Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Politics'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Buffalo Stampede
    • The Rick Serafin Buffalo Sports & Political Forum
  • TOP NEWS AND INFO FOR THE RANGE!
    • The Meathead Technical Service Center

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


How long have you been a Buffalo fan?

Found 263 results

  1. IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE ANSWER OF PRESIDENT DONALD J . TRUMP JAY ALAN SEKULOW PAT A. CIPOLLONE Counsel to President Donald J . Trump Counsel to the President Washington, DC. The White'House THE HONORABLE DONALD J . TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREBY RESPONDS: The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 electionwnow just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaehing the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day. The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. They fail to allege any crime or Violation of law whatsoever, let alone “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness. Nothing in these Aiticles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected President or warrant nullifying an election and subvertng the Will of the American people. The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution of the United States, our democratic institutions, and the American people. The Articles themselves—and the rigged process that brought them here—are a transparently political act by House Democrats. They debase the grave power of impeachment and the solemn responsibility that power entails. They must be rejected. The House process violated every precedent and every principle of fairness governing impeachment inquiries for more than 150 years. Even so, all that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the President did absolutely nothing wrong. President Trump categorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation in both Articles of Impeachment. The President reserves all rights and all available defenses to the Articles of Impeachment. For the reasons set forth in this Answer and in the forthcoming Trial Brief, the Senate must reject the Articles of Impeachment. I. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT MUST BE REJECTED The first Article fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. lt alleges no crimes at all, let alone “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as required by the Constitution. In fact, it alleges no Violation 3c; of law whatsoever. House Democrats abuse of power” claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution. The first Article also fails on the facts, because President Trump has not in any way “abused the powers of the Presidency.” At all times, the President has faithfully and effectively executed the duties of his Office on behalf of the American people. The President’s actions on the July 25, 2019, telephone call With President Volodyrnyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine (the “July 25 call”), as well as on the earlier April 21, 2019, telephone call (the “April 21 call”), and in all surrounding and related events, were constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest. President Trump raised the important issue of burden sharing on the July 25 call, noting that other European countries such as Germany were not carrying their fair share. President Trump also raised the important issue of Ukrainian corruption. President Zelenskyy acknowledged these concerns on that same calli Despite House Democrats having run an entirely illegitimate and one-sided process, several simple facts were established that prove the President did nothing wrong: F irst, the transcripts of both the April 21 call and the J uly 25 call make absolutely clear that the President did nothing wrong. Second, President Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly confirmed that the call was “good” and “normal,” that there was no quid pro quo, and that no one pressured them on anything. Third, the two individuals Who have stated for the record that they spoke to the President about the subject actually exonerate him. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland stated that when he asked the President What he wanted from Ukraine, the President said: “1 want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quidpro qua.” Senator Ron Johnson reported that, when he asked the President whether there was any connection between security assistance and investigations, the President responded: “No way. I would never do that.” House Democrats ignore these facts and instead rely entirely on assumptions, presurnptions, and speculation from witnesses with no first—hand knowledge. Their accusations are founded exclusively on inherently unreliable hearsay that would never be accepted in any court in our country. Fourth, the bilateral presidential meeting took place in the ordinary course, and the security assistance was sent, all without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations. Not only does the evidence collected by House Democrats refute each and every one of the factual predicates underlying the first Article, the transcripts of the April 21 call and the July 25 call disprove What the Article alleges. When the House Democrats realized this, Mr. Schiff created a fraudulent version of the July 25 call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up. The fact that Mr. Schiff felt the need to fabricate a false version of the July 25 call proves that he and his colleagues knew there was absolutely nothing wrong with that call. House Democrats ran a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process that denied the President every basic right, including the right to have counsel present, the right to eross—examine witnesses, and the right to present evidence Despite all this, the information House Democrats assembled actually disproves their claims against the President. The President acted at all times with full constitutional and legal authority and in our national interest. He continued his Administration’s policy of unprecedented support for Ukraine, including the delivery of lethal military aid that was denied to the Ukrainians by the prior administration. The first Article is therefore constitutionally invalid, founded on falsehoods, and must be rejected. II. THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT MUST BE REJECTED The second Article also fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It does not allege any crime or Violation of law whatsoever. To the contrary, the President’s assertion of legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests grounded in the separation of powers cannot constitute obstruction of Congress. Furthermore, the notion that President Trump obstructed Congress is absurd. President Trump acted with extraordinary and unprecedented transparency by declassifying and releasing the transcript of the July 25 call that is at the heart of this matter. Following the President’s disclosure of the July 25 call transcript, House Democrats issued a series of unconstitutional subpoenas for documents and testimony. They issued their subpoenas without a congressional vote and, therefore, without constitutional authority. They sought testimony from a number of the President’s closest advisors despite the fact that, under longstanding, bipartisan practice of prior administrations of both political parties and similarly longstanding guidance from the Department of Justice, those advisers are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress related to their official duties. And they sought testimony disclosing the Executive Braneh’s confidential communications and internal decision—making processes on matters of foreign relations and national security, despite the well—established constitutional privileges and immunities protecting such information. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the President’s constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch information is at its apex in the field of foreign relations and national security. House Democrats also barred the attendance of Executive Branch counsel at Witness proceedings, thereby preventing the President from protecting important Executive Branch confidentiality interests. Notwithstanding these abuses, the Trump Administration replied appropriately to these subpoenas and identified their constitutional defects. Tellingly, House Democrats did not seek to enforce these constitutionally defective subpoenas in court. To the contrary, when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling. The House may not usurp Executive Branch authority and may not bypass our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Asserting valid constitutional privileges and immunities cannot be an impeachable offense. The second Article is therefore invalid and must be rejected. III. CONCLUSION The Articles of Impeachment Violate the Constitution. They are defective in their entirety. They are the product of invalid proceedings that flagrantly denied the President any due process rights. They rest on dangerous distortions of the Constitution that would do lasting damage to our structure of government. In the first Article, the House attempts to seize the President’s power under Article II of the Constitution to determine foreign policy. In the second Article, the House attempts to control and penalize the assertion of the Executive Branch’s constitutional privileges, while simultaneously seeking to destroy the Framers’ system of checks and balances. By approving the Articles, the House violated our constitutional order, illegally abused its power of impeachment, and attempted to obstruct President Trump’s ability to faithfully execute the duties of his Office. They sought to undermine his authority under Article II of the Constitution, which vests the entirety of “[t]he executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned against, to ensure one~party political impeachment vendettas do not become the “new normal,” and to vindicate the will of the American people, the Senate must rej ect both Articles of Impeachment. 1n the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.
  2. Mitch McConnell, before the trial: "I'm not an impartial juror" and "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this. I'm going to take my cues from the president's lawyers." Mitch McConnell, at the start of the trial: "I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God." The above is clear evidence that McConnell was lying when he recited his oath to do impartial justice. In light of this, why hasn't he recused himself? It seems to me that this is something that everybody, no matter what their political persuasion is, should find disgusting and deeply disturbing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitch McConnell Has Failed the Republican Party World War II began with the Nazi invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. Two days later, the governments of Britain and France honored their diplomatic vows to Warsaw by declaring war on Adolf Hitler’s invading armies. As historian Jean Edward Smith noted in “The Liberation of Paris,” the French people were less than impressed by their government’s gallant response. The political right in that country admired Hitler while the left remained unwavering pacifists throughout the war’s early stages. Smith observed that Parisians so willingly “opened the gates of Paris to the German army” that the occupation proved to be “embarrassingly simple.” Over the next four years, cultural life in the French capital flourished, with classical music, art exhibits and filmmaking thriving to such a degree that philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre would later say of that time, “We put up with it very well.” By 1943, more than 80,000 French women who bore children to German soldiers had claimed benefits from the Third Reich; fashion icon Coco Chanel was a shameless collaborator throughout the war; and the leading French film actress of the day brazenly declared, “My heart is French but my [body] is international.” It was not until Allied forces invaded Sicily and Soviet troops began surging westward that many Parisians began to grow weary of the occupation. While such cynicism in the face of evil seems unthinkable eight decades later, it is worth remembering that France suffered more than 5 million killed and wounded during World War I. Over half of all Frenchmen mobilized for battle became casualties, and almost 4 of 10 soldiers between 19 and 22 were killed in action. The “war to end all wars” laid waste to an entire generation and fueled the cynicism that Ernest Hemingway described a decade later in “A Farewell to Arms.” “Abstract words such as glory, honour, courage” were now considered “obscene,” wrote Hemingway. For Parisians exhausted by such epic loss, a speedy surrender to Hitler’s war machine seemed the only viable option. Thankfully, fate and two oceans have protected Americans from such existential threats that could have left our own nation’s survival teetering in the balance. Today, a wealthy and increasingly isolated United States is enjoying a decade-long economic recovery, a booming stock market and low unemployment rates managed by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Crime has been declining for years, abortion rates continue to fall and capitalism has driven global poverty to record lows. Despite all this, elected leaders in Washington cower in corners, not in fear of invading armies, but of nasty tweets and negative commentary. It brings to mind Henry Kissinger’s dry observation that university politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small. Observing the behavior of Republican senators during President Trump’s impeachment has shown just how craven the Party of Lincoln has become. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared that “I’m not an impartial juror” before solemnly swearing to do “impartial justice.” Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) once declared Trump unfit for office, called for his exclusion from the Republican Party and tweeted that the best way to make America great again was to “Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.” But after Trump’s election, Graham quickly fell in line and has likewise stated that “I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” He also bragged that he would do everything in his power to make the impeachment proceedings “die quickly” and compared them to a “lynching.” While Senate leaders bring shame to themselves daily, most GOP senators are desperate to avoid votes that might require the smallest bit of political courage. But what do they have to fear? Far from facing an existential crisis, these politicians are fretting over votes that would be supported by an overwhelming number of citizens. Almost 7 in 10 Americans want the Senate to call more witnesses. Fifty-eight percent believe Trump abused the power of the presidency, and almost as many say he obstructed the investigation into his impeachment trial. A majority also believe the 45th president should be removed from office. The fecklessness of these Trump apparatchiks lies in stark contrast to the courage of past Republicans who brought down Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.)and then President Richard Nixon. Even the fledging French Resistance eventually rose up to save Paris from Hitler’s wrath. In his book, Smith recounts the incredible story of a Nazi general who risked his family’s life by conspiring with Gen. Dwight Eisenhower and the French underground to save the City of Lights. Such heroism is neither expected nor required of Republican senators sitting through Trump’s impeachment proceedings. All America demands is a fair trial, an impartial jury and the calling of relevant witnesses. If McConnell can’t deliver on those aspirational values, then his heart may be American but his political soul belongs to a bombastic, intemperate buffoon. Who shall we now look to for the liberation of the Republican Party? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/22/mitch-mcconnell-has-failed-republican-party/
  3. Believe it or not, I found this by looking for #BREAKING tweets to post per Shoutbox tradition, and being there isnt any breaking Bills stuff at this our, this was the 2nd headline I found. I left the BREAKING out of the title, so as not to upset anyone and make it seem like the joke I make out of the Shoutbox antics. This is actually I guess the mainstream media down there, which I get is all that some of you will accept, especially older folks who have been understably conditioned to trust the tv and not the new fangled internet. I'm guessing I can get more details later, but figured I'd BREAK it now, because it's going to be a story in our media at some point, of our media is to be trusted at all. I thought the last I heard Mexico was defending our border....so why are these caravans still coming, and why do they not defend their own borders, if they truly are stopping them from invading our nation? Let's be clear from the start. The odds are that these are not people seeking to enter for actual politiical asylum. I have no idea how many more are off the screen, but one might guess Soros or, whomever funds the NGOs that fund the neverending onslaught, doesnt waste time with small numbers and already has plans for where to send them once they have penetrated. The election was in 2016, and here we are in 2020 with this happening. Ive already posted ALIPAC threads which show the record numbers of LEGAL immigration which is problematic enough(especially when socialism is being pushed), and the people whom immigration was a serious voting issue for(and are informed) are PISSED. Let's not devolve into TDS or the opposite either. There are far bigger and far wealthier powers behind this issue, which has been a problem since as far back as Reagan's amnesty and earlier. This isnt a party issue, even if one comes across worse on it. Both have cooperated to roll out the red carpet. Is this not a big part of what people voted for(against) in 2016? Do those votes deserve to be honored? Do we need entertainment(produced by whom again?) promoting shows sympathetic to this? One of which even potrayed one of the invaders as "Jesus"(American gods, maybe?), to try to brainwash Americans and change their way of thinking partly through emotions. If this still seems accidental or coincidental to some of you rather than a well-orchestrated invasion, I am not sure if there is anything else I can tell you. One final thing from this post: Many of the people in these caravans did not originate from Central America, but rather from SubSaharan Africa. Don't believe me? Do your own research, alhough I've already posted multiple videos proving it. But that is just more evidence of how well engineered this ongoing invasion is. We can not take the whole world into this country, even if we didn't already have so much solialist programs. Bring the troops fighting foreign wars for Israel back home and have them defend OUR BORDERS, which is what their actual job is!
  4. I had been trying to avoid/shut down the nonsensical TDS/TSDS for a bit and posted a lot of Bills/NFL stuff that almost nobody seemed to care about. So I will give you bleepers what you want, TDS!!(and TDS most foul) This is the kind of nonsense I picture you TDSers/TSDSers having if there was ever a Range meetup!! This is sad, very sad. Published on Jan 21, 2020 By Jose Nino According to a report from Click Orlando, a construction worker with anti-government views has been accused of murdering his boss, who was a “proud and outspoken American and pro-Donald Trump.” Mason Trever Toney, 28, was arrested on Monday, January 20, 2020 for the murder of his boss, William Knight, 28. According to the Orange County sheriff’s arrest affidavit, the fatal stabbing was reported at 10:45 a.m. at a construction site at Exit 254 of Florida’s Turnpike near State Road 528. The arrest affidavit highlighted how a 911 caller reported that his co-worker, Toney, stabbed his boss to death. Deputies reported that they discovered Knight lying dead next to an excavator with a brand new American flag draped over his body. Witnesses claim Toney was spotted carrying back a backpack, which allegedly stored the flag, according to the affidavit. According to witnesses, Toney and Knight were friends outside of work. Knight picked up Toney earlier in the day. The two ended up getting into an argument over their opposing political views. The affidavit stated that Toney is very outspoken politically and he said the government is out to get him. Witnesses said they heard Knight scream for help and caught Toney stabbing him to death with a trowel. According to the deputies, witnesses attempted to stop the attack and hurled objects at Toney, who then escaped into a truck and drove off while calling the witnesses “terrorists.” Toney would later be taken into custody in Brevard County and arrested. The murder suspect is currently being held in Orange County without bond. Friends and family immediately set-up a GoFundMe for Knight’s memorial services. Knight is survived by his mother and father, brother, sister and immediate family. https://bigleaguepolitics.com/florida-man-murders-pro-trump-boss-drapes-american-flag-over-corpse-according-to-witnesses/
  5. So, to sum up, there won't be any witnesses or documents or other evidence allowed like in any other trial in history and the defense attorneys are arguing on procedure and miscellaneous grievances, not on the merits of the case against their client, yet Donald is completely and utterly innocent and this is all just a hoax. The hour of 1 p.m., the designated time for the start of President Trump’s impeachment trial, came and went. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was in the Capitol, cooling his heels. But the Senate remained in recess. Half an hour later, we found out why: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and his Senate Republicans had been rewriting the trial rules on the fly, minutes before bringing them to the floor for a vote. They are quite literally making things up as they go along. Public pressure on moderate Republican senators had, for the moment, forced McConnell to soften a couple of the most egregious trial rules — notably, a plan that would have forced the case to be argued in the middle of the night — but it did nothing to slow McConnell’s pell-mell rush to acquit. McConnell, who during a break in proceedings Tuesday huddled with White House counsel Pat Cipollone, succeeded in rebuffing, along party lines, efforts to call witnesses and demand documents that Trump withheld. Why such a hurry? The answer became apparent as soon as Trump’s lawyers opened their mouths for the first time during the impeachment proceedings. They shouted. They spouted invective. They launched personal attacks against the impeachment managers. But they offered virtually nothing in defense of the president’s conduct, nor anything but a passing reference to Ukraine. “These Articles of Impeachment … are not only ridiculous, they are dangerous to our republic,” declared Cipollone. “It's ridiculous,” he added. “It's ridiculous! It's ridiculous,” he repeated, for those who may have missed the point. “They’re here to steal two elections — it’s buried in the small print of their ridiculous articles of impeachment,” he alleged. Cipollone closed with a request to “end this ridiculous charade.” But he didn’t rest his case there. He and his colleagues built on this playground-worthy argument: “Outrageous!” “No crime!” “No case!” “False allegations!” “Concocted!” “Hypocrisy!” “They don’t have the guts!” “A complete fake!” Here were the president’s men, in the flesh, occupying a factual universe all their own. “The president was not allowed to have a lawyer present” in House proceedings, said the presidential lawyers who refused to be present in House proceedings. “They ask you to trample on executive privilege,” they said, even though Trump hasn’t invoked executive privilege. The impeachment managers have “evidence … that we haven’t been allowed to see,” said the White House officials who blocked the release of all documents. Day One offered the starkest of contrasts: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and his impeachment managers framing their case in somber terms and painstaking detail — and the other side responding with what amounted to an extended reading of Trump’s tweets. Most of the 53 Senate Republicans are lawyers, so they had to be aware that what they were getting from the White House did not amount to a defense. Their body language suggested they wanted the whole thing to end — quickly. Patrick Toomey (Pa.) chewed his reading glasses. Marco Rubio (Fla.) chewed at a fingernail. Ted Cruz (Tex.) slouched in his chair.Tim Scott (S.C.) studied the ceiling. Bill Cassidy (La.) sent for a fresh glass of water, though his was not empty. John Hoeven (N.D.) yawned. So did Lindsey Graham (S.C.). The White House’s case is unlikely to improve from here. Also appearing for Trump will be Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, lately members of Jeffrey Epstein’s defense team. Dershowitz has already distanced himself from the brief the White House filed. And the New York Times reported that one of the lawyers cited in Trump’s brief has called the White House argument “constitutional nonsense” and “sophistry.” Republicans find themselves defying public opinion in their attempts to avoid testimony. A CNN poll found that 69 percent of Americans say witnesses should testify in the trial, including 48 percent of Republicans. Trump himself said in December that he wants White House officials “to testify in the Senate where they’ll get a fair trial.” But Trump is now trying so hard to avoid witnesses that the White House is working on backup plans to silence them even if the Senate votes for testimony. Tuesday’s arguments made clear why: The White House has no substantive defense. Rather, it has grievances. Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow stood at the lectern with a notebook full of what looked like ransom notes: typed pages full of scrawls in the margins, with scribbled note cards haphazardly interspersed. Like Cipollone, he shouted. He attacked two of the impeachment managers. He attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). He ricocheted from Eric Holder to Peter Strzok to the “failed” Russia investigation. Cipollone returned to the lectern with yet another complaint. The House’s case, he declared, “is too much to listen to, almost.” But he didn’t attempt a refutation. No wonder McConnell can’t be done with this trial fast enough. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/21/white-house-defense-is-well-there-isnt-one/
  6. Brave men have spoken up about this important issue as far back as our founding fathers, Shakespeare(Merchant Of Venice), and the REAL Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Church. The most ironic part is the last person on the list was fairly recently the Range avatar of my main detractor on the subject and in general! This is why they got a special law banning free speech and boycotts against them from congress last year, and the infamous executive order in December that Robert Kraft(cough cough) was standing next to, as I exposed earlier. The men below would have been banned by that executive order! by Mike King Henry Adams (1838 - 1918) Henry Adams of Massachusetts was a prolific author, political journalist, historian and member of the Adams political family; descended from President John Adams (his great grandfather) and John Quincy Adams (his grandfather). He was a Harvard graduate at a time when that still meant something. At Harvard, Adams studied Greek and Roman literature, mathematics, government, botany, astronomy, physics, and French. In 1894, Adams was elected president of the American Historical Association. He became widely regarded as one of America's foremost intellectuals, again, at a time when the word "intellectual" still meant something. His posthumously-published memoirs, The Education of Henry Adams, won the Pulitzer Prize, and went on to be named by The Modern Library as the top English-language nonfiction book of the 20th century. Adams's attitude towards Jews has been described as one of loathing. The noted American statesman John Hay, remarking on Adams's "Anti-Semitism," said that when Adams "saw Vesuvius (volcano in Italy) reddening... he searched for a Jew stoking the fire." Quotes by Henry Adams "I detest [the Jews], and everything connected with them, and I live only and solely with the hope of seeing their demise, with all their accursed Judaism. I want to see all the lenders at interest taken out and executed." "We are in the hands of the Jews. They can do what they please with our values." Adams advised against investment except in the form of gold locked in a safe deposit box: "There you have no risk but the burglar. In any other form you have the burglar, the Jew, the Czar, the socialist, and, above all, the total irremediable, radical rottenness of our whole social, industrial, financial and political system." Henry Ford (1863-1947) By age 15, Henry Ford had taught himself how to dismantle and reassemble the timepieces of friends and neighbors, gaining the reputation of a watch repairman. The mechanical and visionary genius became America's leading industrialist and founder of the Ford Motor Company. Ford pioneered the development of the assembly line technique of mass production, making cars affordable for the Middle Class. The increased productivity enabled Ford to pay his workers unusually high wages. During the 1920's, Ford published a series of essays under the title "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem. Quotes by Henry Ford: "And if after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered to the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of "scandals" and "investigations" and "impeachments" for the removal of the disobedient." "I know who caused the war (World War I) - the Jewish bankers! I have the evidence here. Facts!" Thomas Edison (1847-1931) Thomas Edison was the most prolific inventor of the 20th century. The "Wizard of Menlo Park" was also a first rate scientist and businessman. His creations include the stock ticker, battery for an electric car, phonograph, the motion picture camera, and the light bulb. Edison is also credited with having created the first industrial research laboratory, developing electrical power for mass use (along with Tesla) and being awarded an incredible 1,093 U.S. patents. Edison was a very close friend and vacation companion to the "anti-Semite" Henry Ford. Though actual quotes cannot be found, we learn from Jewish sources that Edison did indeed share his buddy Ford's view of the "Big Jews". The great genius struggled for many years to keep the Jews from using his motion pictures without paying royalties. He eventually lost any control he had to the Jews who would later establish Hollywood. Quotes about Thomas Edison's beliefs: "Like his friend Henry Ford, Edison was virulently anti-Semitic and blamed the Jews for all of the world's major problems." - NNDB (Notable Names Data Base) "(Israeli) Postal Authority officials were red-faced yesterday upon learning that Thomas Edison, the famous inventor, who is to appear on an Israeli stamp to be issued soon, is believed by some to have been an anti-semite. The Postal Authority - informed of these claims by The Jerusalem Post - began to launch an investigation yesterday into the charge. Alleging that Edison was anti-Semitic are Stephen Esrati, a philatelic journalist in Ohio, and Ken Lawrence, vice President of the 56,000 member American Philatelic Society." - J-Weekly / quoting the Jerusalem Post 1. Ford & Edison: The two great geniuses were bosom buddies! // 2."Those Jews stole my motion pictures, Henry!" // 3. "I'm telling ya, Tom -- the Jews set up the Federal Reserve and brought about the Great War in Europe. Ezra Pound (1885-1972) Ezra Pound was, without a doubt, the pee-eminent American poet of the 20th century. The literary legend actually mentored Ernest Hemingway, TS Elliot, Robert Frost, and other great writers. Pound's best-known works include Ripostes (1912), Hugh Selwyn Mauberley (1920) and his unfinished 120-section epic, The Cantos. Having become disillusioned with America and England, Pound moved to Mussolini's Italy and also praised Hitler's achievements. Pound was never shy about expressing his feelings towards the Big Jews who he blamed for both World Wars. After World War 2, he was captured, abused, and forced to stay in an American insane asylum for 12 years before returning to Italy. Quotes by Ezra Pound: “You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew.” “The big Jew has rotted every nation he has wormed into.” “Your infamy is bound up with Judaea. You can not touch a sore or a shame in your empire but you find a Mond, a Sassoon, or a Goldsmid.” Bobby Fisher (1943-2008) Bobby Fischer was an American chess grand master and World Chess Champion. He is considered by many to be the greatest chess player who ever lived. Starting at age 14, he played in eight U.S. Championships, winning each by at least 1 point. At 15, Fischer became the youngest grand master and candidate for the World Championship. Still only 20 years old, he won the 1963-64 U.S. Championship with the only perfect score in the history of the tournament. Fischer was very outspoken in his condemnation of the Zionist conspirators controlling America. Like Ezra Pound, Fischer also became an 'ex-pat', relocating to Japan. Quote by Bobby Fisher: "My main interest right now is to expose the Jews. This is a lot bigger than me. They're not just persecuting me. This is not just my struggle, I'm not just doing this for myself... This is life and death for the world. These God-damn Jews have to be stopped. They're a menace to the whole world." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was not only a Russian novelist and noted historian, but also a survivor of Stalin's Gulag. His Gulag Archipelago remains an International Classic. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1970 and was finally expelled from the Soviet Union in 1974. He has been honored by some of the top universities in the West. Towards the end of his life, some of Solzhenitsyn's more controversial "anti-Semitic" writings never saw the light of day in the West. In "200 Years Together", and other essays, the great writer cryptically alludes to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy behind the Bolshevist takeover and oppression of Russia Quotes by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn "You must understand that the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse." "More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their blood stained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time." "The fact that most of the world is ignorant or uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of its perpetrators." It was the "outside-of-the-box", creative genius of Adams, Ford, Edison, Pound, Fischer and Solzhenitsyn that enabled them to clearly see "the big picture." https://www.realhistorychannel.org/geniuses-who-were-conspiracy-theorists
  7. This is exactly like his debate with Hillary when he said he was tired of hearing about her e-mails. If he's going to get screwed by the DNC establishment again he'd be better off fighting until the end. This is the man who wants to run this country? Not a chance in hell Breadline Bernie. Sanders: ‘Absolutely Not My View’ That Biden Is ‘Corrupt in Any Way’ https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1219455899884052482 During a portion of an interview with CBS News released on Monday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pushed back on an op-ed from Sanders supporter and Fordham Law Associate Professor Zephyr Teachout that said 2020 Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden “has a big corruption problem and it makes him a weak candidate.” Sanders stated that it is “absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way.” Sanders said, “Joe Biden is a friend of mine. I’ve known him for many, many years. He’s a very decent guy. Joe and I have strong disagreements on a number of issues, and we’ll argue those disagreements out. But it is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way.”
  8. While I don't normally support either establishment party, I do support justice, exposing the truth, and ending government waste. Show some love if this makes you feel better about seeing the truth being exposed!! Don't be an ingrate! lol As much of a charade as this political system is, this managed to make me feel good, and even almost supportive of this government again! Put it on full screen and turn up your speakers.
