.”

    Buttigieg responded by saying that while he wanted her vote, he would not “try to earn your vote by tricking you.” Buttigieg then described himself as “pro-choice” and said that “a woman ought to be able to make that decision.” He added that “the best I can offer is that if we can’t agree on where to draw the line, the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line, and in my view it’s the woman who’s faced with that decision in her own life.”

    Day later spoke to Fox News’ Chris Wallace, where she admitted that she was not satisfied with Buttigieg’s answer, particularly in regards to the question about the language of the Democratic Party’s platform. Day said that the current platform “contains language that basically says that we don’t belong, we have no part in the party…and there’s nothing that says that people who have diversity of views on this issue should be included in the party.””


    They aren’t into you at all lady.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Yep.



  10. Oh, I still know a few, Chas. They are brave and strong people. Most have bailed, although they have not necessarily joined the Republican Party. No party is perfect, of course. The Democratic Party left pro-lifers behind long ago. They voted to not have to vote on abortion in the platform years ago. The vote on this issue, alone, took hours and they decided to just have it included on an ongoing platform when they had the votes. There are areas of the country where you can accomplish very little without being a Democrat. Most people in these areas really have no idea what the platform actually says. I suppose that is true of the Republican Party in other areas, although I wouldn’t know.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Kathaleena is correct, there are still some, but they aren’t acknowledged unless it’s useful for make believe scenario.

    Our Senator, Bob (did you know my Daddy was a Senator with the same name?) Casey still pretends to be pro-life. No one, including Dems, believes him though, because he never ever takes the pro-life side.


    “Sen. Bob Casey calls himself a pro-life Democrat. But his voting record paints a different picture.

    After a decade in the Senate, Casey has become an increasingly reliable vote in support of abortion rights — scoring as high as 100 percent on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s vote tally in 2016 and 2017. Anti-abortion groups insist he’s no champion of their cause — and view him as unlikely to support President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, whose confirmation will be a proxy battle on the future of Roe v. Wade.

    All of which may complicate Casey’s reelection battle, forcing him to defend his voting record in heavily Catholic Pennsylvania as he attempts to hold off a challenge from GOP Rep. Lou Barletta.

    Barletta seized on the issue immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement last week. “I’m 100 percent pro-life,” Barletta said. “According to his voting record, he’s voted only 20 percent for life in the 115th Congress.”

    Casey said he opposes the Roe decision legalizing abortion but is “highly unlikely” to back anyone on Trump’s already public list of nominees.

    The two-term Democrat insists that Pennsylvanians know the depth of his opposition to abortion — one that is closely linked to his father’s reputation as perhaps the nation’s best-known anti-abortion Democrat — and that Washington advocacy organizations and their scorecards don’t say much about moderates like him.

    “I think it’s clear to most people that the description of pro-life Democrat is accurate. I’ve been very consistent,” Casey told POLITICO in an interview. “What it means is I try to support policies that help women and children both before and after birth. Part of that is making sure you are honest about differences but also at the same time trying to focus on ways to reduce both the number of abortions and the number of unwanted pregnancies, and I think my record reflects that.””


    No Bob. The people of PA think you’re a mealy mouth, Daddy’s coattail riding liar who never stands up to the abortion lobby. The Dems ignore it because they know you only say it at election time, but you forget it at voting time, because the party has cowed you into a corner where you sit quietly.


  12. That’s what bothers me most about Bob Jr. Unlike his Dad, he refuses to push back and stand up to the party. If his personal convictions are as he says, he’d have no problem voting accordingly. His father did so. That’s also why he had crossover voters by the thousands every election. He and his party have sold their soul to PP, NARAL, and the pro-abortion lobby. While Jr. may not take money from them personally, he and his party enjoy the spoils of the lobby’s horrific acts thru millions in donations to the party, House, and Senate general campaign committee funds. The only time the party let’s him “earn” his occasional pro-life vote is when Dems are already sure they have enough without him.

    Wink, wink… I’m pro-life…..


  13. I was actually surprised to find this at Salon of all places, and it’s a bit….. word salady for my tastes, but still…. not bad. Accurate too, it’s become the excuse du jour……


    “The debunked “Russian influence” nonsense is infantilizing liberals

    The Russian money spent to influence the election was negligible. Its persistence as an explanation is bad for Dems”

    “The populist wave in politics on both sides of the Atlantic is a defensive reaction against the technocratic neoliberal revolution from above that has been carried out in the last half century by national managerial elites. Over the last half century, the weakening or destruction by neoliberal policy makers of the intermediary institutions of mid-twentieth century democratic pluralism, particularly labor unions, has deprived much of the working class of effective voice or agency in government, the economy, and culture. Populist demagogues can channel the legitimate grievances of many working-class voters, but they cannot create a stable, institutionalized alternative to overclass-dominated neoliberalism. Only a new democratic pluralism that compels managerial elites to share power with the multiracial, religiously pluralistic working class in the economy, politics, and the culture can end the cycle of oscillation between oppressive technocracy and destructive populism.

