Trump Winning The Impeach Show – Media TDS

Trump Impeachment “Bombshell”

(From: though just which page will change over time.)

Trump's Schiff Eating Grin

Trump’s Schiff Eating Grin

This is a video from Tim Pool where he explores the current media panic over Trump IMPROVING in the polls as the Impeach Show drags on.

Approval among Independents up 10 points. Shows Dr. Hill was factually false, that mostly Conjecture was offered in testimony. Does cover the “Bombshell Fatigue” (like battle fatigue but different ;-) and the repeated “walls closing in”…

Has Buzzfeed & CNN telling porkies and NYT just doing “false framing”.

Trump approval ticks up amid impeachment battle: Gallup
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN – 11/20/19 10:48 AM EST

President Trump’s approval rating ticked back up amid the public impeachment battle, a poll released Wednesday found.

A Gallup poll found 43 percent of respondents supported Trump’s performance, 2 percentage points more than the end of October poll. The disapproval rating of the president dropped to 54 percent from 57 percent in the previous poll.

The approval rating matches the number Gallup recorded in mid-September, before the news broke of the whistleblower complaint that ended up sparking the House’s impeachment inquiry into the president. The numbers show the stability of the president’s approval as the impeachment inquiry has unfolded.

The bit Tim reads is below that in the link; and in the video.

The Democrats’ bombshells aren’t exploding

Marc A. Thiessen
November 20, 2019 at 12:48 a.m. UTC
As we enter week two of the House impeachment inquiry, it seems pretty clear that Democrats are suffering a massive ordnance failure. Their “bombshells” are not exploding.

The first unexploded bombshell came when acting ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. testified that a member of his embassy staff had overhead a cellphone conversation between President Trump and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, in a Kyiv restaurant in which Trump discussed the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations.” Aha, Democrats cried! A firsthand witness could now testify they heard Trump pressing the Ukrainians for investigations.

Um, so what? Trump had already released a rough transcript of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he had pressed him for investigations. The overheard call told us nothing we did not already know. Indeed, the only one likely to get in trouble from this revelation is Sondland, who violated operational security by calling the president in public on an unsecure cellphone.

There Are Two Separate Impeachment Hearings Happening Right Now — And Republicans Are Winning Theirs

Nothing Republican Rep. Devin Nunes does during the hearings makes sense if you watch it in the moment. When it’s posted on Facebook later, though, it works perfectly.

Ryan Broderick
BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on November 20, 2019, at 6:32 p.m. ET

Democrats have hoped that the impeachment hearings might bridge the vast divide between the how the ideological factions in the country view President Donald Trump’s wrongdoing. On Wednesday, as Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, read his opening statement, liberal Twitter users buzzed optimistically that it might finally be the moment.

“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo?” Sondland said. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

“Holy cow Gordon Sondland going full John Dean in opening statement,” MSNBC host Ari Melber tweeted.

“There is a Trump presidency before today and a Trump presidency after today,” Anand Giridharadas, an author and Time editor-at-large, tweeted.

But there are two impeachment hearings unfolding in the nation’s capital. One, carried out by the Democrats, is designed to ascertain the truth as to whether Trump sought a “quid pro quo” deal with Ukraine to get the country to investigate Joe Biden and the 2016 presidential election in exchange for aid money. The other, being carried out simultaneously by the Republicans, is quite different. Instead of trying to learn the truth, it seeks to create not just a counternarrative but a completely separate reality.

Um, I’m with Tim on this one: I don’t think so, Ryan.

Trump asked about the Clinton Server and Burisma (HUNTER Biden, not Joe).

Having 2nd and 3rd hand reports of how someone FELT about an overheard conversation just doesn’t stand up to the direct QUOTE from POTUS that “I want nothing from” (Ukraine) and “No quid pro quo”. DIRECT orders from POTUS overrule rumors by partisans.

Then, that it’s all being done in a Communist Style Show Trial with no defense witnesses, no defense council, a hidden secret rumor monger as the “source” and worse, with the Prosecutor as Judge and Jury… that’s just criminal.

So the “media” wonder why nobody listens to them anymore? Well there’s this story about a boy and crying “Wolf!” a lot… We now know to NOT believe a thing said in the YSM / MSM and go watch the video ourselves, read the documents ourselves.

Oh, and about that Biden knocking up a woman he then scorns while boffing his brothers widow… while creaming off $Millions in GRAFT and CORRUPTION. Think maybe it’s better to ask politely if there was some crime going on prior to handing over more of MY MONEY to a country with that kind of history? I do. I’d have been MORE pissed had POTUS just sent them a pallet of cash (Oops, my bad, wrong POTUS) check and THEN found out there was corruption.

