Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
1/1024th Native American
US Politics
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
1/1024th Native American
Gomig-21
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
- Messages
- 7,899
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Let's see if there is any Republican with enough balls to step up and put this disaster of a clown of a president in his place and rock his boat into sinking. So much of the focus is on the Democrats or the liberals (better yet, the "radical Liberals lol) but not much given to a conservative who would actually be a great choice for the GOP to back up and get this idiot out of office before it's too late. There might just be that one guy in Bill Weld. Someone who is not easily intimidated by the douchebaggery and sleazy and insulting tactics of this idiot who's the current president. And as a native of Massachusetts, we know Bill Weld since he was governor and did a hell of a job here during his tenure.
For me, this is not about parties or democrats or Liberals or Republicans, it's about the right candidate who properly represents this great country in a dignified manner and has the country's interest first and foremost in mind, not his own personal and self-aggrandizing motivation like this scum-sucking racist hog.
And for those of you who might disagree with what I say, put yourself in my position for one second and then see how you feel. When a racist pig like Donald Trump first comes out and says he's calling on a complete ban of all Muslims entering this country until they find out what the hell is going on.................followed by his disgustingly racist anecdote of general Pershing dipping his bullets in pig's blood and killing Muslims and that supposedly effectively took care of things for 17 years.............says NOTHING to support American Muslims when 50 of them are gunned down in mosques but when the Jewish people suffered the same, unfortunate fate in Pittsburgh last year, there was nothing but empathy for the Jews and Jewish people. Now, if you were a Muslim American, would any of this just blow over your head because you simply hate Democrats and Liberals and be ok with it? Well, guess what, I (along with millions of Muslim Americans) are not ok with a filthy, racist, bigot of a scumbag as the president of the United States and I truly hope he doesn't get elected for a 2nd term. We deserve MUCH MUCH MUCH better than this POS. Rant over!
For me, this is not about parties or democrats or Liberals or Republicans, it's about the right candidate who properly represents this great country in a dignified manner and has the country's interest first and foremost in mind, not his own personal and self-aggrandizing motivation like this scum-sucking racist hog.
And for those of you who might disagree with what I say, put yourself in my position for one second and then see how you feel. When a racist pig like Donald Trump first comes out and says he's calling on a complete ban of all Muslims entering this country until they find out what the hell is going on.................followed by his disgustingly racist anecdote of general Pershing dipping his bullets in pig's blood and killing Muslims and that supposedly effectively took care of things for 17 years.............says NOTHING to support American Muslims when 50 of them are gunned down in mosques but when the Jewish people suffered the same, unfortunate fate in Pittsburgh last year, there was nothing but empathy for the Jews and Jewish people. Now, if you were a Muslim American, would any of this just blow over your head because you simply hate Democrats and Liberals and be ok with it? Well, guess what, I (along with millions of Muslim Americans) are not ok with a filthy, racist, bigot of a scumbag as the president of the United States and I truly hope he doesn't get elected for a 2nd term. We deserve MUCH MUCH MUCH better than this POS. Rant over!
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
The difference is crystal clear!
Let’s not forget, Trump repeatedly used to criticize Pres Obama for not using the words “radical Islamic terrorism”, he also criticized Hillary for not using the phrase during the presidential debates 2016.
As Trump stated then, “now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name”.
Looks like he forgot his own advice, because he did not condemn white racist terrorist by name or acknowledge the victims by name.
Let’s not forget, Trump repeatedly used to criticize Pres Obama for not using the words “radical Islamic terrorism”, he also criticized Hillary for not using the phrase during the presidential debates 2016.
As Trump stated then, “now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name”.
Looks like he forgot his own advice, because he did not condemn white racist terrorist by name or acknowledge the victims by name.
Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
We want "non-racist" "decent" presidents....ok here ya go...even smiling for you....probably good warm memories of the black supremacist preacher at his church too:
But naaaaah....lets not release that picture for voters to make a decision on. Lets release it AFTER he's done with 2 terms making all kinds of commie talk like "nothing you work for/do is truly owned by only you" (Marx couldn't have said it much better tbh) and outright lies like "if you like your doctor, you can keep him!"....all while IN the presidency.
