Given his new role, I imagine that would constitute a conflict of interest.

What is playing out before our eyes is one of the most dramatic and fateful events in American history. We're so close to it, it's easy to miss the historic perspective.

For the first time since 1860, a large group of people refused to accept the election results of 2016. Even before the election, some of them began to work on a plan to remove Trump from office.

Now they are racing against the clock. They need to get effect the coup before the hammer drops on them from Barr's and Durham's investigations. Their desperation shows every single day. You can see the flop sweat on Brennan every time he is in front of a camera.

When it all comes out-- and it will, everything does eventually-- it will involve many more people than we suspect now, including lots of "journalists," and Democrat politicians. And Republican politicians too.

It will all go down like the Titanic.

Biden finally jumps the shark. Calls for impeachment:


https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ngressional-requests

quote:

Biden finally jumps the shark. Calls for impeachment:

well....that's all he's got.....

quote:

Originally posted by nojoy:
Biden finally jumps the shark. Calls for impeachment:

"The American people don’t think that they have made a mistake by electing Bill Clinton," Biden said in a recently-surfaced video, "and we in Congress had better be very careful before we upset their decision, and make darn sure that we are able to convince them if we decide to upset their decision that our decision to impeach him was based upon principle and not politics."

Joe Biden, 1998

Thats a public admission that he cant take on Trump. Time to close up the shop Joe....

Reporters should ask each of the DEM presidential candidates if the whistleblower/spy had a professional relationship to them.

Should make one of them uncomfortable. And would keep the relationship in the news.

All we need is an honest and aggressive press. Maybe Fox News or Daily Caller.

quote:

Originally posted by nojoy:
Biden finally jumps the shark. Calls for impeachment:

Because he thinks it's a frosty, fruity, minty drink.



.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I think the President is just having a little fun here.

I highly doubt the Democrat Party of 2019 is interested in two-time-loser Hillary Clinton right now.

I heard that the President dared Hillary to run and her response was "Don't tempt me. Do your job." IMO, he has been.

flashguy

I'm back and I need your vote...

Trump has to loving this:

Joe Biden paid 900K as lobyist for Burisma.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...vities-ukrainian-mp/

Hmmm and those getting money from Burisma or other Ukraine entities?
Joe Biden
Hunter Biden
John Kerry's son
Nancy Pelosi's son

This is the only place I have seen this allegation but they often have breaking news before the rest.

Joe Biden 'Personally Paid $900,000 By Burisma' According To Ukrainian MP In Bombshell Admission

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...-bombshell-admission

Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach revealed on Wednesday that former Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 from Burisma Group for lobbying activities, citing materials related to an investigation.



Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.

Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday. -Interfax


"This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was payment for consultative services," said Derkach.

Derkach also puiblicized sums of money transferred to Burisma Group representatives - including Joe Biden's son Hunter.

"According to the documents, Burisma paid no less than $16.5 million to [former Polish President, who became an independent director at Burisma Holdings in 2014] Aleksander Kwasniewski, [chairman of the Burisma board of independent directors] Alan Apter, [Burisma independent director] Devon Archer and Hunter Biden [who joined the Burisma board of directors in 2014]," Derkach added.

"Using political and economic levelers of influencing Ukrainian authorities and manipulating the issue of providing financial aid to Ukraine, Joe Biden actively assisted closing criminal cases into the activity of former Ukrainian Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, who is the founder and owner of Burisma Group."

"Biden's fifth visit to Kyiv on December 7-8, 2015 was devoted to making a decision on the resignation of [then Ukrainian Prosecutor General] Viktor Shokin over the case of Zlochevsky and Burisma. Loan guarantees worth $1 billion that the United States was to give to Ukraine was the point of pressure. Biden himself admitted exerting pressure in his speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in January 2018, calling Shokin 'son of a bitch who was fired'," Derkach added.

Via Interfax:

The timeline of events proves that the U.S. linked the Zlochevsky case to loan guarantees, he said.