At about 14 minutes he details the evidence showing that Dr. Hill was wrong about saying it was a Russian Plot, again. Yet it was clear that Ukraine was the source of the 2016 “meddling”. Then covers the Embezzlement from Burisma that was handed over to Hunter… and that Ukraine is now saying it was real. “Receiving Stolen Money” is, last I looked, a crime…

So “more in the video”, but do enjoy the YSM having that yellow stream run down their pants as they wet themselves in panic. When in doubt, just chant “8 More Years! 8 MORE Years!!!” ;-)

25 Minutes:

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Trump Winning The Impeach Show – Media TDS

  1. H.R. says:

    If you want to keep your beliefs intact, without curling up into a fetal ball, Have another sip of the wonderful grape Kommie-Kool-Aid. Ignore the bitter almond taste. You’ll get used to it.

  2. Serioso says:

    The trial, sir, will be in the Senate, as I suppose you know, and there will be plenty of time for Trump to produce witnesses, if he can. House impeachment is merely an indictment, much like a grand jury procedure. But you know that — why say otherwise? What astonishes me is that the National Security professionals — the people whose job it is to keep the country safe — say one thing, but you think you know better. WOW! How do you have the *** to think you know more than the pros?

  3. p.g.sharrow says:

    the leadership of the National Security Agencies are leading this Deep State Coup.

  4. Larry Ledwick says:

    What astonishes me is that the National Security professionals — the people whose job it is to keep the country safe — say one thing, but you think you know better.

    You mean the self righteous a** holes that have been actively trying to take down the President from before he was even sworn in?

    Just because they hold positions in government does not mean they are “professionals” they are political hacks and the kind of back stabbing weasels that government is plagued with.

    I worked in government for 14 years plus my military service, and have encountered those types many times and watched them back stab their coworkers and violate their duty to the citizens that they were obligated to protect. Just like the population at large a significant fraction of those “professionals” are very unprofessional in their actions and ethics.

    I’ve dealt with these sorts first hand in government in highly classified environments. They are no different than the bad apples you find in any large organization – self serving sociopaths who wreck companies and government organizations all the time.

    You forget that the President is the leader of the executive department and all their executive power comes directly from him. They are his employees and do not get to countermand his orders or his clear intent of policy, especially by engaging in covert efforts to sabotage the policy he had determined to peruse.

    They have two legal options, prosecute “His” foreign policy (which is by law the Foreign Policy of the United States, to the best of their ability, and voice any objections they have through proper channels, or resign in protest.

    What they are doing is patently illegal and not in conformance with either government rules, or their oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In fact they are the domestic enemies that oath is referring too.

    Believe me from first hand experience a significant percentage of those “professionals” you are referring to are some of the dumbest creatures on this planet and do not have the best interests of the Country, the people of the Country or the President in mind, but are driven by a need for power and status, and personal turf.

  5. Ed Forbes says:
    A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.
    Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.
    The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources

  6. E.M.Smith says:


    We have a deep state coup (their lawyer’s word for it…) in progress and you want to nit pick over my calling it a “show trial” (which it is) ? Interesting priorities you have there…

    To elucidate: A “show trial” is done as a spectacle, for show, not as an actual morally correct legal proceeding. That is exactly what Schiff is doing. The House is not like a Grand Jury making an indictment. Very different rules. In all prior impeachment proceedings, BOTH sides could call witnesses and the accused had their attorney present. Pelosi & Schiff tossed out the real process in favor of a Show Trial. Note that at no time have I called this a REAL trial. It isn’t. It is a sham.

    The goal was to turn public opinion against Trump with the “show” and “story”, preparatory to removal.

    Since it is the “National Security Partisans” who are conducting the coup, have been caught lying, are hiding from questions, and have stated their desire to take down POTUS prior to the phone call: Frankly, I can see no reason TO believe them. The transcript is clear: Eric Chiarley Mello lied, and is now in hiding. Probably sent off to a CIA Safe House while the involved TLAs try to figure out their next move in their coup attempt.

    The coup is now doomed to fail, as a prerequisite of The Color Revolution Play Book is to get the people to believe their leader is corrupt or criminal (by any means necessary) and the people are not buying what is being shoveled. It is a failed Op and needs to go into recovery mode, but instead is digging deeper and faster. Good luck with that.

  7. Another Ian says:

    Extra for the cauldron


    Via CTH

  8. A C Osborn says:

    Serioso says: 22 November 2019 at 3:45 am
    “The trial, sir, will be in the Senate”

    Yes the Republicans as indicated yesterday can’t wait, because then they get to have all the witnesses that show the Shiff show for what it is.
    Shiff will have to give evidence under oath and will not be running the show with his own rules.
    One lie from him and he is toast.
    The mere fact that you are OK with this “enquiry” where the President’s and Republican’s Constitutional rights have been completely trampled on says it all about you SIR.

  9. Serioso says:

    It would appear that y’all would rather believe Russian propaganda than the national security professionals of the U.S. government. Enough said! How foolish and arrogant can you get?

  10. Jon K says:

    @ Serioso
    The “Appeal to authority” technique doesn’t work on people who can think for themselves. From the NYT to “government professionals”, your points always seem to appeal to some authority or another. If you want to convince anyone here, you’ll have to form arguments based on facts that can stand up to scrutiny.

  11. A C Osborn says:

    About as foolish as you, but we will never get that low.