  9. Trump is showing more compassion, in the model of many great spiritual teachers, unlike his enemies. 22 Jan, 2020 18:44 Get short URL © Reuters / Jonathan Ernst / Reuters Photog 31 Follow RT on US President Donald Trump has come out with a surprising defense of his fellow impeached president, Bill Clinton, claiming he has always thought the former leader “should not have been impeached.” In between repeatedly defending himself as “the only one who’s ever been impeached and he didn’t commit a crime,” Trump spoke up in Clinton’s defense, arguing that the former president should not have been impeached in 1998 either. See Global Politics's other Tweets “What he did was nothing good – there was a lot of lying going on – but with me, there’s no lying, no nothing, they don’t even have a crime,” Trump said during the World Economic Forum on Wednesday. He insisted he was merely “sticking up for Clinton” when he called independent counsel Ken Starr, who led the investigation of the former Arkansas governor, a “lunatic.” His opinion of Starr has changed since meeting the lawyer – “a terrific man” who joined his own legal team earlier this month – but Trump insisted his thoughts on Clinton have remained the same, apparently unswayed by his bitter 2016 presidential contest with the former president’s wife. Clinton was ultimately impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice stemming from answers over his extramarital affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. While two other articles of impeachment were brought, including abuse of power, they did not pass the House. The Senate ultimately acquitted Clinton of both articles of impeachment in 1999, allowing him to finish his second term in office. A handful of the starring figures in Trump’s impeachment were present during Clinton’s, often with dramatically different takes on the subject based on their party loyalties. When South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) tried the House’s case against Clinton in 1998, he claimed a president need not even commit a crime to be impeached, a view he had completely reversed by 2020. Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee head Jerry Nadler (D-New York) went from believing in 1998 that both parties must support impeachment or it lacks legitimacy – and calling Clinton’s impeachment a partisan “lynching” – to enthusiastically supporting the partisan proceedings now unfolding against Trump. ALSO ON RT.COMTrump lawyers & intel committee head Schiff accuse each other of obstructing as Senate impeachment trial begins Trump was impeached earlier this month by the Democrat-controlled House for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress relating to his allegedly withholding military aid to Ukraine to compel prosecutors to reopen an investigation into a natural gas firm linked to his chief Democratic rival Joe Biden. The Senate impeachment trial officially began Wednesday after an onerous 12-hour debate over ground rules for the proceedings. If you like this story, share it with a friend! https://www.rt.com/usa/478924-trump-defends-clinton-impeached-starr/
  10. (EDIT: Sadly it is just a state lawmaker who made this bill. Why isn't our national congress doing anything like this?!? Too busy? I had a friend who eventually revealed he was a CD at times, and I didn't shun him, but this is far beyond that. Those who have mocked me for exposing the evil in society, while they waste time on the meaningless, have inspired me to do even more of it) One does not need to be religious to understand the value in the Biblical teaching of society being punished for laughing at and ignoring the prophets. For many years people have spoken against this agenda, which was promoted as harmless, and were labeled as all sorts of things instead of men of virtue. I remember Lit being brave and posting a thread in anger because the media kept it in our face and made the percentages of these perverts seem much higher than it is, but this is far worse than even that. I somehow doubt any of the subversives on here will stand up in defense of this depravity, which is part of what The Protocols of Zion warned us about over a centrury ago! "Keep America Great"?!? Give me a break. Published Jan 17, 2020 By Shane Trejo A state lawmaker is finally taking aim at drag queen story hour events that allow creeps and weirdos to groom children in public libraries and other formerly wholesome venues. Rep. Ben Baker, a legislator from southwestern Missouri, has introduced the “Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act” to provide criminal sanctions against librarians who permit children to be exposed to drag queen story hour events without parental consent. “In some places — St. Louis, Kansas City and I think St. (Joseph) — they’ve had these drag queen story hours and that’s something that I take objection to and I think a lot of parents do,” Baker said. “That’s where in a public space, our kids could be exposed to something that’s age-inappropriate. That’s what I’m trying to tackle.” Trending: Report: Federal Asset Ordered Terror Attack by Group Allegedly Conspiring to Storm Virginia Capitol The legislation would allow parents to have “recourse” to express that they are “not OK” with drag queen story hour events coming to their community, according to Baker. Libraries would be compelled to create a five-person oversight board to determine whether certain “material,” like pro-tranny books read by cross-dressers at story hour events, is appropriate fr kids. take our poll - story continues below Should Democrats be charged with TREASON for the impeachment scam? Library personnel who refused to comply with these rules would be charged with a class B misdemeanor, facing a fine of $500 and up to a year in jail. The bill author is clear that he does not want to ban any type of literature, only protect children from LGBT indoctrination from events like drag queen story hour. “If we were trying to ban books or censor literature, I would kill the bill, myself,” Baker said. The Missouri lawmaker is concerned about young children’s minds being poisoned with ideas regarding gender theory at drag queen story hour events. Because of the transgender fad, children are now being dosed with drugs in preparation for gender-mutilation surgery. “Some of those events are open from ages 1 to teen years,” Baker said. “I don’t think a 2-, 3-, 4-year-old is prepared to grapple with those ideas and I don’t think they should be subjected to that just by walking through the library.” Cynthia Dudenhoffer, the Missouri Library Association president, is coming out against Baker’s bill that she calls “censorship.” The American Library Association has been influential in promoting drag queen story hour grooming events across the country. “I’m sure any library board and their director take the responses from their community very, very seriously,” Dudenhoffer said. PROMO Missouri, a pro-degeneracy LGBT group, is also deriding Baker’s efforts to protect children from being groomed by potential predators. “Especially in a state where lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people can still be denied housing, fired from their jobs and denied public service, it’s really important to have these safe spaces where children and families can come into the visibility of LGBT people or queerness, or playfulness in their identities, whether that be through literature or the performative nature of drag culture,” said Shira Berkowitz, communications manager of PROMO Missouri. Because of the efforts of Berkowitz and other pedo-enabling leftists, children have “come into the visibility” of sex offenders, prostitutes and other lecherous perverts: If anything, the language in Baker’s legislation isn’t harsh enough toward the individuals who promote this program and enable an LGBT agenda that is after the souls of the children. https://bigleaguepolitics.com/finally-missouri-lawmaker-files-bill-to-prevent-drag-queen-story-hour-child-grooming-events/
  11. (EDIT: I did not post this for popularity nor to get people to click "thanks", and realize it risks alienating people who only believe what popular culture tells them. I debated whether I should even share it/how many of you could handle it, but it stunned me so much I felt compelled to do so. I don't want people who dislike King for the wrong reasons to watch this, as you discredit the truth. This is posted for the average person who admires the guy, like I did until a few moments ago). Wow.... Even someone myself had no idea he was anywhere near this bad. I'd dismissed some "rumors" in the past, because I saw the man as a beloved example of a good and courageous American. Apparently, not much is further from the truth. I had never cared to hear the other side of the story until just a moment ago, but am glad my mind finally allowed me to do so. This video names many names to satisfy one certain member who demands people do his research for him. It also quotes many respected research sources, as well as people and organizations friendly to King,. After watching this, you may question how many of the other beliefs you take for granted are true. I've strongly defended people as "diverse"(and more importantly, UNPOPULAR) as Kaepernick, Omar, Farrakhan, (EDIT:the hated Lamar Jackson too!), etc when they have shown courage and spoken the unpopular truth, and proudly donated cash and my voice to a mixed-race Democratic candidate this cycle, so please put aside your Pavlovian-conditioned desire to play the race card/use ad hominem attacks. This man was not a good representative for black people(or Christians, or Americans for that matter). There are far better examples who deserve our admiration and support. To be fair, although this mostly talks about King and his associates, the far more important issue it leaves one to wonder about(than King) is why the truth was covered up, and what was gained by whom for doing so. (As for the BREAKING, sadly it is to the vast majority. I suspect there may be one or 2 more quiet members who are already aware of this and wish they had shared it)
  12. https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/texas-farmers-refuse-to-cheer-for-trump-as-he-lies-about-fighting-for-them-to-keep-their-land/ Texas Farmers refuse to cheer for Trump as he lies about fighting for them to keep their land President Donald Trump appeared in Texas Sunday to speak to the Farm Bureau conference. Among the things he promised was that he was fighting for them to have their water rights and rights to control their own land usage. As one viewer noted, there was noticeable silence when Trump mentioned land usage. It could be due to the fact that Trump is suing in court to take the land of farmers and ranches so he can build his border wall. For some, the land has been in their family since the founding of the state of Texas. Trump was also caught in multiple lies and twisting of the truth. He claimed that under former President Barack Obama’s administration, farmer income fell. He didn’t mention that it topped out at the highest it’s ever been, as one viewer noticed. He also didn’t address the costs he’s forced on farmers due to his tariffs with China. While Trump provided corporate farms with multiple bailouts, those who don’t run huge farms lost a lot of money and many were even forced to file for bankruptcy. Farmer suicides also saw an increase under Trump. Thanks to Trump’s tariffs, equipment costs also significanlty increased. None of the topics were ones Trump explained to those who deserved answers.
