American Politics

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

The list of Obama officials who abused the intel via 'unmasking' released. Biden front and center along with 38 others.

Susan Power has over 200 unmasking requests, but has denied it before.

Lots of questions to be answered.

[LMAO]

Wow. That was what? Half an hour of defending the indefensible? I cited facts. Most that you were unaware of right thus the gymnastics ? Read the actual testimony of the 53, under oath. Then look at what the likes of Clapper (who lied to you before many times) and the other principles were saying on TV. I know you watched them. They lied to you and me.

Because your timeline contained some half-truths. For those, I provided additional facts where I could, such as the Strzok insurance policy text you referenced. You made it sound like a bombshell, but when I provided the text message in its entirety, it doesn’t sound so bad.

As for me using 'gymnastics', that’s me giving you my interpretation because I don’t know the answers, such as why Obama divulged the Flynn info to Yates on January 5 instead of before. You’d have to ask Obama that question.

Playing devil's advocate, regarding Clapper and Comey and McCabe, it could be possible that none of them believe they are lying. When Obama first knew hasn't been answered. Clapper bringing it up to brief Obama could've resulted in Obama saying that yeah, he already knows; Comey and McCabe could've been under the impression that Obama wasn't yet informed so they'd believe Clapper telling Obama would be the first Obama heard of it.

Might not mean much but Yates said in her testimony that "I didn't say that Mr. Clapper did that (inform Obama about the Flynn-Kislyak phone call). I said I didn't do it, and I don't know who did." Either way, Obama testifying would clear a lot of things up, such as when and how he knew and that would tell us if Clapper or Comey/McCabe lied. You might see this as mental gymnastics to defend Clapper (for reference though, I don't give a damn about him), but I see it as not having a clear picture.

And you seemed to miss what I said. I'm in favor of investigating/interviewing anyone involved in this (from the investigation starting to the subjects of the investigation)—Democrat or Republican. Get Schiff, Nunes, Trump, Pence, Comey again, McCabe again, Clapper again, etc. And as I said in the previous paragraph, bring in Obama if it'll help settle things.

Read the site I cited... it is sourced and linked. And it is not right nor left, they are the last journalists in America it seems. Also pay attention to the WSJ. This is not hard when you keep up with the actual timeline and supporting documents rather than talking heads.

Just the News was started by John Solomon, a conservative political commentator who's been accused of conjuring fake controversies and making mountains out of molehills. The managing editor is Daniel Wattenberg, who was previously a senior editor at the conservative paper The Washington Times, and his career has been spent at conservative publications (save for that one wtf stint at JFK Jr.'s fashion magazine ).

It'd be like me citing The Daily Beast and Slate as unbiased sources.

Although with that said, I do appreciate how Just the News at least has the gonads to cite the actual reports/interviews, so kudos to them for that.

No, Steele was not funded by the WFB. His dossier was proven to be false by Mueller of all people. That is why he is being sued in the UK for libel not to mention that it also claims that Carter Page was being offered 19% of Gazprom...$12 BILLION! The intel committee interviews make it crystal clear that the FBI knew that it was Russian disinformation by summer of 2016. They used it in anyway. These are facts.

Whoops yeah, I misremembered the timeline. Steele came in to Fusion GPS after WFB dropped funding. That one is my bad.

Mueller never proved it to be outright false though. He said some of the most sensationalist claims appeared to be false while others were impossible to prove. In fact, Mueller's investigation corroborated some of the Steele dossier's claims: https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-doss ... rospective

I have a feeling that the next few months will be very rough for the left, especially if they choose truth over hate. Your lot will be faced with standing up for democracy or supporting the most corrupt cabal in our history. Perhaps now is good time to seek that truth? You could be the coolest cat at work by being the first to get it! Open minded self honesty rocks!

I think it'll be Benghazi II in that nothing will come of it. But as I've said, we'll just have to wait because each side is seeing what they want to see and believes the other side is wrong.

[LMAO]

Where does Biden fit into this? I've seen his name come up a few times but can't quite see where or why he does. I was hoping you was about to say when you mentioned him haha!

Well he was in the meeting, he either knows everything or has forgotten it. Either way not good. The media will not ask him anything about it, but then he only engages friendly media via his basement. He is not been asked much about the Reade woman , but that seems to be falling apart a bit anyway. One of his surrogates claimed that it was not possible to finger a gal while standing up...you know, basic biology he claimed.

Here is the take away for those who wish to be up to speed and refuse to be duped by the Guardian or BBC...if a left wing American politician accuses someone of something rest assured the opposite is the case. It's all so Orwellian.