  12. A C Osborn says:

    E M now it is the NYT running interference on the Ukraine situation.

  13. YMMV says:

    Serioso says: “It would appear that y’all would rather believe Russian propaganda than the national security professionals of the U.S. government.”

    Alleged Russian propaganda. Alleged professionals working in security. Like those that missed the 9/11 attack. That was a high water mark for the swamp! It’s like the movies, where the whole agency has gone rogue. Complete with Soviet show trials.

    Bring back HUAC and Joe McCarthy. It turns out there really were Communists in Hollywood! ;-)
    And DC!

    Speaking of above the law, does everybody in The Party think themselves untouchable?

  14. E.M.Smith says:


    Nice Try on the Russia RUSSIA! RUSSIA!!! do-over… but we’re so over that. I mean, it is just Soooo last Fraud.

    But to address it: No, I don’t give a damn What “Russia” says or wants. Not basing my assessment on them, at all. I AM noting that the “Whistleblower” is just a rumor monger PER HIS OWN REPORT. I AM noting that Dr. Hill was shown to be blowing porkies PER DOCUMENTATION. I AM noting that Schiff is lying about not knowing the rumor monger PER HIS RECORDS. I AM noting that the various “witnesses” all have a basic story that is “I heard it through the grape vine” and “it made me unhappy”. PER THEIR TESTIMONY. (And, like it or not, being unhappy with your BOSS is not grounds for impeachment). And I AM noting that the Lawyer For The Romor Monger said it is a “Coup” IN HIS STATEMENT.

    In short: I’m just looking at the FACTS and DOCUMENTATION as it becomes public and making up my own mind.

    BTW, I’m not sure what the Russian position on any of this is, other than Putin in one state meeting (at some Russian trade promotion) said he was happy now that Russian Collusion had been replaced with Ukrainian Collusion. I’m also pretty sure (though it is conjecture on my part) that Putin is Oh So Happy with the DNC causing so much confusion and mayhem as the whole point of what they did (trivial few ads they bought) was to cause as much confusion as possible (which wasn’t much).

    Now I’ve avoided pointing it out for a while, but you are AGAIN sliding into the “Insult for effect to the person” (though in this case ‘group of persons’) behaviour.

    “How foolish and arrogant can you get?”

    It is not foolish to look to source documents, direct statements, original facts. It is not arrogant to ignore “feelings” about an event and want to know what WAS the event. There is no denotative content to your assertion. Therefore:

    It is only and entirely an emotionally loaded pile of steaming poo whose purpose can only be from a limited set, all bad. To insult (so you “feel” better). To inflame (as a good little Troll). Or to smear; to entrap some less tidy minded folks reading commens (as a good propaganda tooly would do).

    So, just so you know, that’s what goes through the mind when seeing comments that are empty insults like that: Is he a Troll, Propaganda Artist, or weak minded emotional sop? Probably not what you want…

    Then as to the “National Security Professionals of the US Government”:

    You DO know they are hand picked by Schiff to be biased, in many cases we have them documented as extremely biased, often well connected to The Clintons, appointed by Obama, big DNC Donors or worse. This is an extremely PARTISAN group, and the one who was not so partisan has had an mob of Soros paid brats “protesting” in front of his house and changed his story just enough to hope it goes away. (One wonders if he’s had Arkencide Notices or not…)

    Your attempted “Appeal To Authority” falls flat under the evidence that one of them DIRECTLY COUNTERMANDED A POTUS ORDER (insubordination at a minimum) and another was busy Talking Dirt about him (not what an ambassador is supposed to do, BTW) and likely was well involved in the Burisma cover-up / graft / fraud. With “credentials” like that they are about as “professional” as a Mafia Drug Mule.

    (Do note: I have no idea what “Russia” (or Putin) thinks of any of them. I know what I’ve seen them say, and what documentation has shown about them. One even testified to the insubordination as though it was a good thing, and another testified that after a direct from POTUS “I want nothing” “NO Quid Pro Quo” that he just knew POTUS was really wanting something and a QPQ… Now I’ve been a professional long enough when “straight from the boss” you get “FOO” that does NOT mean not-FOO, it means FOO. Period. So your “professionals” are OBSERVABLY lacking in real professionalism. They do however have the odure of Government Political Hack about them doing political machinations.)

    Hopefully that helps clarify for you why shouting RUSSIA! is a Big Fail, and insulting the observers does not change the FACTS they observed. You can not intimidate an objective observer with appeals to bias, emotion, or failed Red Herrings. To quote someone important: “Facts are stubborn things”. Biden extorted. Hunter got graft & a paternity suit loss. Ms. Ambassador got canned for Talking Dirt about POTUS (and POTUS can fire any Ambassador at will – Obama fired ALL of them…) Vindeman is telling porkies and is not neutral (Obama holdover). Sondman is being intimidated but trying to stay neutral while shading things enough to get the mob off his lawn. Schiff is a dirt bag running a scam – just see the rule changes.