Plus I'm confused by dumbocrats neo-standards/arguments now....was the Iran nuclear deal a good or bad thing regarding helping Russia? Like why did this black racist president muffle on hot mic to Medvedev what he did? See...somethings do escape the demoncrap tried and tested policy of bleach bit for subpoenaed evidence (to go along with their voter fraud and the rest)....but only by complete accident.
Rest of your CNN talking points you two quote to each other are hillarious too....typical of people that don't actually READ the manifesto of the killer...but rely on the demoncrap media to feed them hand to mouth.
Sorry, you are in complete dissonance with actual people that matter out there and reaching to larger and larger audiences (precisely because of that lieing echo chamber media)
...but you have our empathy for it....we all know people like you that shout "la-la-la-la" while putting hands to ears, because you dont like the actual truth...just "yours".
We shudder at living in such a cocoon as yours .....but we do revel at each opportunity it gets shattered.
But naaaaah....lets not release that picture for voters to make a decision on. Lets release it AFTER he's done with 2 terms making all kinds of commie talk like "nothing you work for/do is truly owned by only you" (Marx couldn't have said it much better tbh) and outright lies like "if you like your doctor, you can keep him!"....all while IN the presidency.
Plus I'm confused by dumbocrats neo-standards/arguments now....was the Iran nuclear deal a good or bad thing regarding helping Russia? Like why did this black racist president muffle on hot mic to Medvedev what he did? See...somethings do escape the demoncrap tried and tested policy of bleach bit for subpoenaed evidence (to go along with their voter fraud and the rest)....but only by complete accident.
Rest of your CNN talking points you two quote to each other are hillarious too....typical of people that don't actually READ the manifesto of the killer...but rely on the demoncrap media to feed them hand to mouth.
Sorry, you are in complete dissonance with actual people that matter out there and reaching to larger and larger audiences (precisely because of that lieing echo chamber media)
...but you have our empathy for it....we all know people like you that shout "la-la-la-la" while putting hands to ears, because you dont like the actual truth...just "yours".
We shudder at living in such a cocoon as yours .....but we do revel at each opportunity it gets shattered.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Democratic presidential candidates on CNN town hall.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar Directly Criticized the Dirty Political Tricks of Trump on CNN Town Hall
FULL CNN TOWN HALL WITH TULSI GABBARD
Sen. Amy Klobuchar Directly Criticized the Dirty Political Tricks of Trump on CNN Town Hall
FULL CNN TOWN HALL WITH TULSI GABBARD
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
And this guy is a genius
I watched the whole clip, the guy kept on saying the mainstream media is spreading false propaganda, “read the manifesto of the terrorist”, but he did not give one example of what false propaganda the media was spreading?
I did read the white racist terrorist’s manifesto. In the manifesto, he hopes to spark a “civil war in the US”. And he supported Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose”.
Isn’t that clear enough?
Desert Fox
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 10,584
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
Well Rabzon, the fact that he beat Democrats in obtaining the highest office in America despite their candidate having more resources shows that they are far bigger buffoons for losing ground to him.And this guy is a genius
I watched the whole clip, the guy kept on saying the mainstream media is spreading false propaganda, “read the manifesto of the terrorist”, but he did not give one example of what false propaganda the media was spreading?
I did read the white racist terrorist’s manifesto. In the manifesto, he hopes to spark a “civil war in the US”. And he supported Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose”.
Isn’t that clear enough?
Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
Yes you are part of the media haze.....if the media tells you someone is "right wing"....you just accept it....not even looking at the entire manifesto which reads like something AOC put out (eco-fascist and all).
Don't put the full stop there....continue.
What would your reaction be if we put a full stop at the picture with Obummer meeting and smiling with Farrakhan?
For pravda snipetting sure.
For actual facts and truth that need full context.....nope.
Its why the MSM dies more and more....and can only dbl down on what it has incestually bred into itself.
This was after all the MSM that made a huge hue and cry about David Duke endorsing Trump....which you posted here too I am sure.
But who did david duke endorse recently?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/7/david-duke-praises-rep-ilhan-omar/
Tell me when CNN and rest of the MSM covers it to 0.00001% like they did with Trump (who they conveniently ignored is linked by marriage to jews)....using exact same standard on the issue they used.