  13. While this video might be dated on some of the Trump information(I dont care to follow the charade, so I am not sure), the Bernie Sanders video as well as the hypocrisy are still very valid points. To those who don't follow history: The Soviet Union was something quite different than current Russia, and the later is demonized for working against globalist agenda(the opposite of the Soviet Union/communism). Other communist countries visited and promoted by Bernie are mentioned, as well as other politicians and how their scandals were also swept under the rug. This should answer the question another recent thread started. Regardless if you like Bernie or not, the point of this thread is the hypocrisy of the media and many of the conditioned bots/zombies/sheep they have created. I think this adds to my parody of Sack at the top of my signature. :) (even though I've posted it or something like it before, it's apparent a decent amount of people have not seen it). BTW, interestingly it was Beto Male who exposed this video to the world, so even if you arent of the flaming variety, thanks are in order to him. Beto
  14. LOL. Remember when this hurricane happened 2.5 years ago and they all screamed up and down that Trump was committing genocide by not sending help? Pepe Farms does remember... vividly. Turns out Trump was right again and now, well, I think some people should be locked up on account of the death's caused by hiding these vital supplies. TDS is a hell of a drug that causes a loss of all rational thought and emotional fits inspiring those afflicted to do dumb actions that they logically wouldn't do in a sane state. And the worst part? There are 7 more warehouses with these supplies all under lock and key! Who's the asshole now Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico emergency director fired after residents discover warehouse full of Hurricane Maria supplies Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez Garced fired the island's emergency manager, hours after a warehouse filled with supplies was discovered. The emergency aid is believed to be from when Hurricane Maria hit the island two years ago, the governor said. Carlos Acevedo, director of Puerto Rico's Office of Emergency Management, was dismissed Saturday. The governor appointed Maj. Gen. José J. Reyes, the adjutant general of the Puerto Rico National Guard, to replace him. Earlier on Saturday, numerous pallets of water and other boxes with emergency supplies were found at a warehouse in the earthquake ravaged city of Ponce. Earthquake-damaged buildings cripple Puerto Rico Several residents were seen opening the rolling metal doors of the building and calling for authorities to distribute the supplies. Families began lining up Saturday afternoon outside the warehouse, hoping to get bottled water, food and emergency radios, CNN affiliate WAPA reported. Confirman hay otros siete almacenes similares al de Ponce El almacén de suministros, algunos de ellos expirados, en Ponce no es el único en Puerto Rico, pues el Negociado de Manejo de Emergencias y Administración de Desastres (NMEAD) cuenta con otros siete almacenes alrededor de la isla y “todos bien abastecidos”. Así lo confirmó el ayudante general de la Guardia Nacional, José Reyes, quien fue nominado esta tarde como nuevo comisionado de NMEAD, luego de que la gobernadora Wanda Vázquez Garced relevara de sus funciones a Carlos Acevedo ante las denuncias ciudadanas de suministros almacenados en Ponce desde el huracán María y que no se han entregado a los damnificados por los terremotos del área sur. Reyes confirmó a la periodista Valeria Collazo que la Guardia Nacional “despacha suministros en almacén Ponce bajo instrucciones del NMEAD”. Según una publicación en su cuenta de Twitter, también indicó que “hay 28 soldados comando estatal asignados a esta misión (Ponce y Caguas)”. El general indicó que hay otros 7 almacenes similares de NMEAD y “todos bien abastecidos”.
  15. Love how Bloomberg tries to spin it as a loss, nope, this guy was spying on any intel he could get and passing it along to losers of the likes of Adam Schiff and the TDS Pedocrats. See ya later buddy! (PS - Nice work Little Michael.) Trump Loses Another Russia Adviser, Adding to NSC Turnover The top Russia expert on President Donald Trump’s National Security Council has left his post after about three months, according to three people familiar with the matter. Andrew Peek, the NSC’s senior director for European and Russian affairs, was escorted from the White House grounds on Friday, two of the people said, asking not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to discuss personnel matters. A spokesman for the NSC declined to comment, citing the same reason. Peek also declined to comment. Axios reported earlier Saturday that Peek was placed on administrative leave pending a security-related investigation. Peek is the third departure from the position in less than a year. The NSC has been marked by turbulence and turnover over Trump’s three years in office, as the president has repeatedly sought national security advisers more in-line with his own ideology.
  16. Listen to how the Convention moderator addresses the guy freaking out about sensory overload from members. This is your Democrat Party. Comrade Jerry Nadler a member of the NY Democratic Socialist Association (DSA) and the National DSA. New York State Assembly members Seymour Posner and Jerry Nadler were both members of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. (https://hardnoxandfriends.com/2019/03/09/jerry-nadler-socialist-incognito-as-a-democrat-for-thirty-years/ ). Also this: In 2007, with the Democrats in control of Congress, Rep. Nadler chaired the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. That wasn’t the only important position the man has held over the years that has afforded him the opportunity to quietly reshape policy and major laws that govern our country into the socialist mindset. Yet no one, just like in the case of Bernie Sanders saw fit to remove him or keep him from being a force to change our country because he had the protection of the Democrat Party behind him. He isn’t the only one who has been sheltered and made incognito by the party over the years, including Pelosi. At least Sanders and Warren have been upfront about their affiliations. Nadler, like his fellow New Yorker Schumer, votes to the far left on Democrat Party issues at least 90% of time according to voting records. He is also nearly foaming-at-the-mouth rabid in his hate and pursuit of Trump. Actually his determination is a bit suspect given that New York isn’t so large that it is conceivable that the two might have crossed swords on issues over the years. That amount of hate has to have had a beginning. Combining that zeal, legal expertise, decades of socialist experience, and his character is going to provide a lethal, full-blown “attack and destroy” mission on anything or anyone associated with Trump reminiscent of the witch-hunting men who dominated during the Salem trials. Nadler has had twenty-seven years to hone the hatred and push the limit toward a socialist-run country while in Congress. It is doubtful that he will discontinue his tirade against Trump and nationalism with only the 81 people already currently in his sights unless something dramatic forces him to stop. The pursuit and removal of conservative and nationalist “enemies” by he and others like him today may well place the communist hunts during the McCarthy’s era as a pale shadow before 2020. Watching Nadler pontificate to open or the avid mauling of the ones who appear before the committee may well provide a blueprint of how the country will look if the socialist Democrats ever gain complete control. These people have every intention of converting the US into a USSR or Nazi Germany land of https://hardnoxandfriends.com/2019/03/09/jerry-nadler-socialist-incognito-as-a-democrat-for-thirty-years/ https://www.dsausa.org/
  17. UP....UP....UP, Everyday this week fund managers go to work and every day they had a new pile of cash sitting on their desks that they MUST BUY STOCKS with. With record employment, this will continue for a very long time. Stocks are CHEAP!! Consumers are swimming in cash! 100K in ten years is GUARANTEED by the FED. Get it yet??Keep buying with everything you can get your hands on.This TRUMP economy will be talked about for generations to come. You'd be a FOOL to sit on the side lines and not take advantage of this wind fall! Thank you Mr. President for ANOTHER record setting week on Wall street. We are on our way to a 30,000 DOW market and the investors are elated while the democrats and leftists are hugging therapy dogs in agony. Remember, a good day for America is ALWAYS a bad day for democrats.
  18. As speaker Pelosi spent 5K on Gold pens to sign an impeachment Hoax, President Trump used a $1.99 Sharpie Pen to sign a $200B China deal, adding to 7 million jobs the White house created in 3 years. Obama stated that these jobs would NEVER return and wondered if Trump had a magic wand to achieve it all.
  19. Received this from my Father who lives in a retirement community in MD. This Is Us The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday. They like to refer to us as senior citizens, old fogies, geezers, and in some cases dinosaurs. Some of us are "Baby Boomers" getting ready to retire Others have been retired for some time. We walk a little slower these days and our eyes and hearing are not what they once were. We worked hard, raised our children, worshiped our God and have grown old together. In school we studied English, history, math, and science, which enabled us to lead America into the technological age. Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand experience. We remember the days of telephone party-lines, 25 cent gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. We are probably considered old fashioned and outdated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II, fought in Korea and Viet Nam. We can quote The Pledge of Allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride, and lost many friends on the battlefield. We didn't fight for the Socialist States of America; we fought for the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag. We know the words to the “Star Spangled Banner,” “America,” and “America the Beautiful” by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you should have read in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent. It was mostly the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the Democratic Congress. You fell for the "Hope and Change" which in reality was nothing but "Hype and Lies” from your college professors. You youngsters need to taste socialism and see evil face to face to understand you don't like it after all. You make a lot of noise, most are all too interested in their careers or "Climbing the Social Ladder" to be involved in such mundane things as patriotism and voting. Many of those who fell for the "Great Lie" in 2008 are now having buyer's remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn't have sense enough to see through the lies and instead drank the 'Kool-Aid.' Well, don't worry youngsters, the Grey-Haired Brigade is here, and in 2016 we took back our nation. We may drive a little slower than you would like, but we get where we're going, and in 2020 we're driving to the polls again by the millions. So the next time you have the chance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, stand up, put your hand over your heart, honor your country, and thank God for the old geezers of the "Gray-Haired Brigade." Footnote: This is right on. I am another Gray-Haired Geezer signing on. I will circulate this to other Gray-Haired Geezers all over this still great county. Can you feel the ground shaking??? It's not an earthquake, it is a STAMPEDE. You and I are Members. Don't Delete . Just Read and Pass it on!! In God we STILL trust!
  20. I'll give this guy credit... he's right about something! This is why the Republicans were not allowed their own witnesses in the House trial but the Democrats pushed this through anyway and tried to make their own rules for the Senate trial. Maher says Bidens will become the 'bigger scandal' if they testify, Lev Parnas 'not credible' "Real Time" host Bill Maher returned Friday night after a holiday break and weighed in on potential witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, including the possibility of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden being brought in to testify -- as well as Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas. Maher said that Democrats who've been pushing for witness testimony at the trial -- from the likes of former national security adviser John Bolton, for example -- could find themselves facing unintended consequences. "How about this question: Could it backfire, witnesses?" Maher asked during the show's panel segment. "Because then [doesn't] Trump get to call Biden and his ne'er-do-well son?" Maher then blasted Biden for not having a better explanation for his son's ties to the Ukrainian company Burisma. "Biden needs a better answer about his son than, 'I can do more push-ups than you,' and 'I'm going to beat you up,'" Maher said. He then recalled the 2004 presidential election, when Democratic nominee and "war hero" John Kerry was transformed into a "war criminal," and Republican incumbent and "draft dodger" George W. Bush was transformed into a "war hero." "If this gets to a trial and they call Biden and his son, trust me, Biden and his son and Ukraine will be the bigger scandal," Maher insisted. Later, Maher slammed Parnas, who made explosive claims this week during interviews on MSNBC and CNN, claiming Trump had direct knowledge of efforts to withhold U.S. aid from Ukraine in exchange for an announced investigation into the Bidens. "He's not credible," Maher said of Parnas. "I believe him actually ... but he left a note to himself that said, 'Get Zelensky to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.' To himself! It's like a bank robber writing a note, 'Remember to rob bank.' It strikes me as suspicious that you'd do that."