    But go ahead, try to call that motley crew “professional”. I’d not trust any of them to get me a cup of coffee. I’d rather get my own, thanks. BTW, as I’m a Professional Manager who’s been in charge of hiring at various companies since about 1982, I’m fully qualified to judge people as to their “professional” character and actions. I’m really really good at it and at several companies was added to interview teams even out of my department. So far, the only one I’d hire is Sondman. The rest set off my BS Detector bigly… (Though I’m not talking about the minor ‘witnesses” who were no-ops in their testimony. I’ve largely only watched “the big lumps”)

  15. Ed Forbes says:

    Very interesting rebutal to house testimony.

    I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress, he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar

    Here are his exact words:

    “I think all the key elements were false,” Vindman testified.

  16. Serioso says:

    You want to know about Russia? Try reading what Fiona Hill had to say — and she’s the Russia expert, not you.

    And can you explain why Bolton & Mulvaney & Pompeo won’t testiy? They would surely exonerate the President if he hadn’t done what Sondland said he had done.Or is it your view that what the President did in trying to bribe the Ukranian leadership to help his political campaign is not illegal? Which is it?

    Put your thinking cap on! Read what the professionals are saying! Stop consuming propaganda! Please!

  17. Larry Ledwick says:

    Serioso – you do realize that there are more than one “expert on Russia”?
    What makes you think Fiona Hill is the all knowing best expert to listen to?
    Her behavior strongly signals to those who have worked in government or large organizations that she is an agenda driven hack (yes there are lots of those in senior government positions.)

    You tend to attribute competence to people who hold titles – that is a very bad strategy!
    It has been my experience in government that the folks who stress their titles are almost always the people who are least qualified to weigh in on a subject.

    Many titles simply mean they know the right people, had lots of money and time to accumulate titles or are good at irrelevant tasks like taking tests of keep a master degree sponsor happy.

    The most incompetent person I worked iwth in government had a Phd and made sure everyone knew it. the most reliable and competent were mostly the secretaries and folks who had worked their way up from lower assignments rather than those that got airdropped into the agency with lots of titles.

  18. E.M.Smith says:


    In all honesty: Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

    First you assert I’m thinking the Real Trial is in the House because you can’t read “SHOW Trial” and know what it means.

    Then you turn “I don’t even know what Russia’s position is” into “You want to know about Russia”.

    IFF I wanted to know the Russian Position, I’d go find it out myself. It would not be all that hard.

    Next you do another “Gratuitous Insult To The Person”:

    “She’s the Russia expert, not you.”

    Um, never said I was. So you are insulting me with a slander over something never said. Swing, miss, strike three…

    Do you have trouble reading what was actually written, or are you just so enamored of making up lies to get points that you can’t see how transparently stupid it is?

    FWIW, I had a Russian Language class in the ’70s and did poorly at it. I still dig out my book from time to time and give it another go. Getting slowly better ( I can now read many proper names, the Proton rocket, and some small bits). I’ve watched the news on Russia since at least the ’60s and read up on a lot of Russian History. Plus, we had to study their economic system in my Econ program and I was assigned a Russian Novel once (and actually read it all). So I’m not clueless on Russia. But I’d not call myself an expert either. Just clueful enough. Oh, and I’ve caught Russian Agent Hackers once or twice… So know a bit more about the computer forensics, hackers, trolls and methods side than Ms. Hill.

    BTW, I’m not so much worried about the Russian Expertise of Ms. Hill as I am about her honesty and political bias. Watch the Tim Pool bit (toward the end) where he points to her provable errors of fact. One can be an expert and still not be trustworthy and be a partisan.

    The simple fact is that I don’t know what the Russian (Or Putin) position IS on Trump, the election, and The Phone Call because IT IS IRRELEVANT. I don’t have any need to know it, so I don’t know it. It would be useless fluff.

    So they bought a few $K of FaceBook Adds (endorsing and tossing mud at BOTH sides, BTW) with the intent to stir up “trouble”. Well, the DNC has done far far more of that than the Russians ever could. Now Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are going for the overtime prize. So given the Dimocrats efforts to create chaos are a few orders of magnitude more effective than the Facebook Ads (that might not even be really Russian but Ukrainian after all) that makes Russia IRRELEVANT to this problem space.

    Besides, after 2.5+ YEARS and $30? Million Mueller found NOTHING on Trump. Did manage to find (maybe, if his assertions about the forensics are right) a Troll Farm, and pinched a couple of minor folks for being a bit shady (Manifort) while also accepting an FBI Re-Write of 302s to frame Flynn while they attempted to destroy him financially with lawfare. Years. $Millions. Zip of importance. Now you think Dr. Hill can do better? Now THAT’s a whopper….

    BTW, if Troll Farms could actually change things it might matter, but they can’t. At best they can waste a few hours of some target’s time having a bit-o-fun. Trolls have been around since at least 1980 that I know of and are still the Big Turkeys of the online world.

    As to “not testifying”: Well, when you know it’s a fraud Show Trial with BOGUS rules, no council, fishing expedition to try to find or create a crime with traps: Why in hell WOULD anyone want to go? Then, as Executive Branch they have exemption under Executive Priv. So it’s a no-go right out the gate (at least, if you believe in the rule of law… instead of the Rules Of Schiff).