Of course they won't....and this dbl/triple/quad standard does the job of exposing them (and dumbocrat party now) easily.
Got some more earlier democrat people to never vote dumbocrat (in crucial swing spot too) just on the back of this one. They will be spreading the word too.
Enjoy 2020.
Also answer me this....is Bernie Sanders responsible for the baseball game shooter?
You can't use one standard in one case, and another one for another.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Now, without any delay Atty Gen William Barr should release the entire report.
Mueller report sent to attorney general, signaling his Russia investigation has ended
Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III submitted a long-awaited report to Attorney General William P. Barr on Friday, marking the end of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.
The submission of Mueller’s report ends his closely watched inquiry — a case that has engulfed the Trump administration since its inception, leading to criminal charges against 34 people, including six former Trump associates and advisers.
A senior Justice Department official said the special counsel has not recommended any further indictments — a revelation that buoyed Trump’s supporters, even as other Trump-related investigations continue in other parts of the Justice Department. It is also unclear whether a Mueller report that does not result in additional charges could still hurt the president politically.
Justice Department officials notified Congress late Friday that they had received Mueller’s report, but they did not describe its contents. Barr is expected to summarize the findings for lawmakers as early as this weekend.
Only a small number of people inside the Justice Department know the document’s contents, but it immediately sparked a furious political reaction, with Democrats vying for the presidential nomination in 2020 demanding a public release of the findings and the two top Democrats in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), calling for the full report and its “underlying documentation” to be provided to Congress.
Trump’s supporters viewed the news as an optimistic indication that he was on the cusp of being vindicated.
“The fact that there are no more indictments is a big deal,” said David Bossie, a Trump ally. “This president has had his entire two-year presidency under a cloud of this fake, made-up Russian collusion story.”
Trump flew to his Florida resort Friday, accompanied by senior aides and White House lawyers. Trump did not immediately speak or tweet about the report’s delivery. Privately, some Trump advisers expressed relief that the report had been filed, but the president’s spokeswoman and lawyers were more guarded in their initial reaction.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said that the next steps “are up to Attorney General Barr, and we look forward to the process taking its course. The White House has not received or been briefed on the special counsel’s report.”
In a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees, Barr wrote that Mueller “has concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters.”
Barr wrote that Mueller submitted a report to him explaining his prosecution decisions. The attorney general told lawmakers he was reviewing the report and anticipated that “I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.”
The attorney general wrote he would consult with Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein “to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department’s long-standing practices and policies.” Read more
@Nilgiri @Desert Fox thanks for the response, I'll be back
Mueller report sent to attorney general, signaling his Russia investigation has ended
Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III submitted a long-awaited report to Attorney General William P. Barr on Friday, marking the end of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.
The submission of Mueller’s report ends his closely watched inquiry — a case that has engulfed the Trump administration since its inception, leading to criminal charges against 34 people, including six former Trump associates and advisers.
A senior Justice Department official said the special counsel has not recommended any further indictments — a revelation that buoyed Trump’s supporters, even as other Trump-related investigations continue in other parts of the Justice Department. It is also unclear whether a Mueller report that does not result in additional charges could still hurt the president politically.
Justice Department officials notified Congress late Friday that they had received Mueller’s report, but they did not describe its contents. Barr is expected to summarize the findings for lawmakers as early as this weekend.
Only a small number of people inside the Justice Department know the document’s contents, but it immediately sparked a furious political reaction, with Democrats vying for the presidential nomination in 2020 demanding a public release of the findings and the two top Democrats in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), calling for the full report and its “underlying documentation” to be provided to Congress.
Trump’s supporters viewed the news as an optimistic indication that he was on the cusp of being vindicated.
“The fact that there are no more indictments is a big deal,” said David Bossie, a Trump ally. “This president has had his entire two-year presidency under a cloud of this fake, made-up Russian collusion story.”
Trump flew to his Florida resort Friday, accompanied by senior aides and White House lawyers. Trump did not immediately speak or tweet about the report’s delivery. Privately, some Trump advisers expressed relief that the report had been filed, but the president’s spokeswoman and lawyers were more guarded in their initial reaction.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said that the next steps “are up to Attorney General Barr, and we look forward to the process taking its course. The White House has not received or been briefed on the special counsel’s report.”