After the decree dismissing Shokin was published on April 3, 2016, the governments of the United States and Ukraine signed a loan guarantee agreement worth $1 billion, several months later, on June 3, he said.

"In this case, there are facts should be subject to investigation. There is an agency that has powers to investigate them; the U.S. Department of Justice. If the Ukrainian Prosecutor General signs documents and send them to U.S. Department of Justice without any requests, he will accomplish his mission," he said, adding that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General has such powers.

"Considering international corruption in public is a way-out for President Zelensky. I am certain that he is not involved in international corruption," Derkach said.

It was reported earlier that Derkach publicized correspondence between the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and officers of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. According to publicized correspondence, starting from July 14, 2017, the lists of criminal proceedings undertaken by NABU officers were sent from the electronic mailbox of Polina Chyzh, an assistant to NABU first deputy head Gizo Uglava, to the electronic mailbox of Hanna Yemelianova, a legal specialist of the anti-corruption program of the U.S. Justice Department at U.S. Embassy in Ukraine.

Derkach says he will publish the leaked documents on his Facebook account, and will initiate the creation of an ad hoc parliamentary investigative commission, "and has already requested launching a criminal case against Ukrainian officials into interference into U.S. elections," according to the report.


Link to original article from Ukraine:
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/617943.html

I posted a link to this video in the thread regarding the Kurds, but really would like for as many people to see it as possible and have it immortalized in this thread that will be archived and highlighted. Very emotional remarks from the president today. Please take 5 minutes and watch, I think you will be glad you did. I hope this is OK - if not please delete, I know cross posting is generally frowned upon.




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/BlpZihIL2nA

We're truly blessed to have a great man leading us in our time of need.

Bama thank you for that. He is right, and I am proud to have someone who takes the time to care and understand the real cost of war.

I am so tired of our people being in that part of the world. That region will never have peace. Frankly, it's apparent to me that they don't have the slightest idea of how to live in harmony. Enough is enough. Let them continue to kill each other. It's what they want to do, so they can do it without us.

Those who oppose Donald Trump will never approve of any of his decisions, so they can just go fuck themselves. If he had declared that we were going to stay indefinitely in that region, they'd be howling about that, so what does it matter what they say?

Democrats have abandoned Clinton impeachment's bipartisan format

https://www.washingtonexaminer...ts-bipartisan-format



House Democrats have abandoned a longstanding tradition of bipartisan cooperation when it comes to launching impeachment inquiries.

Democrats are holding hearings behind closed doors and have so far provided Republicans with little more than the right to question witnesses who show up in a secure hearing room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol.

Republicans have labeled the process a “clown show," “kangaroo court," and “a sham,” and the White House has refused to cooperate.

"The whole process is partisan and unfair," Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, told the Washington Examiner.

The Democrats are employing a far different procedure than the accord the parties arranged two decades ago when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Democrats paid few compliments to the House Majority GOP in December 1998 when the party opened a formal impeachment inquiry into Clinton based largely on his tryst with a White House intern.

But Democrats at the time acknowledged the two parties cooperated significantly when it came to setting the rules for the inquiry, even though most Democratic lawmakers objected to impeachment.

The Clinton impeachment inquiry opened in December 1998 with a bipartisan agreement that the rules would be based on those used in 1974 during the impeachment investigation into President Richard M. Nixon. Those rules provided the minority with some rights, including the power to call witnesses and to seek authority to issue subpoenas.

The cooperative deal for the Clinton inquiry was struck by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois, and the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan.

“Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked more closely together than at any other time in our careers,” Conyers told Hyde at the launch of the first impeachment hearing, which was open to the public.

“And I want to thank you for the many untold efforts that you have made, including providing Democrats the Watergate rules of operation which we sought.”

Conyers at the time praised a largely bipartisan process to develop many of the rules for the impeachment inquiries.

“You know as well as I,” Conyers told Hyde, “that whatever action this committee takes must be fair, it must be bipartisan, for it to have credibility. The American people deserve no less, and history will judge us by how well we achieve that goal.”