    Man, two “Whoppers” in 1.5 sentences:

    if he hadn’t done what Sondland said he had done.

    He did EXACTLY what Sonderland said he HAD DONE: “I want nothing” “NO Quid Pro Quo”.

    What he did NOT DO, was what Sonderland IMAGINED he wanted… “Felt” in the ether… Despite a direct order and “direction setting” to the contrary from POTUS.

    You seem to have trouble distinguishing direct actions from someones “feelings” about the actions.

    Or is it your view that what the President did in trying to bribe the Ukranian leadership to help his political campaign is not illegal? Which is it?

    Facts Not In Evidence. Trump asked about the 2016 Election, Hillary’s email server and Cloudstrike. That’s not Joe Biden. He also asked about investigating CORRUPTION of BURISMA and in a tangent mentioned HUNTER Biden (now shown to be a sleaze bag).

    Neither of those are his political campaign. Neither of those is Joe Biden.

    There was nothing offered and no bribe, so the whole bribing thing is what Joe Biden did.

    Joe asserted Hunter did his own thing. OK. Run with that. Hunter is his own agent and it has nothing to do with Joe, or the campaign.

    Which is it?

    You offer a strawman patently false dichotomy between “a crime” that didn’t happen or an implied LIE about what was wanted (that was specifically stated as NOT what was wanted) then want me to chose your first LIE or your second LIE. The only possible answer is: MU!

    (Whack with the stick).

    In Buddhism there is a wonderful concept of MU! (often followed with a whack of the rattan stick) when a student asks a silly question. Like “Will I be enlightened?”… It roughly translates to “The Question is Ill Formed”.

    Your question is seriously broken. But I’ll let it go with just the MU! (and not the stick…)

    Then it is back to the bland Concern Trolling:

    Put your thinking cap on! Read what the professionals are saying! Stop consuming propaganda! Please!

    Do you just like to listen to your keys klack or what?

    Implied insult that I’m NOT thinking (why else need the cap) when quite clearly it’s about all I do.
    Appeal to authority (AGAIN). You do know that’s one of the BIG logical fallacies, right?
    Insult the person in asserting I’m consuming “propaganda” when there’s no such evidence. (Or do you thing France24, Sky UK, BBC, etc.etc. are propaganda? Well, I’ll spot you BBC but they are on your side ;-)

    Look, we’ve been over this before. If you don’t remember it, go ask the Prior Serioso to update your history file You are tossing low level Troll Points and regurgitated DNC Talking Points and not doing a very good job on reading comprehension nor logical reasoning. That just isn’t going to work here. Appeal to Authority and emotional appeal are useless too. Facts, data, logical reasoning. Try those.

  19. philjourdan says:

    How foolish and arrogant can you get?

    Apparently not as arrogant and foolish as you. But then you know that.

  20. philjourdan says:

    What amuses me about this spectacle, is that the left, long critics of “police officers”, are now demanding we believe them without question or the possibility that perhaps some of them may be corrupt (which they always claim, except when it suits them). Case in point, Sorri-oso’s appeal to authority. He would sound like Greta, except she has the excuse of being a child, he is just acting like one.

  21. philjourdan says:

    I am a bit surprised that more has not been made of the outright lies that Hill told and was called out on. one It must be something about the left that they think the more you lie, the more you should be believed! Sorri-oso want us to believe an “expert” who was caught in 2 bald faced lies (The Republicans not believing Russia interference AND the FACT of the Ukraine interference is a Russian disinformation campaign). The second one seems to be ignored. That is not an assumption or conclusion by the right. It is the verdict of the Ukrainian Courts!

    So Sorri-oso wants us to believe a serial liar because she has a title? Or is a bad liar? I am sure he also believes that Billy did not have sex with that woman. His problem is we cannot see him wagging his finger at us.

  22. Terry Jackson says:

    Serioso is rather civil, for a lefty. No F-bombs. The Left has been talking impeachment since the election in 2016, along with a lot of other strategies to remove Trump. Coup has been discussed since just after the inauguration.
    Same screen, two movies. The left sees allegations as proof, the rest of the population sees them as assertions absent proof.
    The impeachment for Clinton and Nixon began with a specific charge of high crimes, this one is an inquiry searching for a marketable crime.
    The Left is committed to a vote for Impeachment. It will likely pass. The Senate has different rules. The Left will not like the result in the Senate. Serioso needs to ponder, should he really believe everything he thinks?

  23. Larry Ledwick says:

    Same sort of thinking which results in this sort of nonsense.
    The radical left (ie the Democratic party is not in touch with reality. They have so immersed themselves in their own spin that they cannot comprehend that just maybe some of the stuff they have heard is intentional mis-information.

    As a result they are operating in a parallel universe taking medial propaganda as facts, and not even willing to look at the possibility there is another side to the issue.

    The scary thing is – in their world, if you disagree with them you must be evil, it cannot be possible for a well-intentioned view that does not march lock step with them.