In a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees, Barr wrote that Mueller “has concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters.”
Barr wrote that Mueller submitted a report to him explaining his prosecution decisions. The attorney general told lawmakers he was reviewing the report and anticipated that “I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.”
The attorney general wrote he would consult with Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein “to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department’s long-standing practices and policies.” Read more
@Nilgiri @Desert Fox thanks for the response, I'll be back
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Since Mueller concluded his investigation, Trump and his supporters are calling Democrat Adam Schiff the House Intelligence Committee Chairman to resign.
Republicans on the House Intelligence committee also called on Schiff to resign his post as chairman.
Adam Schiff delivered a scathing takedown of Trump and his cronies. All the points he raised are supported by evidence, which has never been contested by Trump and his cronies. Just because Mueller could not bring criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not exonerate Trump and his associates.
Here is Adam Schiff’s powerful response/shut up call:
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.
“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.
“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.
“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”
“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.
“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’
“And that is the subject of our hearing today.”
Here is a heated exchange between Trump's cronies and Chairman Schiff:
Adam Schiff HUMILIATES Trump Lackeys Who Told Him to Resign with Facts on Trump, Russia, & Mueller
Republicans on the House Intelligence committee also called on Schiff to resign his post as chairman.
Adam Schiff delivered a scathing takedown of Trump and his cronies. All the points he raised are supported by evidence, which has never been contested by Trump and his cronies. Just because Mueller could not bring criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not exonerate Trump and his associates.
Here is Adam Schiff’s powerful response/shut up call:
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.
“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.
“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.
“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”
“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.
“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’
“And that is the subject of our hearing today.”
Here is a heated exchange between Trump's cronies and Chairman Schiff:
Adam Schiff HUMILIATES Trump Lackeys Who Told Him to Resign with Facts on Trump, Russia, & Mueller
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Here’s another interesting perspective, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano appearing on the Fox News Cavuto’ program, Judge Napolitano tried to explain from where Chairman Schiff was coming from:
Here’s Judge Napolitano’ interview with Cavuto:
“We saw on Sunday a four-page summary of a 700-page report,”. “The 700-page report is a summary of two million pages of documents, of raw evidence.”
“In the 700-page summary of the two million pages of raw evidence, there is undoubtedly some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction of justice, just not enough evidence—I’m thinking the way I believe Congressman Schiff is thinking—according to Attorney General Barr, not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard.”
Judge went on to note that if “there were no evidence of conspiracy and no evidence of obstruction, the attorney general would have told us so,” adding that Barr didn’t, so “there is something there” that Democrats and Trump opponents want to see. And they’ll have a “field day” with it.
Host Neil Cavuto wondered that if Barr possibly characterized the Mueller report incorrectly or misleadingly, wouldn’t Mueller have issued a clarifying statement, prompting Napolitano to answer “yes and no.”
“On the conspiracy charge...Mueller, Rosenstein, Barr are on the same page,” the Judge said. “There is something there, but it is not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
He added: “On the obstruction charge, Mueller did what a lot of prosecutors do—they kick it upstairs. Let the boss decide this”.
===================
And of course, we all know that the Atty Gen Barr works for one of the most corrupt President, there is no way he’s going to charge his corrupt boss.
Here’s Judge Napolitano’ interview with Cavuto:
“We saw on Sunday a four-page summary of a 700-page report,”. “The 700-page report is a summary of two million pages of documents, of raw evidence.”
“In the 700-page summary of the two million pages of raw evidence, there is undoubtedly some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction of justice, just not enough evidence—I’m thinking the way I believe Congressman Schiff is thinking—according to Attorney General Barr, not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard.”
Judge went on to note that if “there were no evidence of conspiracy and no evidence of obstruction, the attorney general would have told us so,” adding that Barr didn’t, so “there is something there” that Democrats and Trump opponents want to see. And they’ll have a “field day” with it.
Host Neil Cavuto wondered that if Barr possibly characterized the Mueller report incorrectly or misleadingly, wouldn’t Mueller have issued a clarifying statement, prompting Napolitano to answer “yes and no.”