Amazing how many people simply dismiss the facts in order to follow the party line. (Belief over fact and logic...ah! how religious!) Sort of like hard core Wenger supporters for years...then when it becomes clear he was the issue they either admit they were duped or they fade away.

Interesting because a mnemonic for the GOP is:
Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

The perfect example of what I was talking about! Thanks!

Usually if a Republican politician accuses a Democrat of something, then they're projecting.

Uh, no.

Example:
McConnell, Cornyn, Thune, Barrasso, Blunt, Moran in 2013: https://www.c-span.org/video/?310536-1/ ... ate-agenda
McConnell, Cornyn, Thune, Barrasso, Blunt, Moran since 2017: vote for tax cut that's increased deficit by at least 47.8% (before coronavirus)

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

Because your timeline contained some half-truths. For those, I provided additional facts where I could, such as the Strzok insurance policy text you referenced. You made it sound like a bombshell, but when I provided the text message in its entirety, it doesn’t sound so bad.

Huh? Read all of the texts between him and Page and you will find that he says that Obama wants to be kept informed, that Andy McCabe was in on all of it and all sorts of nasty abuses of power. TDS. Strzok and McCabe were the ones that kept Crossfire going even after Flynn and the Russian nonsense was determined to be false. Flynn was cleared on Dec 28th. On Dec 30 (or close) Page texts Strzok that they should invoke the Logan Act and he tells her she is brilliant. Then the Logan Act is brought up in the Jan 5 meeting Obama held the with Biden, Comey et al. All of these things were known or suspected for three years, now they are proven.

As for me using 'gymnastics', that’s me giving you my interpretation because I don’t know the answers, such as why Obama divulged the Flynn info to Yates on January 5 instead of before. You’d have to ask Obama that question.

That is not the issue. The issue is how did Obama know anything about Flynn's phone calls anyway? Obviously Kislyak knew he was being monitored, and Flynn did as well. Flynn had every right to make the calls he did with various leaders and representatives. Obama had no right to have his name unmasked...much less given to WAPO. That is a felony and we need to find out who leaked the story...and WHY. Always ask why.

Every time a unmasking request is made it involves a separate intel report. That means the WH had dozens of reports on Flynn between mid Dec 2016 and Jan12 2017 when Biden made his request...that he lied to us about on Sunday.

Playing devil's advocate, regarding Clapper and Comey and McCabe, it could be possible that none of them believe they are lying. When Obama first knew hasn't been answered. Clapper bringing it up to brief Obama could've resulted in Obama saying that yeah, he already knows; Comey and McCabe could've been under the impression that Obama wasn't yet informed so they'd believe Clapper telling Obama would be the first Obama heard of it,

How could they not know they are lying when they answer one way under oath yet they say the opposite for years on TV?

Yes Obama needs to be questioned under oath about what he knew and when as does Biden. That is why there needs to be a Special Council appointed.

And you seemed to miss what I said. I'm in favor of investigating/interviewing anyone involved in this (from the investigation starting to the subjects of the investigation)—Democrat or Republican. Get Schiff, Nunes, Trump, Pence, Comey again, McCabe again, Clapper again, etc. And as I said in the previous paragraph, bring in Obama if it'll help settle things.

That is good. Why Nunes? He is the guy who's memo and person was trashed by the media and Schiff yet has been proven to be the truth.

Just the News was started by John Solomon, a conservative political commentator who's been accused of conjuring fake controversies and making mountains out of molehills. The managing editor is Daniel Wattenberg, who was previously a senior editor at the conservative paper The Washington Times, and his career has been spent at conservative publications (save for that one wtf stint at JFK Jr.'s fashion magazine ).

It'd be like me citing The Daily Beast and Slate as unbiased sources.

Although with that said, I do appreciate how Just the News at least has the gonads to cite the actual reports/interviews, so kudos to them for that.

Solomon was demonized for reporting the facts but the vital thing is that facts are not biased nor does he hide anything via bias by exclusion. A classic case of shooting the messenger. And some of the attacks were brutal...once again ask WHY given he simply stated facts and has debunked much of the media's miss-reporting. His political leanings are not an issue as he does not editorialize but rather simply reports on issues always with the actual documents sourced and there for us to read as you acknowledged. Whenever some claim is made in any media...I go read the source for myself without any filters.

Whoops yeah, I misremembered the timeline. Steele came in to Fusion GPS after WFB dropped funding. That one is my bad.