  24. YMMV says:

    My question to every lefty, even Serioso, is “which of the Democratic line up of wannabe presidents are you for?” And if you say Clinton, please give a backup answer in case she commits suicide.

  25. Serioso says:

    @ YMMV: My question is simpler: Why are Pompeo, Bolton, & Mulveny not available for testimony? Any hypothesis will do, but none of you seems to be able to address my question. Afraid of the answer?

  26. p.g.sharrow says:

    @ serioso: you won’t like what they will have to say when their time comes………..wait for it…pg

  27. Larry Ledwick says:

    Why are Pompeo, Bolton, & Mulveny not available for testimony?
    You mean aside from the reason given by the President? Executive privilege.
    Just like Obama did.

    George Mason University professor Mark Rozell explained in a 1999 law review article that executive privilege is “the right of the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.” This power can be used in two circumstances, he continues: “(1) certain national security needs and (2) protecting the privacy of White House deliberations when it is in the public interest to do so.” It’s the second part that is especially valuable, as it allows presidential advisors to freely speak their minds without the threat of a subpoena.

    If public testimony before Congress would compromise ongoing criminal investigations of classified material leaking by the Congress, Department of State, CIA or FBI to name just a few or be detrimental to our relationships with foreign governments (such as British intelligence agency participation in the coup against the President, or The rampant corruption being exploited by Biden, his son, Pelosi’s son, or John Kerry’s son) the President has every right to claim executive privilege,
    It is also a legitimate claim that by responding to subpoenas which have no legal basis diminishes both the President and the Executive branch and establishes false precedent for other invalid congressional inquires which are really fishing expeditions to set up perjury traps, delay tactics, and an effort to sniff out which congressional members have been or will be indicted for their crimes of criminal extortion, bribery, diversion of public funds, mishandling of classified materials, abuse of power (illegal FISA investigations) and treason.

  28. YMMV says:

    “not available for testimony?” Oh, I thought you were going to name the ‘whistleblower’ there for a second. BTW, I misspoke about Clinton, she will no doubt outlive all those who wish to investigate her.

  29. E.M.Smith says:


    You said (bold added by me):

    “Any hypothesis will do, but none of you seems to be able to address my question. Afraid of the answer?”

    That is false. Reading comprehension issue again? Or just rerunning the same troll from lack of imagination? To quote my prior response, ICYMI:

    As to “not testifying”: Well, when you know it’s a fraud Show Trial with BOGUS rules, no council, fishing expedition to try to find or create a crime with traps: Why in hell WOULD anyone want to go? Then, as Executive Branch they have exemption under Executive Priv. So it’s a no-go right out the gate (at least, if you believe in the rule of law… instead of the Rules Of Schiff).

    Shorter form: Executive branch privilege, and not all subpoenas are legal, moral, valid or worthy of respect.

    Please do not assert lack of an answer when one has been given. It would be valid to assert you did not like the answer or felt it was inadequate or in error in some specified way. But saying it did not exist is a lie. (Or a reading failure).

  30. Simon Derricutt says:

    Must be pretty close to the target to get so many responses from Serioso rather than just the normal drive-by.

  31. YMMV says:

    Serioso says: “It would appear that y’all would rather believe Russian propaganda ”

    I don’t believe I have seen any recent Russian propaganda, even on RT, and certainly not on the MSM.

    Before, there was lots of Russian propaganda, and I am afraid it is the left which has fallen for it, and the left still believes it. Someone provided this link here previously. It’s worth reading again.

    The thing about propaganda is that I can choose to ignore it, I can choose to not believe it.
    Propaganda is simply the lies the other side tells.
    “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”

    There is something far worse, and that is censorship. Which is another popular leftist thing.
    Censor and censor that you have censored. Even go so far as to kill the people who talk or who might talk. That’s not limited to leftists, but nobody does it better.

    “decided the story was not in the public’s interest”
    “decided the story was not in the national interest”
    “all the news that fits (our narrative)”

    (Why is anybody worried about Russia, except those countries which share a border?)
    Other countries are bigger threats.

  32. Serioso says:

    We know from the Watergate hearings that executive privilege does’t apply in an impeachment hearing. Refusal to testify is an obstruction of justice, or so the courts will rule — eventually. If this is a kangaroo court and Bolton et al are innocent, wouldn’t they be able to testify to Trump’s lack of guilt? Their failure to testify has a clear meaning, obvious to all.

  33. Larry Ledwick says:

    We know that this was Not an impeachment hearing – it wasa psudo-legal impeachment inquiry (ie had no legal or precedent of authority and a fatally flawed process) which is why the President refused to cooperate.

    There was no due process afforded by our Constitution for the Republican representatives the subpoenas had no legal force.

    Your point is irrelevant.
    Their failure to testify has a clear meaning, obvious to all.
    Yes it does – it means we are not going to participate in your kangaroo court show trial and validate your obstruction of justice and obliteration of legal process for political gain.

    The good news is their “show trial” only showed they were absolute idiots and had not basis for an impeachment hearing in the first place (which was obvious because they did not pass a full vote of the house to set one up.