“On the conspiracy charge...Mueller, Rosenstein, Barr are on the same page,” the Judge said. “There is something there, but it is not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
He added: “On the obstruction charge, Mueller did what a lot of prosecutors do—they kick it upstairs. Let the boss decide this”.
===================
And of course, we all know that the Atty Gen Barr works for one of the most corrupt President, there is no way he’s going to charge his corrupt boss.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Colbert: All The Other Reasons Trump Is A Bad President
Monologue: Trump's "Got Away with Treason" Tour | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
Monologue: Trump's "Got Away with Treason" Tour | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Goodness, Trump can’t even pronounce origins, as he attempted to pronounce the word multiple times saying “oranges” instead.
And our mega Pres doesn’t even know where the hell his dad was born.
No wonder they voted for him
And our mega Pres doesn’t even know where the hell his dad was born.
No wonder they voted for him
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Obama Fears Progressives Are Too Obsessed With ‘Purity’
The former president said he worries about “a circular firing squad” among Democrats as 2020 approaches.
By Amy Russo
As progressives continue to challenge the Democratic Party’s moderate members, former President Barack Obama says he fears that some may be going a step too far.
During an Obama Foundation town hall in Berlin on Saturday, he warned that without compromise, the conflicting ideologies could spur infighting among the left.
“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States ... is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a circular firing squad where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues, and when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens,” he told the audience.
Obama recalled his days breaking into the political arena as a young community organizer, admitting that he, too, “wanted change now and I wanted 100% of what I wanted,” only to be disappointed by officials who couldn’t make it all happen at once.
His reaction, he said, was one of furor and frustration.
“I’ve been on both sides of the equation,” he added, emphasizing that principles matter, but so does effective negotiation.
“I think whether you are speaking as a citizen or as a political leader or as an organizer ... you have to recognize that the way we structure democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you, and that by definition means you’re not going to get 100% of what you want.” Read more
========================
Pelosi outlines a path to victory for House Democrats in 2020 — and guarantees it
Paul Kane
Barely three months into her second turn in charge, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already mapped out a plan to overwhelm Republicans in the 2020 elections.
“I’m going to have our races won by this November,” the California Democrat said.
Yes, the House speaker predicted that she will have locked down the majority a full year ahead of schedule, leaving the political battlefield to what she considers an intense presidential race all the way up to November 2020.
It’s a remarkably bold guarantee for Pelosi, who will celebrate this new majority’s 100-day mark at a Democratic retreat later this week outside Leesburg. Her caucus has had its share of growing pains in the first quarter of the year, with younger, more-liberal Democrats trying to push Pelosi’s leadership team as far to the left as possible.
A small but vocal faction of newcomers sparked a bitter debate over the party’s long-standing support of Israel. And a growing Democratic presidential primary field is advancing policies that are out of step with a couple dozen freshman Democrats who won swing seats in districts that favored President Trump in the 2016 election.
At the center of this storm sits Pelosi, 79, back where she ruled the House for four years last decade. Her office is assembled almost exactly the way she left it in 2010, a set of four chairs in a circle by the fireplace serving as the central nervous system for House Democrats. Through the window is a view of the Mall.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post, Pelosi acknowledged that the job now is different from her first go-round, most notably because President Trump is such a different personality than Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But, she also notes, the rise of social media has transformed politics since her last tenure, allowing newcomers to become instant stars in a way that she could not imagine when she arrived in the Capitol 32 years ago.
She considers her biggest mistake during her first stint as speaker was allowing Republicans to relentlessly attack her and her policy achievements such as the Affordable Care Act without any coordinated pushback. Democrats lost a staggering 63 seats and the majority in the 2010 midterms, leaving Pelosi’s public image battered for years to come.
“I was in this office, but I didn’t — I didn’t — relish being speaker. I relished the power of legislative accomplishments,” she said. “I didn’t see a public role.”
In 2018, she became her own biggest advocate, touting her insider expertise in a campaign to reclaim her old job as Republicans ran what her office estimates were 137,000 ads warning voters about the danger of “Speaker Nancy Pelosi.” Democratic candidates were given free rein to criticize her, inoculating themselves from the GOP campaign and leading to a net gain of 40 seats.