Mueller never proved it to be outright false though. He said some of the most sensationalist claims appeared to be false while others were impossible to prove. In fact, Mueller's investigation corroborated some of the Steele dossier's claims: https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-doss ... rospective

Steele testified in London court that his first motivation was to oppose Trump. His dossier was filled with Russian fed misinformation. He was on the FBI payroll while being paid $9m by the DNC through a law firm and Fusion GPS. Then we have the collusion between Steele, the FBI, DOJ, WH, Bruce Orh and Nelly Ohr. If you read the link you posted (2018) in light of this week's revelations it does not hold up. In late Jan this year the Sunday Times (UK) published an article that concluded Steele's assertions were "fabricated". I will try to find the article. It is the best summary of the dossier and why it was produced. Mueller was not looking to prove Steele wrong...the DOJ was using the dossier as the basis of the FISA abuse and the Carter Page/Papadopulos/Flynn persecution. That said his report had to admit that Steele was full of shit.

I think it'll be Benghazi II in that nothing will come of it. But as I've said, we'll just have to wait because each side is seeing what they want to see and believes the other side is wrong.

Hillary skated on Benghazi. I seriously doubt this will just go away. The tread has been tugged on and one sleeve of the sweater is unraveling. This is huge.


Ben Rhodes last April. The same Ben Rhodes who bragged about lying to and manipulating the media over Iran. Shot down by his own words.

“We didn’t even know there was an FBI investigation of Trump,” Rhodes said. "I didn’t. President Obama didn’t, like, we actually abided by the firewalls between — if there were any investigations that took place, those decisions were made in the Justice Department, in the FBI, not in the White House. They will find nothing that suggests there was any political or White House involvement in any of that.”


The bottomline is that much more will come out, but what has come out now has turned the whole hoax back on the accusers. Obama is not an innocent victim of Clapper, Brennan and Comey. Biden lied to us all Sunday. The "whys" and "hows" are huge in this. Those answers will not be found on CNN or in the NYT or WAPO sadly. Too many falsehoods regurgitated by those outlets for them to admit to. That that is media that holds a sacred place in our checks and balances?

[LMAO]

Plaintiff in Roe v. Wade U.S. abortion case says she was paid to switch sides

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Norma McCorvey, the woman known as “Jane Roe” in the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion, said she was lying when she switched to support the anti-abortion movement, saying she had been paid to do so.

In a new documentary, made before her death in 2017 and due to be broadcast on Friday, McCorvey makes what she calls a “deathbed confession.”

“I took their money and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say,” she says on camera. “I did it well too. I am a good actress. Of course, I’m not acting now.”

“If a young woman wants to have an abortion, that’s no skin off my ass. That’s why they call it choice,” she added.

“AKA Jane Roe,” will be broadcast on the FX cable channel on Friday but was made available to television journalists in advance.

It traces McCorvey’s troubled youth, how she became the poster child of abortion rights and her about-face in the 1990s when she announced she was baptized as a born-again Christian who campaigned against abortion.

The documentary was filmed in the last months of her life before her death at age 69 in 2017 in Texas.

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling has for decades been the focus of a divisive political, legal and moral debate.

The Rev. Robert Schenck, one of the evangelical pastors who worked with McCorvey after her conversion to Christianity in the mid-1990s, looked stunned as he was shown her interview as part of the documentary.

Schenck said the anti-abortion movement had exploited her weaknesses for its own ends and acknowledged she had been paid for her appearances on the movement’s behalf.

“What we did with Norma was highly unethical,” Schenck said in the documentary. “The jig is up.”

In a separate blog post on Tuesday, Schenck said he hoped people would watch “AKA Jane Roe.”

“You’ll see me express profound regret for how movement leaders (like me) mistreated Norma,” he wrote in the blog.

“Her name and photo would command some of the largest windfalls of dollars for my group and many others, but the money we gave her was modest. More than once, I tried to make up for it with an added check, but it was never fair.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN22V33D

But it's the left that hires crisis actors.

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project ← You are here.

[Highbury Hillbilly]

The rights of the child matter only from conception to 9 months. The second it's born, it's every man for himself. Unassailable logic.

[LMAO]

WaPo: Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador

lol

[LMAO]

The rights of the child matter only from conception to 9 months. The second it's born, it's every man for himself. Unassailable logic.

It's not pro-life. It's pro-forced birth. Punishing women for having sex, whether consensual or rape.

If the anti-abortion crowd really was pro-life, then they'd all be lining up to adopt these unwanted kids.

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

WaPo: Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador

lol

Dude...that makes it far worse. It means that he was illegally surveilled without a FISA warrant. He was unmasked numerous times and his name was leaked to the WAPO which is a felony.