  34. philjourdan says:

    Sorry, Sprri-oso this sham is NOT an impeachment hearing. It is an impeachment inquiry. A distinct difference crafted by Pelosi to provide cover for the 31 newbies in Trump districts.

    YOU really are getting desperate. Or senile.

  35. jim2 says:

    President Trump has a duty to protect the Presidency against political intrusions on the rights imbued in the Office by the Constitution. Even though the Dimowits admire government jack boots and hate the Constitution, the Rule of Law, as well as most other institutions we hold dear; we don’t have that type of government. (Well, at least as long as they don’t have control of all the branches.) President Trump is right to tell the Dimowit partisan hack, lying hypocrites to go suck eggs. They don’t deserve to live here. I think Cuba is about right for their brand of politics. Let them live there.

  36. YMMV says:

    I was looking for older Soros-type revolutions. Romania 1989. He was a communist bastard, but he was popular for a while because he challenged the Soviet dominance. His policies were disasters, so there were mass demonstrations in the streets. “Ceaușescu’s regime collapsed after he ordered his security forces to fire on antigovernment demonstrators.” and “the Romanian army defected to the demonstrators.”

    That’s the trick to go from unpopular to hated. Fire on your own people. False flag fire works too.

    That brought up Elena Ceausescu, a real piece of work.
    “Both she and her husband eventually ran the nation less like a communist one and more like their own personal fiefdom – many have compared the Ceaușescu family to a Mafia organization. If there was money to be made, the Ceaușescu’s had their hands in it.”
    Sounds familiar.

    “she was jealous of the power of Mao Zedong’s wife Jiang Qing (who was eventually imprisoned by Mao’s enemies), and in the Philippines she was jealous of the opulent lifestyle and good looks of Imelda Marcos.” Madam Mao and Imelda Marcos, strong women. Feminist icons?

    BTW, There’s an election coming up in Romania (EU member).

    The mass protests do not always succeed in overthrowing the government.
    The army has to defect.

  37. Larry Ledwick says:

    Just for reference:
    John Solomon challenges LtCol Vindman to verify his assertions that these 28 points were inaccurate or issue a correction to his testimony that they were false.

  38. jim2 says:

    Last night there wasn’t much on TV that interested me so I was channel surfing and came across SNL which I haven’t watched in decades. One of the early skits depicted stressed-out Dimowits getting nervous, angry, and snapping at people. After those depictions, writ large across the screen was “GO VOTE!”.

    So, now we have a Dimowit-Media-News-Entertainment complex devoted to electing Dimowits, something Eisenhower could not have foreseen.

  39. tom0mason says:

    Biden launches his “Great Leap Forward — To the Whitehouse, and beyond” campaign …

  40. cdquarles says:

    We also now know that Watergate, the actual event, wasn’t what many think it was. It was, again, a coup against a hated (by the Left) president because he damaged some of their icons (Rosenbergs) and did win the Vietnam War, among other things. Sure, Nixon wasn’t perfect; yet now, 46 years later, it is highly likely he wasn’t guilty of *any* high crimes, or misdemeanors or any statues in the US Code, either. See: and there are others out there showing exculpatory evidence. On the other hand, your side is very much guilty of doing what they claim our side is doing.

  41. E.M.Smith says:


    “We know from the Watergate hearings that executive privilege does’t apply in an impeachment hearing.”

    We also know from Watergate AND The Little Blue Dress incident that a real impeachment hearing has defense council, witnesses for the defense, and proper rules of justice. Ego this is NOT a real impeachment hearing – by your own argument.


    Please watch the insults. Serioso isn’t senile (that’s Joe Biden). He’s just doing what his handlers and the script say to do. Never give up the con. Always push the talking points. Try to distract the participants from the facts.


    SNL is still around? Golly…. Been decades now… left when they went partisan.


    That’s a good one ;-)

    Tim Pool had a video where he talked about how weak all the Dims were in the “Democratic Debate” and pointed out that Biden was back in the 80s or so. He said only one black woman was in (the senate?) and the 2nd one, standing on the stage with him, gave the “correction”… and everyone laughed at him…


    I just was reminded that the guys who did the actual break-in were CIA… Wonder who whispered what in who’s ear to get the green light on that one…

    Perhaps the CIA is just trying to do a re-run of the Nixon Playbook but Trump wasn’t willing to give the green light to illegal activities…

  42. p.g.sharrow says:

    I think that one will find the CIA at the center of all of these things for the last 80 years. With hidden funds and “Need to know, top secret” as cover you can cover up almost anything. If control is what you want, that is the place to capture. GO …pg

  43. Larry Ledwick says:

    The problem with the CIA (or MI6 etc.) is basically they are officially authorized criminals. Their job is to do stuff that is illegal where they are doing it.

    Without strong legal sanctions when they color out side the lines and a strong ethical culture from the leadership that sort of organization is by definition a loose cannon on the gun deck.

    The only way to fix their current corruption (same for FBI) is for a bunch of folks they thought to be untouchable going to jail for long sentences.