She reclaimed the speaker’s gavel midway through a 35-day partial government shutdown and won a clear victory over Trump in his demand for border-wall funding. Her mocking clap toward Trump during the State of the Union address became a viral moment that completed her return to being liberal heroine, a status that had begun to fade over eight previous years of defeat for House Democrats.
But her posture in the first 100 days has been anything but wild-eyed liberal. Fifteen Democrats did not vote for her in the Jan. 3 roll call for speaker, but several now praise her for taming the more liberal indulgences of the caucus.
“Don’t mistake not voting for her and not having a great, deep respect and admiration for her skills and talents and her pragmatism,” said Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), one of her sharpest critics. “This is where, I think, her experience comes in handy. Because she has been around, she knows how this place functions.”
In the interview, Pelosi dismissed the far left’s Medicare-for-all as a still emerging proposal that might provide worse health care than the landmark 2010 law she muscled through Congress. She backed up the decision of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to “black list” any consulting firm that works for candidates mounting primary challenges to incumbents, a move that has drawn calls from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who rose to fame defeating a 20-year Democrat, to boycott donating to the DCCC.
And Pelosi rejected the idea that today’s Democrats are further to the left than a decade ago, suggesting that it was “just a few people” with high profiles and some of the “presidentials.”
Instead, she has charted a course of again appealing to moderate suburbanites and some rural voters frustrated by Trump’s reality-TV-style presidency. She doesn’t want to focus on impeaching Trump or on far-fetched legislation that has no hope of passing in divided government. She promises not to repeat the mistakes leading up to 2010.
“You cannot let your opponents characterize — mischaracterize — what you’re about. So, what was missing from that was a strong messaging piece, and that’s what we had in this last election,” she said.
Republicans have mocked the new majority as a Congress focused on nonbinding resolutions, not real policy. There was the resolution to disapprove of the Justice Department’s legal opposition to the ACA and a resolution to condemn almost every form of hate.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) cited Pelosi’s oft-repeated line that budgets are about values, noting that Democrats are not offering a budget proposal. “They have no budget,” McCarthy said. “Does that mean they have no values?”
But Pelosi believes her endangered incumbents are shoring themselves up through a steady diet of town halls. And leadership is particularly pushing the freshmen running their first reelection to raise as much money as possible.
By Thanksgiving, if all goes according to her plan, potential GOP challengers will “think twice” about running against Democrats. And then she will deliver a stern warning to Republicans who remain in swing seats.
“We fully intend to win this election, and some of you are vulnerable. It’s going to cost you millions of dollars, to win or lose. And if you win — say you win — you’re in the minority, probably want to teach at the university,” Pelosi said, drawing out every syllable like the daughter of a Baltimore mayor who watched her father stare down rivals. “So we get the A-team, and they get the retirements. That’s my plan.”
It’s quite a turnabout from less than two years ago, June 2017, when Democrats lost a special election in the Atlanta suburbs amid a flurry of anti-Pelosi ads. Calls for her to step aside grew louder, but she stuck to her plan, and last November, Democrats won that seat in their landslide victory.
Now, the ousted Republican, Karen Handel, is running again. Except this time, in the opening video, Pelosi’s image appeared only for a split second. Republicans might be moving on to other Democratic villains after the speaker’s comeback.
“Self-promotion is a terrible thing,” Pelosi said, “but somebody’s got to do it.”
Source
The former president said he worries about “a circular firing squad” among Democrats as 2020 approaches.
By Amy Russo
As progressives continue to challenge the Democratic Party’s moderate members, former President Barack Obama says he fears that some may be going a step too far.
During an Obama Foundation town hall in Berlin on Saturday, he warned that without compromise, the conflicting ideologies could spur infighting among the left.
“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States ... is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a circular firing squad where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues, and when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens,” he told the audience.
Obama recalled his days breaking into the political arena as a young community organizer, admitting that he, too, “wanted change now and I wanted 100% of what I wanted,” only to be disappointed by officials who couldn’t make it all happen at once.
His reaction, he said, was one of furor and frustration.
“I’ve been on both sides of the equation,” he added, emphasizing that principles matter, but so does effective negotiation.