    That is the thesis of this article. It is a minority viewpoint within overclass circles in the US and Europe. A far more common view among transatlantic elites interprets the success of populist and nationalist candidates in today’s Western democracies not as a predictable and disruptive backlash against oligarchic misrule, but as a revival of Nazi or Soviet-style totalitarianism. One narrative holds that Russian president Vladimir Putin’s regime, by cleverly manipulating public opinion in the West through selective leaks to the media or Internet advertisements and memes, is responsible for Brexit, the election of Trump in 2016, and perhaps other major political events. A rival narrative sees no need to invoke Russian machinations; in this view, without aid from abroad, demagogues can trigger the latent “authoritarian personalities” of voters, particularly white working-class native voters, many of whom, it is claimed, will turn overnight into a fascist army if properly mobilized. These two elite narratives, promulgated by antipopulist politicians, journalists, and academics, can be called the Russia Scare and the Brown Scare (after earlier “brown scares” in Western democracies, with the color referring to Hitler’s Brownshirts).

    The reductio ad absurdum of this kind of mythological thinking is the adoption of the term “Resistance” by domestic opponents of President Donald Trump, which implies an equation between Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans and the heroic anti-Nazis of the French Resistance. The anti-fascist theme also provides the name for the Antifa movement which, like the earlier “black bloc” anarchist movement, is made up chiefly of the privileged children of the white overclass who abuse leftist ideology as an excuse to dress up as movie-style ninjas, vandalize property, and harass people.

    It is no doubt emotionally satisfying for members of the embattled managerial overclass to identify antiestablishment populism with pro-Russian treason, fascism, or both. But this kind of paranoid demonological thinking has the potential to be a greater danger to liberal democracy in the West than any particular populist movements.

    To begin with, both the Russia Scare and the Brown Scare betray a profound contempt on the part of members of technocratic neoliberal national establishments for voters who support populist causes or candidates. These voters are assumed to be gullible dimwits who are easily manipulated by foreign propaganda or domestic demagogues. Even worse, attributing populism to the irrational impulses of maladjusted voters prevents embattled establishments on both sides of the Atlantic from treating specific grievances of those voters as legitimate.”


  14. As with all their “bombshells” they always seem to self implode in about 48 hours.

    Facts and sunshine have a tendency to react adversely to their narratives.


    “NY Times’ Bolton Claims Get Destroyed Yet Again, This Time by the DOJ and Bill Barr”


    “The NY Times made several claims about what was in the draft of John Bolton’s book including a claim that President Donald Trump wanted to trade aid for investigations. But there were several immediate problems with the claims, including that they didn’t even have any quotes from the book, which means that, at best, it’s them paraphrasing what they think was said. While Bolton hasn’t disputed them, he also has not confirmed the report. Office of Management and Budget head Mick Mulvaney has already disputed what they claimed about him as has the president.

    Now the DOJ is disputing the part that referenced Attorney General Bill Barr.

    According to the New York Times, Bolton’s book manuscript alleged he told Barr he had concerns about comments the president made to the leaders of Turkey and China and that it might appear he had had influence on investigations.

    Didn’t happen, says the DOJ.”


    “So it sounds like basically what you have is Bolton thoughts about things with his own interpretations or projections, put in a blender with the New York Times’ interpretation, to pop out their current “facts” trying to influence the narrative on impeachment.

    Senators and the public should recognize this for what it is, an effort to influence the vote on witnesses.”


  15. That’s it boys, keeeeep digging…….

    Trump 2020, if for no other reason than to watch these @#$#@#$%$ heads explode.

    THIS is CNN!


  16. Dershowitz was an excellent choice.

    Here he lists all the presidents who would have been impeached if we used the Democrats new “standard”.


  17. Nothing.

    More facts for Chris Wallace, from an actual expert.


    “Dershowitz: “Nothing in the Bolton revelations … would rise to the level of … an impeachable offense”

    “That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution.”

    “President Donald Trump’s lawyer Alan Dershowitz tore apart the allegations in former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s new book that Trump told him to withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favors.

    Dershowitz listed actions by other presidents that one would consider actual abuse of power.”


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.