    They from the very beginning, were arrogant Ivy league whiz kids that quite frankly did not do too good in WWII. The German’s rolled up their agents as fast as they hit the ground and before they had time to bury their parachutes.

    On the world stage our intelligence operations are infants compared to the other national powers like Britain, France etc. We are good technically but not too swift on the human resources side, and have not really sorted out how to the that junkyard dog under control.

    Although if Q is correct and Trump is being protected by a Mil Intel group of true patriots they just might get the slap down they need.

  44. philjourdan says:

    I offered him a choice. He can decide which one is the more accurate. I have no way of knowing.

  45. philjourdan says:

    @Larry – I would not use Britain as an example of a “good” Intelligence organization. Their compromises kind of make the rest of the world seem tame by comparison.

  46. p.g.sharrow says:

    The Trump Organization has it’s own Intelligence and Security OP’s that are absolutely dedicated to the Trumps. From what I hear they are working well with the Secret Service. Trump may have to accept those CIA and State Department plants but he doesn’t have to accept their “information” and “recommendations” So far it looks like every attempt to coerce and blackmail the Trumps have failed. The Trumps will and can fight back…pg

  47. Larry Ledwick says:

    @Larry – I would not use Britain as an example of a “good” Intelligence organization. Their compromises kind of make the rest of the world seem tame by comparison.

    Did not say they were good, just much more experienced. They are afflicted with the same loose cannon problem from the looks of it, but the old world countries have been doing this sort of thing for centuries.

  48. Terry Jackson says:

    Larry, are you suggesting doing the wrong thing well is : common: or. to be expected:. or……………

  49. jim2 says:

    “We know from the Watergate hearings that executive privilege does’t apply in an impeachment hearing.”

    That isn’t absolutely true in that this President can act according to his own lights and take whatever consequences fall out to the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court may see this particular effort at impeachment in a light different than that of a criminal case related to Nixon. It’s still up in the air.

  50. Larry Ledwick says:

    Terry Jackson says:
    25 November 2019 at 4:16 am
    Larry, are you suggesting doing the wrong thing well is : common: or. to be expected:. or……………

    No saying that the old world countries have much longer experience running human spies and are less technology focused than we are. I presume that long history gives them a bit of institutional knowledge on what they can and cannot get away with and they probably have a richer song book to draw from. Americans tend not to use a lot of finesse.

    On the other hand their longer history gives them more open acceptance of actions we would find unacceptable. The French for example in Algiers put agent provocateurs into the terrorist groups and encouraged such savage terrorist actions that eventually the public turned away from them.

    Then they also sunk a green piece ship.

    The British during WWII pulled off some impressive covert operations, including using a dead fake British officer to put fake intelligence information into the hands of the Germans that the Normandy invasion was just a diversion.

  51. llanfar says:

  52. jim2 says:

    EM – I was chuckling at this from you:
    SNL is still around? Golly…. Been decades now… left when they went partisan.

    I was fully engaged with SNL when it was relatively new. But t’was me that changed (went partisan), not them. ;)

  53. E.M.Smith says:

    There’s a point where biting humor, applied to ALL public figures doing silly things, turns into “bite for effect” at one side only. Then it goes from humor to mean. Mean I can get anywhere, a good laugh is hard to find.

    When that happens, I move on.

  54. Larry Ledwick says:

    Ooops do I hear ominous music playing in the background?
    Senator Chuck Grassley has now requested financials and information of many top level Democrats who were involved in the Ukrainian pay for play.

  55. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh Dear…

    Either they declared the income and are shown dirty, or didn’t declare it and get tax fraud…

  56. Pouncer says:

    A few SNL skits are painfully funny for being so true — especially about the news.

    There is the one (during Gulf War I) where the military spokesman opens the press conference by saying that of course he can’t and won’t disclose operational secrets. So different reporters persistently ask the date of the upcoming invasion, where the troops will cross the border, how many troops will be in the invasion, and what sorts of weapons will they have…

    There is the one where 50 or more New York Times reporters are being prepared to cover Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. About 49 drop out after leaning that there is no Thai food in Alaska… One remaining reporter is paranoid about grizzley bears, and one is fixated on his own imagined pervy fantasies about the governor’s husand’s incestuous relations with his own daughter. Same guy can’t tell a shotgun from an AK-47. The sex fantasy is claimed to have later won news awards …

    The thing is, these can only be funny, and intended as funny, by playing into a deep wide and vast context and shared understanding among the writers, players and audience. It’s like the (comic, and false) reputation of Jack Benny for being cheap. At some point the understanding is such that there doesn’t need to be a punchline. The situation alone is held up as comical. “Your money or your life!” (long moment of radio silience….) It’s just funny to even contemplate. In the same way, the situation alone — how will the NY Times cover a military operation, or cover a rural woman with a large family — is widely understood to be totally outside their area of familiarity, competence, or ability to learn.

    It’s meta-comical how poorly the writers for SNL understand that their own limitations restrict their ability to construct such skits. Other examples of bias, being held up for laughter, are incredibly rare.

Comments are closed.