“I think whether you are speaking as a citizen or as a political leader or as an organizer ... you have to recognize that the way we structure democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you, and that by definition means you’re not going to get 100% of what you want.” Read more
========================
Pelosi outlines a path to victory for House Democrats in 2020 — and guarantees it
Paul Kane
Barely three months into her second turn in charge, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already mapped out a plan to overwhelm Republicans in the 2020 elections.
“I’m going to have our races won by this November,” the California Democrat said.
Yes, the House speaker predicted that she will have locked down the majority a full year ahead of schedule, leaving the political battlefield to what she considers an intense presidential race all the way up to November 2020.
It’s a remarkably bold guarantee for Pelosi, who will celebrate this new majority’s 100-day mark at a Democratic retreat later this week outside Leesburg. Her caucus has had its share of growing pains in the first quarter of the year, with younger, more-liberal Democrats trying to push Pelosi’s leadership team as far to the left as possible.
A small but vocal faction of newcomers sparked a bitter debate over the party’s long-standing support of Israel. And a growing Democratic presidential primary field is advancing policies that are out of step with a couple dozen freshman Democrats who won swing seats in districts that favored President Trump in the 2016 election.
At the center of this storm sits Pelosi, 79, back where she ruled the House for four years last decade. Her office is assembled almost exactly the way she left it in 2010, a set of four chairs in a circle by the fireplace serving as the central nervous system for House Democrats. Through the window is a view of the Mall.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post, Pelosi acknowledged that the job now is different from her first go-round, most notably because President Trump is such a different personality than Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But, she also notes, the rise of social media has transformed politics since her last tenure, allowing newcomers to become instant stars in a way that she could not imagine when she arrived in the Capitol 32 years ago.
She considers her biggest mistake during her first stint as speaker was allowing Republicans to relentlessly attack her and her policy achievements such as the Affordable Care Act without any coordinated pushback. Democrats lost a staggering 63 seats and the majority in the 2010 midterms, leaving Pelosi’s public image battered for years to come.
“I was in this office, but I didn’t — I didn’t — relish being speaker. I relished the power of legislative accomplishments,” she said. “I didn’t see a public role.”
In 2018, she became her own biggest advocate, touting her insider expertise in a campaign to reclaim her old job as Republicans ran what her office estimates were 137,000 ads warning voters about the danger of “Speaker Nancy Pelosi.” Democratic candidates were given free rein to criticize her, inoculating themselves from the GOP campaign and leading to a net gain of 40 seats.
She reclaimed the speaker’s gavel midway through a 35-day partial government shutdown and won a clear victory over Trump in his demand for border-wall funding. Her mocking clap toward Trump during the State of the Union address became a viral moment that completed her return to being liberal heroine, a status that had begun to fade over eight previous years of defeat for House Democrats.
But her posture in the first 100 days has been anything but wild-eyed liberal. Fifteen Democrats did not vote for her in the Jan. 3 roll call for speaker, but several now praise her for taming the more liberal indulgences of the caucus.
“Don’t mistake not voting for her and not having a great, deep respect and admiration for her skills and talents and her pragmatism,” said Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), one of her sharpest critics. “This is where, I think, her experience comes in handy. Because she has been around, she knows how this place functions.”
In the interview, Pelosi dismissed the far left’s Medicare-for-all as a still emerging proposal that might provide worse health care than the landmark 2010 law she muscled through Congress. She backed up the decision of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to “black list” any consulting firm that works for candidates mounting primary challenges to incumbents, a move that has drawn calls from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who rose to fame defeating a 20-year Democrat, to boycott donating to the DCCC.
And Pelosi rejected the idea that today’s Democrats are further to the left than a decade ago, suggesting that it was “just a few people” with high profiles and some of the “presidentials.”
Instead, she has charted a course of again appealing to moderate suburbanites and some rural voters frustrated by Trump’s reality-TV-style presidency. She doesn’t want to focus on impeaching Trump or on far-fetched legislation that has no hope of passing in divided government. She promises not to repeat the mistakes leading up to 2010.
“You cannot let your opponents characterize — mischaracterize — what you’re about. So, what was missing from that was a strong messaging piece, and that’s what we had in this last election,” she said.