Conyers was afforded the right to request or refuse subpoenas, an unusual right for the minority party, although Republicans had the final say if Conyers and Hyde disagreed.

Sharing subpoena power was “critical” to the impeachment inquiry and that Democrats “were quite satisfied with the procedures,” Conyers told Hyde.

The impeachment inquiry now underway in the House is not following the rules or bipartisan parameters employed in 1998. House lawmakers never voted to open the inquiry and Republicans did not weigh in on how the inquiry will proceed in committee.

Instead, the investigation has been led by the secretive House Intelligence Committee under the normal rules that govern the panel and which award the majority all the power.

Most of the hearings and depositions have been closed to the public and the full transcripts have not been released.

Two other panels, Foreign Affairs and Oversight, have been invited to some of the closed proceedings.

There are no plans to change those rules or to give more rights to the GOP, a spokeswoman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Washington Examiner.

Republicans “have the full panoply of rights, afforded to them under regular committee rules,” the spokeswoman said.

Republicans argue the impeachment inquiry should be more bipartisan and open to the public.

They are demanding the release of witness transcripts, in particular the one produced from the testimony of former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, who GOP lawmakers say disproved accusations the president attempted to arrange a “quid pro quo” with Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden.

Republicans have no plans yet to hold public hearings after last month’s televised session with acting Director of National Intelligence Joe Maguire.

“There are no established rules or parameters at all,” Jack Langer, a spokesman for Rep. Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, told the Washington Examiner. “The Democrats are just inventing them as they go.”

The Democrats’ path forward is vague. Pelosi has not decided whether to bring up articles of impeachment on the House floor or whether the articles would be drafted by the Intelligence panel or the Judiciary Committee, which has historically handled impeachment articles.

If the House passes articles of impeachment, it’s up to the GOP-led Senate to hold a trial. Republicans there may move to simply dismiss the case, in part because House Democrats conducted an entirely partisan inquiry that was launched without a House vote.

“Overturning the results of an American election requires the highest level of fairness and due process, as it strikes at the core of our democratic process,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “So far, the House has fallen far short by failing to follow the same basic procedures that it has followed for every other President in our history.”

Senate Republicans have begun to counter the House-led impeachment inquiry in an effort to provide GOP input that has been sidelined across the Capitol.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, invited Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to testify about why Trump wants to investigate the actions of Democrats and 2020 presidential hopeful Joe Biden in Ukraine.

The South Carolina Republican also called on Democrats to release the transcript of Volker’s testimony.

“If House D’s refuse to release full transcript of Volker testimony as requested by Congressman Jordan, it will be an abuse of power,” Graham said Wednesday on Twitter.

“If this continues, I will call Volker before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify publicly to ensure the full story is told.”

Exclusive poll: Most think Trump will be impeached and win 2020 reelection

https://www.washingtonexaminer...-win-2020-reelection



Americans expect President Trump to get roughed up in a House impeachment but soldier on to win reelection, according to the latest poll on the White House crisis.

In the Zogby Analytics survey provided exclusively to Secrets:

Likely voters, 53% to 40%, support the House impeachment inquiry.
By a margin of 47%-41%, they support impeachment.
And by a wide gap of 46% to 33%, voters “believe President Trump will win re-election in 2020.”

Pollster Jonathan Zogby said, “Maybe this is the perfect storm for a Trump win in 2020. He has survived every crisis imaginable, and maybe he will become the first president to be impeached and reelected. Sounds crazy, but in the case of Donald Trump, not that crazy.”
Screen Shot 2019-10-09 at 10.11.55 AM.png
(Screenshot)

Should the president be impeached and win reelection, it would be historic. In recent history, President Bill Clinton's impeachment over the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky sex affairs came after his 1996 reelection, and President Richard Nixon resigned after his reelection and before the House voted to impeach him over Watergate.

The House appears to be on an impeachment fast-track, though the White House has said it will not cooperate, a move that would slow action.

Zogby’s poll is the first to test both impeachment and reelection, and it made clear that the public continues to be divided on Trump and sometimes irked by his tactics.