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

The rights of the child matter only from conception to 9 months. The second it's born, it's every man for himself. Unassailable logic.

It's not pro-life. It's pro-forced birth. Punishing women for having sex, whether consensual or rape.

If the anti-abortion crowd really was pro-life, then they'd all be lining up to adopt these unwanted kids.

They are. The waiting list for adoptions is very long. Often a two year wait.

Now if we are dedicated to science why not understand that the fetus is aware, thinking and feeling pain, laughter and joy at six months in.

What I don't understand is why the left celebrates abortion, even late term abortion. It is their 2nd Amendment issue...give no ground no matter the facts. Rape, incenst are one thing...abortion as birth control or sex determination is just plain wrong.

[Royal Gooner]

The rights of the child matter only from conception to 9 months. The second it's born, it's every man for himself. Unassailable logic.

It's not pro-life. It's pro-forced birth. Punishing women for having sex, whether consensual or rape.

If the anti-abortion crowd really was pro-life, then they'd all be lining up to adopt these unwanted kids.

Sex has only one biological purpose. If they don't want to make babies, don't commit the act that might create one.

Why is that so hard for women to understand?

[StLGooner]

The average person doesn't look at an unborn child (fetus) the same as a child that is already born, not even the people against abortion, if they say they do then they're lying. Because I guarantee you that (in a hypothetical situation) if you had to choose between saving a child already born into this world or saving a fetus and you could only choose one, then anyone in their right mind would save the child that is already born. Maybe in the wound a fetus does feel pain, but I would imagine not as much as being born into an unwanted situation/life.

I have realized that in my 42 years of life that the average person really doesn't care about abortion when it comes down to it, or saving lives as they claim, or a womans rights. It's more so about their already preconceived political stance, and them just sticking to it. Unless they are against abortion for religious purposes, but I think it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't be taking our morals from any religion.

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

The average person doesn't look at an unborn child (fetus) the same as a child that is already born, not even the people against abortion, if they say they do then they're lying. Because I guarantee you that (in a hypothetical situation) if you had to choose between saving a child already born into this world or saving a fetus and you could only choose one, then anyone in their right mind would save the child that is already born. Maybe in the wound a fetus does feel pain, but I would imagine not as much as being born into an unwanted situation/life.

I have realized that in my 42 years of life that the average person really doesn't care about abortion when it comes down to it, or saving lives as they claim, or a womans rights. It's more so about their already preconceived political stance, and them just sticking to it. Unless they are against abortion for religious purposes, but I think it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't be taking our morals from any religion.

If we put the same standards to say climate change or Covid it is all about the science. Why not with unborn kids?

Under most State laws if a DUI kills a mother and unborn kid it is manslaughter. If someone stabs a woman and kills the fetus it is murder. I am not for banning abortion, but there has to be limit to when it can occur.

[StLGooner]

The average person doesn't look at an unborn child (fetus) the same as a child that is already born, not even the people against abortion, if they say they do then they're lying. Because I guarantee you that (in a hypothetical situation) if you had to choose between saving a child already born into this world or saving a fetus and you could only choose one, then anyone in their right mind would save the child that is already born. Maybe in the wound a fetus does feel pain, but I would imagine not as much as being born into an unwanted situation/life.

I have realized that in my 42 years of life that the average person really doesn't care about abortion when it comes down to it, or saving lives as they claim, or a womans rights. It's more so about their already preconceived political stance, and them just sticking to it. Unless they are against abortion for religious purposes, but I think it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't be taking our morals from any religion.

If we put the same standards to say climate change or Covid it is all about the science. Why not with unborn kids?

Under most State laws if a DUI kills a mother and unborn kid it is manslaughter. If someone stabs a woman and kills the fetus it is murder. I am not for banning abortion, but there has to be limit to when it can occur.

I agree. But I thought there was a limit? Or is that state by state?

I'm just one of those people that just doesn't care enough about it either way to put much thought or concern into it.

[DiamondGooner]

The rights of the child matter only from conception to 9 months. The second it's born, it's every man for himself. Unassailable logic.

It's not pro-life. It's pro-forced birth. Punishing women for having sex, whether consensual or rape.

If the anti-abortion crowd really was pro-life, then they'd all be lining up to adopt these unwanted kids.

Sex has only one biological purpose. If they don't want to make babies, don't commit the act that might create one.

Why is that so hard for women to understand?

People have sex for pleasure, we've had this conversation before, I know you have the sex life of a monk so don't get it, but you shouldn't push your opinions on what others choose.

Plus your ideas would be detrimental to my sex life as a whole so nope.