Republicans have mocked the new majority as a Congress focused on nonbinding resolutions, not real policy. There was the resolution to disapprove of the Justice Department’s legal opposition to the ACA and a resolution to condemn almost every form of hate.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) cited Pelosi’s oft-repeated line that budgets are about values, noting that Democrats are not offering a budget proposal. “They have no budget,” McCarthy said. “Does that mean they have no values?”
But Pelosi believes her endangered incumbents are shoring themselves up through a steady diet of town halls. And leadership is particularly pushing the freshmen running their first reelection to raise as much money as possible.
By Thanksgiving, if all goes according to her plan, potential GOP challengers will “think twice” about running against Democrats. And then she will deliver a stern warning to Republicans who remain in swing seats.
“We fully intend to win this election, and some of you are vulnerable. It’s going to cost you millions of dollars, to win or lose. And if you win — say you win — you’re in the minority, probably want to teach at the university,” Pelosi said, drawing out every syllable like the daughter of a Baltimore mayor who watched her father stare down rivals. “So we get the A-team, and they get the retirements. That’s my plan.”
It’s quite a turnabout from less than two years ago, June 2017, when Democrats lost a special election in the Atlanta suburbs amid a flurry of anti-Pelosi ads. Calls for her to step aside grew louder, but she stuck to her plan, and last November, Democrats won that seat in their landslide victory.
Now, the ousted Republican, Karen Handel, is running again. Except this time, in the opening video, Pelosi’s image appeared only for a split second. Republicans might be moving on to other Democratic villains after the speaker’s comeback.
“Self-promotion is a terrible thing,” Pelosi said, “but somebody’s got to do it.”
Source
Last edited:
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Beto O'Rourke: Netanyahu a 'racist'
By Eli Watkins and Donald Judd, CNN
Former Texas Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke offered sweeping criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, outright calling him "racist" and an obstacle to peace.
Speaking in Iowa as he campaigns for the Democratic nomination for president, O'Rourke said the US-Israeli relationship was among the most important "on the planet" and singled out Netanyahu.
"That relationship, if it is to be successful, must transcend partisanship in the United States, and it must be able to transcend a prime minister who is racist, as he warns about Arabs coming to the polls, who wants to defy any prospect for peace as he threatens to annex the West Bank, and who has sided with a far-right, racist party in order to maintain his hold on power," O'Rourke said.
O'Rourke continued, saying he did not believe Netanyahu "represents the true will of the Israeli people" or the "best interests" of the relationship between the US and Israel. He went on to endorse a two-state solution to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
"We must be able to transcend his current leadership to make sure that that alliance is strong, that we continue to push for and settle for nothing less than a two-state solution, because that is the best opportunity for peace for the people of Israel and the people of Palestine," O'Rourke said. "It is the best opportunity for the full human rights of everyone who is living in that region."
CNN has reached out to the Israeli Embassy in Washington for comment.
O'Rourke made his comment to reporters after a rally where a voter asked about the conflict in the region. In the rally itself, O'Rourke offered similar criticism of Netanyahu, while also saying the Palestinian Authority had not acted in good faith.
O'Rourke's comments joined a larger debate taking place in the US and Democratic Party about Israel and Netanyahu, whom President Donald Trump hosted in the White House just weeks before Israel is set to hold decisive elections in which Netanyahu is up for re-election.
Trump has sought to seize on the issue, including by invoking a controversy in the House over anti-Semitism, while many Democrats running to challenge Trump in 2020 have rebuffed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a political group strongly supportive of Netanyahu.
Trump signed a proclamation in March recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel, overturning longstanding US policy regarding the area and handing Netanyahu a significant foreign policy victory in the run-up to the upcoming election.
A report from Haaretz quoted Netanyahu as telling Channel 12 News Saturday, "A Palestinian state will endanger our existence and I withstood huge pressure over the past eight years. No prime minister has withstood such pressure. We must control our destiny."
Netanyahu went on to say, "I will extend sovereignty but I don't distinguish between the settlement blocs and the isolated ones, because each settlement is Israeli and I will not hand it over to Palestinian sovereignty."
Netanyahu has tacked further right in the leadup to the April elections, including working openly to improve the electoral prospects of lawmakers with roots in a party banned in the 1980s for racism. Source
Similar threads