  21. taking a page from the s0s playbook of annoying thread formats: It is this testimony from Sondland that the White House and House Republicans have clung to, in support of their claim that the impeachment inquiry has failed to show misconduct by the President. ’’ President Trump has taken to regularly invoking Sondland’s testimony at rallies and at press events, asserting that Sondland’s description of the “no quid pro” call exonerates him. In fact, in the middle of Sondland’s public testimony, President Trump made an appearance on the White House lawn, a portion of Sondland’s paraphrased testimony in hand, to perform a dramatic reenactment of the call, as it was described by Sondland. Overall, it must be noted, Sondland’s testimony was incredibly damning for Trump. However, it was not quite as damning as it should have been. Because in reality, as shown from the testimony of other witnesses, the “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th. What’s more, the call was not prompted by any text from Bill Taylor. And lastly, Sondland’s testimony about the “no quid pro quo” call omitted the most important part: the part where President Trump informed Sondland that the security assistance would be at a “stalemate” until President Zelenskyy stood in front of a microphone and personally announced that he was opening an investigation into Trump’s political rivals. II. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Took Place on Sept. 7, Not on Sept. 9 The “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th, as Sondland claimed at one point in his testimony; instead, it took place on September 7th. This is shown from the testimony of Tim Morrison, Senior Director for European Affairs for the National Security Council, and Charge D’Affaires Bill Taylor, both of whom were briefed on the call by Sondland shortly after it occurred. This detail is critically important, not because the precise date of the call is significant in and of itself, but because of what it shows about the true content of that call – the substance of the conversation that Morrison and Taylor described in their testimony, and that Sondland omitted from his. Sondland’s Testimony Though Ambassador Sondland testified that, to the best of his recollection, the “no quid pro quo” call occurred on September 9th, Sondland was also quick to point out that as a result of his inability to review certain State Department records, his “memory admittedly has not been perfect.” (Sondland Testimony of Nov. 20, 2019) Still, Sondland said he had a distinct reason for remembering the date of this particular call: it was prompted by what Sondland described as a “fairly shocking” and “alarming” text message he received from Charge Taylor, in a group chat that included Ambassador Kurt Volker. It was in response to this text, Sondland said, that Sondland made the call to President Trump: So rather than ask the President nine different questions – is it this, is it this, is that – I just said what do you want from Ukraine? I may have even used a four letter word. And he said I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on or – or words to that effect. (Sondland Testimony of Nov. 20, 2019) Because Ambassador Volker’s text exchanges were one of the few documentary records produced in response to the HSPCI’s subpoenas, we have a copy of the text exchange Sondland referred to. Per Volker’s records, Taylor’s text was sent at 12:47am on September 9th: After speaking to President Trump, Sondland testified, he texted a response to Taylor at 5:19am,[1] which Sondland described as a “paraphrase” of what Trump had just told him: “The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quos of any kind.” With these text records to support his account, Ambassador Sondland testimony’ that this this call took place on September 9th went largely unchallenged during the hearings before the HPSCI. But despite the text recordings – which would seemingly corroborate Sondland’s memory and provide him precise evidence about when the call occurred – Sondland’s testimony has had a curious uncertainty too. For instance, in Sondland’s amendment to his closed-door testimony, he avoided identifying the precise date for the call altogether, instead giving a range of possible dates – from September 6th to September 9th – and then noting that his lack of access to his phone records prevented him from identifying the date with more certainty: And, in his public testimony before HPSCI, when asked to confirm that this call had indeed taken place on September 9th, Sondland repeatedly invoked his lack of access to the records to explain his inability to say with certainty if the call occurred on September 6th or September 9th: CASTOR: And then the – the next time, you know, we tried to unpack this, the – the next time you talked with the President was on the telephone – was September 9th, according to your deposition, right? SONDLAND: I may have even spoken to him on September 6th but again I just don’t have all the records. I wish I could get them, then I could answer your questions very easily. Again and again, Sondland deferred from providing a certain date for the phone call, focusing instead on his inability to refresh his memory with the relevant records: CASTOR: Okay. And then in your September 9th communication with The President during your deposition that was a striking moment when you walked us through your telephone call with President Trump on September 9th. SONDLAND: By the way I still cannot find a record of that call because the State Department or The White House cannot locate it. But I’m pretty sure I had the call on that day. Sondland’s testimony about the White House’s inability to locate records of this call is also curious. On the one hand, the failure to preserve such critical records might appear to be something like obstruction, if not the outright destruction of evidence. On the other hand, the White House informing Sondland that it “cannot locate” a record of the September 9th call makes perfect sense – if in fact no call occurred at all between Sondland and Trump on September 9th. Finally, it makes little sense that Sondland would have considered Taylor’s September 9th text message to be “fairly shocking” and “alarming,” or necessitate a pre-dawn call to the White House to ask the President about whether there was a quid pro quo. After all, Sondland himself had told Taylor just one day before that the President had communicated a quid pro quo, and Sondland had told Morrison the same thing the day before that. Morrison’s Testimony After Fiona Hill resigned in mid-July as the NSC’s Senior Director for European Affairs, Tim Morrison took over her role, and for the next three months, he received updates on Ukraine-related matters from Ambassador Sondland. In his closed-door testimony, Morrison described how, on September 7th, he received a call from Sondland, who wanted to update him on a call he had just had with President Trump:[2] In the phone call, he told me that he had just gotten off the phone — the September 7th phone call — he told me he had just gotten off the phone with the President. I remember this because he actually made the comment that it was easier for him to get a hold of the President than to get a hold of me, which led me to respond, “Well, the President doesn’t work for Ambassador Bolton; I do,” to which Ambassador Sondland responded, “Does Ambassador Bolton know that?” But that’s why I have a vivid recollection of this. And he wanted to tell me what he had discussed with the President. … He told me [ ] that there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelenskyy must announce the opening of the investigations and he should want to do it. (Morrison Depo. at 190) (emphasis added) Important to note: this is the same “no quid pro quo, but…” language that Sondland used to describe his call with Trump that took place in the September 6-9 timeframe. In Morrison’s public testimony, he once again placed the “no quid pro quo” call on September 7th: GOLDMAN: Now a few days later, on September 7th, you spoke again to Ambassador Sondland who told you that he had just gotten off the phone with President Trump, isn’t that right? MORRISON: That sounds correct, yes. GOLDMAN: What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that President Trump said to him? MORRISON: If I recall this conversation correctly, this was where Ambassador Sondland related that there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelenskyy had to make the statement and that he had to want to do it. GOLDMAN: And by that point, did you understand that the statement related to the Biden and 2016 investigations? MORRISON: I think I did, yes. GOLDMAN: And that that was essentially a condition for the security assistance to be released? MORRISON: I understood that that’s what Ambassador Sondland believed. In this call, Sondland told Morrison of Trump’s demand that President Zelenskyy personally announce the Burisma/2016 investigations, and upon hearing this, Morrison said, he had a “sinking feeling.” (Morrison Depo. at 145) Morrison was concerned President Trump’s “requirements” could not be met in time for the hold on the military assistance to be lifted. As Morrison explained, although the end of the fiscal year was September 30th, “because Congress imposed a 15-day notification requirement on the State Department funds, September 7th, September 30th, that really means September 15th in order to secure a decision from the president to allow the funds to go forward.” (Morrison Testimony on Nov. 11, 2019) In other words, on September 7th, when Sondland was briefing Morrison about Trump’s demands for Zelenskyy to announce the investigations, there were only eight days left before the security assistance evaporated all together. Ukraine only had eight days left to provide Trump with something that would satisfy his demands. And Morrison had another reason for knowing the precise date this call occurred – because as soon as the call was over, he went to the NSC lawyers to report it. GOLDMAN: Did you tell Ambassador Bolton about this conversation as well? MORRISON: I did, yes. GOLDMAN: And what did he say to you? MORRISON: He said to tell the lawyers. GOLDMAN: And why did he say to tell the lawyers? MORRISON: He did not explain his instruction. GOLDMAN: But he is not going to — he doesn’t tell you to go tell the lawyers because you are running up on the eight-day deadline there, right? MORRISON: Again, I don’t know why he directed that, but it seems reasonable and is consistent with what I was going to do anyway. Taylor’s Testimony After going to the NSC lawyers to document what Sondland had told him about the “no quid pro quo” call, Morrison’s next move was to email Charge Bill Taylor with an urgent request for a call. In his testimony, Taylor described how, because this happened on a Saturday, he had to make a special trip in to the embassy in Kiev, in order to use the facilities there to make a secured call to Morrison. (Taylor Depo at. 250-252) Morrison then briefed Taylor on the call he had just had with Sondland: Two days later, on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a “sinking feeling” after learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a “quid pro quo.” But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of “Biden and 2016 election interference,” and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself. Mr. Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland. (Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 12) (emphasis added) The next day, Sondland sent a group text message to both Taylor and Volker, letting them know that he’d had “multiple conversations” with both President Zelenskyy and President Trump, and wanted to brief them on the calls. Volker was not available to join the call, but Taylor was, and he spoke to Sondland at approximately 11:30am on September 8th: Taylor testified that during his September 8th call with Sondland, Sondland briefed him on what Taylor understood to be the same phone call with President that Morrison had briefed him on the day before: [O]n September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone. He confirmed that he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” I believe this was the same conversation between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump that Mr. Morrison had described to me on September 7. The language that Taylor says Sondland used to describe his call with Trump once again matches the language described by both Morrison and Sondland in their testimony: Ambassador Sondland also said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and had told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate.” I understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on CNN. (Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 16)(emphasis added) Taylor was able to precisely date his phone calls with Morrison and Sondland – which took place on September 7th and 8th respectively – based on his own contemporaneous notes about the call, as well as the text messages records from Volker: Shortly after that call with Ambassador Sondland, I expressed my strong reservations in a text message to Ambassador Sondland, stating that my “nightmare is they [the Ukrainians] give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.).” I was serious. (Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 16) (emphasis added) The text message Taylor described was sent on September 8th, at 12:37pm: Based on the testimony of both Morrison and Sondland, as well as the corresponding text records, Sondland’s “no quid pro quo” call with Trump had already happened on September 7th. Indeed, it also explains why Sondland’s text message in reply to Taylor on Sept. 9 began, “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” It was a reference to their phone conversation the day before, when Sondland debriefed Taylor about his call with the President. III. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Was in Response to Negotiations That Occurred in Warsaw, Not Bill Taylor’s Text In addition to Sondland giving incorrect testimony about the date of the “no quid pro quo” call, Sondland was also incorrect about what had prompted the call in the first place. His September 9th text exchange with Bill Taylor could not have been what caused him to call President Trump, because that call had happened at least two days before the text. Instead, Sondland had called Trump in order to confirm whether a proposed modification to the quid pro quo arrangement would be acceptable to Trump. The proposed modification to the quid pro quo arrangement had been worked out the week before, during the American delegation’s trip to Warsaw. Originally, this trip had been intended to include a bilateral meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, but Trump had canceled at the last minute, citing his need to monitor an incoming hurricane. Vice President Pence was sent in his place, and on September 1st, Pence and Zelenskyy met at the Warsaw Marriott. Both Sondland and Morrison were in attendance. After the bilateral meeting concluded, several officials from both sides stayed behind, including Sondland and Zelenskyy’s senior adviser Andriy Yermak. Morrison observed Sondland and Yermak speaking to one another, and immediately after, Morrison testified, Sondland came over to brief him on the conversation: I recall Ambassador Sondland telling me that what he conveyed to the Ukrainian Presidential advisor, Mr. Yermak, was that the Prosecutor General would be sufficient to make the statement to obtain release of the aid. (Morrison Depo. at 182, 272) Concerned, Morrison immediately placed a call to Charge Taylor to brief him on Sondland’s conversation with Yermak.[3] As Taylor explained in his opening statement before his public testimony, During this [September 1] phone call with Mr. Morrison, he described a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak in Warsaw. Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. I understand that Mr. Morrison testified at his deposition that Ambassador Sondland proposed that it might be sufficient for the Ukrainian Prosecutor General to commit to pursue the investigation, as opposed to President Zelenskyy. But this was the first time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigations. (Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 101-11) As described in Taylor’s testimony, following his call with Morrison, Taylor sent a text message to Sondland: Very concerned, on that same day—September 1—I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. (Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 11) The text messages from Volker show that the exchange Taylor described took place after 12pm Eastern time[4] on September 1st: It was this September 1st conversation with Andriy Yermak that led to ’the “no quid pro quo” call, because the “no quid pro quo” call was a discussion about whether Trump was willing to accept what Sondland had offered to Yermak: that it be the chief prosecutor, and not Zelenskyy, who announced the Biden and 2016 investigations. As Morrison testified regarding the September 1st discussions in Warsaw: My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian Prosecutor General, not President Zelenskyy, would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation. (Morrison Depo. at 15) [Sondland] walked across the space and he briefed me on what he said he had said to Mr. Yermak. … He told me that in his — that what he communicated was that he believed the — what could help them move the aid was if the Prosecutor General would go to the mike and announce that he was opening the Burisma investigation. (Morrison Depo. at 134) (emphasis added) And as Taylor testified: Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling Ukrainian officials that only a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such investigations. In the same September 1 call, I told Ambassador Sondland that President Trump should have more respect for another head of state and that what he described was not in the interest of either President Trump or President Zelenskyy. At that point I asked Ambassador Sondland to push back on President Trump’s demand. Ambassador Sondland pledged to try. We also discussed the possibility that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than President Zelenskyy, would make a statement about investigations, potentially in coordination with Attorney General Barr’s probe into the investigation of interference in the 2016 elections. (Opening Statement of Taylor, Oct. 22, 2019, at 11) Sondland, for his part, initially failed to recall altogether that he’d spoken with Andriy Yermak in Warsaw about any investigations, and denied that any quid pro quo arrangements had been discussed. However, on November 4th, after learning of what Morrison and Taylor had testified to regarding his conversation with Yermak in Warsaw, Sondland amended his testimony. In his amendment, Sondland stated that he “now recall[ed]” his September 1st conversation with Yermak, and that he and Yermak had discussed whether the public announcement of the investigations needed to come from President Zelenskyy himself, or if it would be acceptable for the announcement to instead be made by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General: These discussions about whether it would be acceptable for the Prosecutor General to make the announcement – and not President Zelenskyy – were an attempt to find a compromise solution to Trump’s demands. Having Ukraine’s chief prosecutor make the announcement would at least minimize the damage, by helping to maintain the appearance of a regularly instituted investigation, rather than a politically motivated scheme. In contrast, if President Zelenskyy were to make the announcement himself, any illusion that this was an independent prosecutorial decision would have been dispelled. Worse yet, it would compromise Zelenskyy in the process, undermining his independence as Ukraine’s president. Thus, in Warsaw, the American and Ukrainians officials had discussed whether the Prosecutor General might be an acceptable substitute, and left it to Sondland to determine if it would be acceptable to President Trump. And that brings us to the September 7th call between Sondland and President Trump, when Sondland called Trump to ask “one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine?” (Sondland Depo. at 106) Sondland did not make this call because of anything Taylor had texted him; rather, Sondland was apparently calling to ask President Trump if the solution that had been negotiated in Warsaw, in which the Prosecutor General made the announcement, would be acceptable to him. It was not. President Trump rejected the substitution of the Prosecutor General, and demanded that President Zelenskyy himself make the announcement. As Morrison testified in his closed-door deposition, [T]his was a conversation where Gordon related that both — the President said there was not a quid pro quo, but he further stated that President Zelenskyy should want to go to the microphone and announce personally – so it wouldn’t be enough for the Prosecutor General, he wanted to announce personally, Zelenskyy personally, that he would open the investigations. (Morrison Depo. at 144-145) (emphasis added) THE CHAIRMAN: And then it was subsequently on the phone where he came back to you, Ambassador Sondland that is, and said, no, the Prosecutor General is not going to be sufficient, President Zelenskyy has to commit to that, right? MORRISON: Yes, sir. He related the President told him there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelenskyy had to do it and he should want to do it. (Morrison Depo. at 229) (emphasis added) Taylor’s testimony on this point is consistent with Morrison’s: Ambassador Sondland also said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and had told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate.” I understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on CNN. (Taylor’s Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 12) (emphasis added) Taylor further testified that, in that same September 8th call, Sondland had also briefed him on his call with President Zelenskyy, and, Sondland said, President Zelenskyy had agreed to President Trump’s demands. Zelenskyy was going to go on CNN, and personally announce the investigations. IV. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Was In Fact a Demand for Quid Pro Quo Whether due to a faulty memory, or due to intentional deceit, Sondland’s testimony about the “no quid pro quo” call omitted the most critical part of the conversation: President Trump’s rejection of the compromise offer for the Prosecutor General to announce the investigations, and his demand that Zelenskyy himself do it. The “no quid pro quo” call was, in reality, a “here is the specific quid pro quo I want” call. And, by erroneously placing the call on September 9th, Sondland helped obscure these omissions from his testimony, by divorcing the call from its actual context in the ongoing negotiations with Ukraine over what form of quid pro quo would be acceptable. More importantly, it also gave the appearance that the call Sondland was describing was somehow different from the call that was described by two other witnesses – both of whom testified that the call included an explicit demand by Trump for a quid pro quo. When Sondland briefed Morrison and Taylor on the “no quid pro quo” call on September 7th and 8th, he included details that caused both Morrison and Taylor to be alarmed, as was John Bolton when he was informed of it. For instance, Sondland’s description of his conversation with Trump had caused Morrison to become “pessimistic” that President Trump’s demands could be met in time for the aid to be release. (Morrison Depo. at 145) Morrison testified that when he learned of what President Trump said on the call with Sondland, he had a “sinking feeling,” because he “did not think it was a good idea for the Ukrainian President to [ ] involve himself in our politics.” (Id.) And when Sondland briefed Taylor on his call with President Trump, Sondland made plain his own understanding that the President’s demands were transactional in nature – that what Trump was asking for was a quid pro quo. As Taylor testified, Sondland explained to him that the reason President Trump was “a businessman,” and “[w]hen a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, [ ] the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.” (Taylor Depo. at 40) Taylor understood “the check” in this analogy to be the military assistance. (Id. at 146) And yet, when Sondland appeared before Congress to testify about this same exact same phone call with President Trump, he could no longer recall any of the content of their conversation that had caused such alarm for Morrison, Taylor, and Bolton. Still, as much as these omissions from Sondland’s testimony may have benefited President Trump, ’the differences between Sondland’s testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses are cosmetic. In substance, Sondland does not dispute the accuracy of the testimony given by the other witnesses. For instance, Sondland does recall having a conversation with someone in which he was told what quid pro quo Trump required from Ukraine. The only problem is that Sondland has said he cannot recall if he had this conversation with President Trump, or with President Trump’s attorney: GOLDMAN: On September 8, you then had a conversation directly with Ambassador Taylor about this same phone call where Ambassador Taylor said that you confirmed that you spoke to President Trump as he had suggested earlier to you and that President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy himself, meaning not the prosecutor general, had to, quote, “clear things up and do it in public,” unquote. Do you recall – you don’t have any reason to think that Ambassador Taylor’s testimony based on his contemporaneous notes was [in]correct? SONDLAND: I don’t know if I got that from President Trump or if I got it from Giuliani. That’s the part I’m not clear on. GOLDMAN: Well, Ambassador Taylor’s quite clear that you said President Trump. Mr. Morrison is also quite clear that you said President Trump. You don’t have any reason to dispute their very specific recollections, do you? SONDLAND: No. If they have notes and they recall that, I don’t have any reason to dispute it. I just personally can’t remember where I got it from. Sondland repeated this claim multiple times in his public testimony: that he remembered having a conversation about “whether or not the prosecutor could make the statement or Zelenskyy could make the statement,” but that “I don’t recall who told me – whether it was Volker, whether it was Giuliani, or whether it was President Trump – it’s got to be Zelenskyy, it can’t be the prosecutor. … Whoever I got that information from, I relayed to I believe [ ] Ambassador Taylor and to Mr. Morrison.” So Sondland does remember a phone call in which someone told him about the quid pro quo that Trump was demanding – Sondland just ’can’t remember if it was President Trump that he had this conversation with. (Though whether the conversation was with Giuliani or President Trump makes little difference, since Sondland testified that he understood Giuliani was conveying the President’s conditions.) But Morrison and Taylor both confirmed, in their testimonies, that it was President Trump. And Sondland has agreed that he has no reason to doubt the version of events described by Morrison and Taylor: GOLDMAN: Now, you had a conversation on September 7 according to both Ambassador Taylor and Tim Morrison with Tim Morrison where you told Mr. Morrison that President Trump told you that he was not asking for a quid pro quo but that he did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say that he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself. You don’t have any reason to dispute both Ambassador Taylor’s and Mr. Morrison’s testimony about that conversation, do you? SONDLAND: No. Finally, it’s worth noting that Sondland’s phone call with President Trump is not the only presidential phone call that Sondland now has difficulty remembering. When Sondland and Taylor spoke on September 8th, it wasn’t just Sondland’s call with President Trump that Sondland needed to tell Taylor about – Sondland also needed to update him on his calls with President Zelenskyy. In fact, according to Sondland’s text message to Taylor, there had been “multiple convos” with Trump and Zelenskyy that he needed to brief Taylor on: Sondland has never testified about the substance of his conversations with President Zelenskyy on September 7th and/or 8th. In his private deposition, when shown this text exchange and asked about the referenced calls, Sondland responded, “Yeah. I don’t recall… I don’t recall the – I don’t recall the conversations. … I don’t – I don’t recall the conversations. I’d need more refreshment to recall the conversations.” (Sondland Depo. at 351) But on September 8th, Sondland still recalled these conversations, and he briefed Taylor on them. And according to Taylor, Sondland told him his conversation with President Zelenskyy had “concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public statement in an interview with CNN.” (Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 12) Taylor testified that this was “the first time” he had had heard about Zelenskyy giving a CNN interview. (Taylor Depo. at 207) In other words: on September 7th-8th, Sondland spoke to both President Trump and President Zelenskyy. In his call with President Trump, Sondland was told that Trump required Zelenskyy “to go to the microphone and announce personally that he would open the investigations.” (Morrison Depo. at 144-145) And in his call with President Zelenskyy, Sondland secured an agreement from Zelenskyy that he would “do a CNN interview” in which he “would make a statement regarding investigations.” (Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 12) (see also Kent Depo. at 330-31, 333; Holmes Opening Statement, Nov. 21, at 10-11)[5] Sondland may no longer have any memory of what occurred on the September 7th-8th phone calls, but the sequence of events depicted by the text exchanges and Taylor’s testimony is clear: Trump told Sondland his demands for Zelenskyy; Sondland conveyed to Zelenskyy what Trump demanded; and Zelenskyy then agreed “to go to the microphone and announce personally that he would open the investigations.” V. The White House Has Contemporaneous Written Records of the “No Quid Pro Quo” Call As much as President Trump and the House Republicans like to claim that this is all a matter of “hearsay” or “second-hand information,” and that the true contents of President Trump’s communications with Sondland can be dismissed as some kind of unknowable he said/they said, the evidence of the “quid pro quo” call is not limited to witness testimony. In fact, there does exist a detailed, contemporaneous record of what exactly Sondland said on that call with Trump. Because on September 7th, after his call with Sondland, Morrison immediately went to the NSC lawyers to report what had happened, because “[he] was concerned about what Ambassador Sondland was saying were requirements” for the release of the security assistance. (Morrison Depo. at 145) That is, Morrison went to the NSC lawyers to report Sondland’s claim that President Trump was involved in making an explicit quid pro quo demand to Ukraine. In his deposition testimony, Morrison framed his repeated visits to the NSC lawyers as an effort to “protect” the President. “I wanted to make sure, in going to the lawyers,” Morrison said, “that there was a record of what Ambassador Sondland was doing, to protect the President.” (Morrison Depo. at 184) Morrison explained that he felt the need to document Sondland’s September 7th call with the NSC lawyers because Sondland had represented to him that President Trump was behind the quid pro quo scheme: “[P]art of what I’m trying to do here in talking to the lawyers is making sure they’re aware of what Mr. Sondland is doing. And he’s saying the President is aware, but I’m still not entirely certain that he is.” (Morrison Depo. at 224) (emphasis added)Of course, as Morrison later acknowledged under questioning from Chairman Schiff, it was also possible that Sondland was telling the truth about his conversations with President Trump. In which case, rather than serving to protect the President, Morrison’s efforts to document these calls would have the opposite result: THE CHAIRMAN: But did you understand also at the time you took this action that if, in fact, Ambassador Sondland was acting at the direction of the President, you were also creating a paper trail incriminating the President? MORRISON: Well, sir, you could make that argument, yes. (Morrison Depo. at 228) When Morrison first heard about the “no quid pro quo” call on September 7th, he recognized immediately what House Republicans have yet to realize: the “no quid pro quo” call does not exonerate Trump, it incriminates him. – – – – – – – – – – [1] Based on other text exchanges for which the exact time is known, Volker’s texts appear to have been recorded on Eastern time. If that is the case, then Sondland and Trump must have connected between approximately 1am, when Taylor sent the text, and approximately 5am, just before Sondland’s response to Taylor at 5:19am. It is hard to understand why Sondland would have thought he needed to call the White House at a time when most people – including presumably the president – would be sleeping, in order to ask a non-emergency question of: “What do you want from Ukraine?” Additionally, as the Washington Post reported, the White House has no record of the call. The Post also reported that “impeachment investigators believe the messages were logged in Eastern time, according to people familiar with the inquiry.” [2] Morrison is clear that this call happened on September 7th, and Sondland does not dispute that Morrison is describing that the “no quid pro quo” call that Sondland testified took place on September 9th. (Sondland Testimony on Nov. 20, 2019) [3] Additionally, after returning from Warsaw, Morrison went to the NSC lawyers to report Sondland’s conversation with Yermak. [4] Based on the reported meeting times for the bilateral between Zelenskyy and Pence, these texts were recorded in Eastern time. [5] This interview was scheduled for September 13th, on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, and a renewed effort occurred for a statement in a CNN interview later in September, but neither ultimately took place.
  22. Spin in trumpers! https://www.thedailybeast.com/ron-reagan-says-his-father-ronald-reagan-would-not-want-republicans-to-vote-for-traitor-trump-in-2020
  23. Hopefully it gets replaced with a more Western friendly regime and not a bunch of nutso Ayatollahs. Former Iranian crown prince says Tehran regime on the brink of collapse 'People smell the opportunity for the first time in 40 years,' Reza Pahlavi says Former Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi estimated that the Islamic Republic regime could be months away from collapse but emphasized the importance of Western democracies providing aid in achieving that goal. At an event hosted by the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, the son of Iran’s late Shah said on Wednesday that the present atmosphere in his home country reminds him of the days before his father was overthrown in 1978. “People smell the opportunity for the first time in 40 years,” he said as cited by The Jerusalem Post. “This time is very different from 2009, even very different from 1997. The people have had it. Today's generation of young Iranians cannot take it anymore. They want to have an opportunity for a better future. They want to be on the path of modernity and freedom. The only thing that stands between them and the free world is this regime.” Pahlavi further outlined his plan for regime change, which would see Iran turn into a “multiparty system.” He urged Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to stand back in order to “facilitate a smoother transition based on my strategy of nonviolent civil disobedience.” The former crown prince, who now lives in Maryland, stressed he is not interested in going back to Iran to reclaim his throne. Speaking to the conservative National Interest, he said that “I’d like to be on this side of the fence, facing the authorities and defending people’s rights so that we can establish a true democracy rather than to be in a position of governance or authority, having to be accountable to the people.”
×
×
  • Create New...