He said that played out in the latest crisis involving charges that in a phone call, Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate the actions of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, in his work for a controversial energy company in the country.
Screen Shot 2019-10-09 at 10.12.07 AM.png
(Screenshot)

The poll asked the public if they approved of Trump’s action and found that they didn’t, 46% to 40%, with 14% not sure.

But the driving theme in the poll analysis is that in the end, Trump is likely to come out a winner.

“Although voters support the impeachment inquiry and the impeachment of President Trump, it's not as black and white as it seems. The issue of how this impacts Trump's presidency is quite gray, and the reason for that is voters we surveyed still think the president is going to win reelection in 2020,” said Zogby, the son of pollster and author John Zogby who teams with Jed Babbin in the weekly Secrets Trump Report Card published on Saturdays.
Screen Shot 2019-10-09 at 10.12.20 AM.png
(Screenshot)

What’s more, those who expect Trump’s reelection, including suburban voters and younger millennials, appears wider than his base, a good sign for the GOP. And those “split” on his reelection, including women and Hispanics, are not very far apart.

On Trump’s reelection coalition, here’s what Zogby said:

Look at the groups who think he is going to win a second term: men (55% yes/29% no), young millennials age 18-29 (43% yes/38% no), Generation X voters age 30-49 (49% yes/30% no) and older voters age 65+ (47% yes/32% no), independents (36% yes/29% no), all regions of the United States, especially southern voters (52% yes/28% no), suburban voters (42% yes/34% no), large city voters (51% yes/32% no), union voters (58% yes/23% no), middle-income voters whose household income is $75k-$100k (56% yes/32% no), and upper-income voter whose household income is $150k+ (59% yes/26% no).

Some important subgroups who are split on their opinion of whether Trump will win reelection in 2020 were women (37% yes/37% no), Hispanics (40% yes/41% no), moderates (37% yes/36% no), and suburban women (34% yes/37% no).

Intel IG Atkinson - continued reports this guy is on an anti-Trump mission

https://www.powerlineblog.com/...ons-for-atkinson.php

From Sen Cotton to Atkinson:

Dear Inspector General Atkinson,

Your disappointing testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on September 26 was evasive to the point of being insolent and obstructive. Despite repeated questions, you refused to explain what you meant in your written report by “indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.” This information is, of course, unclassified and we were meeting in a closed setting. Yet you moralized about how you were duty bound not to share even a hint of this political bias with us.

But now I see media reports that you revealed to the House Intelligence Committee not only that the complainant is a registered Democrat, but also that he has a professional relationship with a Democratic presidential campaign. I’m dissatisfied, to put it mildly, with your refusal to answer my questions, while more fully briefing the three-ring circus that the House Intelligence Committee has become .

So, I will ask again and give you one more chance to answer: what are these “indicia of arguable political bias”? More specifically:

1. Does the complainant have (or did he once have) a professional relationship with a Democratic presidential candidate or campaign?

2. If so, which candidate or campaign and what is the nature of that relationship?

3. What other “indicia of arguable political bias” of the complainant did you find?

4. Did you or anyone subject to your control or influence share with CNN that the “arguable political bias” was merely that the complainant is a registered Democrat?

5. Why did you refuse to answer my questions at the September 26 hearing?

Nope, Sorry Peter, I do not feel like you do.

Rocker Peter Frampton on Democrats’ Trump Subpoena: Just ‘Raid the F**kers’

Rocker Peter Frampton says attempts by Democrats in Congress to subpoena Trump adminstration officials are a waste of time, suggesting that they should instead just “raid the fuckers” to find evidence against President Trump.
The 69-year-old singer was reacting to recent reports that Democrats in Congress have issued subpoenas against multiple White House officials as part of their impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

“What is the point of a subpoena if, when handed it, you can just say “No” and we go, “Ok, sorry to bother you,” Peter Frampton wrote on Twitter. “Raid the f_ckers and get what we are asking for!”