quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
OAN News Is currently and starting again at 8 Eastern a three part series. About the Ukrainian witnesses that were barred from, and destroy “Shitts”” impeachment case. Way to much to share, you need to watch.

"BIG Ps"
Weird...I just went to the door and picked up a package from ups, when I returned the show was the normal OAN news??? Either they screwed up and ran it at the wrong time then stopped it??? Or I'm visiting the future. It had Gugglioni and many Ukainian officials that flatly refuted the Dems case and made liars of many. The ATT Cable news listing has changed to normal for OAN at this time. But the 8 pm is still on schedule.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
While Trump may not want impeachment, he is a business man and knows that even in a "deal going bad", there is opportunity to steer things your way for the next step in the "deal", or the next "deal".

This is an advantage and opportunity for "We the People..." to see, by Trump's bravely pulling back of the curtain, both sides of the leadership, and whom we should "tag and release", come the harvest, we will have good idea of what vermin to remove from the Chambers.

Have no fear, but believe in whom you chose.
Look at Trump's life history and how many times he has shown weakness and lack of courage.

That Trump is willing to yank the pull tab on a can of whoop ass, I do not doubt. Watching the wheels of justice grind slowly, while waiting on the DOJ must wear on his patience. It does on this citizen.

That it does, my friend.
Life has provided me with an abundance of patience.

In my family, we have a saying.

"You may beat me, but you will never win."

2020, is foresight.

Good news on a different note. An F'U to Russia (and the leftist corrupt media)
--------------------

US Tests Missile That Obama Admin Kept Outlawed To Keep Russians Happy

In 1987, the United States signed a treaty with the Soviet Union which banned certain ballistic missiles.

The treaty, according to The Hill, is credited with helping bring the Cold War to a close.

This is all fantastic, but it’s been nearly 28 years since the USSR gave us a Boxing Day gift and officially dissolved on Dec. 26, 1991.

In reality, it’s been 30 years since the event that signaled the imminent dissolution of the Soviet bloc — the fall of the Berlin Wall — happened. There’s no particular reason for that treaty’s existence except for the fact that it provided the Russians a modicum of power over American armament and made the Kremlin happy.

Well, consider the Kremlin unhappy.

According to Defense News, the United States on Thursday tested a “ground-launched, intermediate-range ballistic missile with a range of more than 500 kilometers.”

That missile would have been forbidden under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the 32-year-old pact the Trump administration pulled out of earlier this year.

“The U.S. Air Force, in partnership with the Strategic Capabilities Office, conducted a flight test of a prototype conventionally-configured ground-launched ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,” a statement from Pentagon spokesman Robert Carver read.

“The test missile exited its static launch stand and terminated in the open ocean after more than 500 kilometers of flight. Data collected and lessons learned from this test will inform the Department of Defense’s development of future intermediate-range capabilities.”

Video of the missile’s launch sparked a lot of speculation online, with Defense News noting that “the missile-sleuthing community on Twitter went to work, quickly honing in on the possibility that the weapon was a modified version of a ballistic missile defense target missile used in ballistic missile defense tests.”

“If so, that would fit in with the participation of the SCO, whose charge is to take existing systems in the Pentagon’s arsenal and tweak them to create new opportunities for use,” Defense News reported.

The Trump administration’s Defense Department argued the treaty had been violated by Russia, which is why they exited it. Russia says that’s not the case. The United States also claimed the treaty didn’t serve our interests anymore. It’s pretty clear that is the case.

The test, according to The Hill, was the second that would have been banned under the treaty since the United States exited the agreement.

In August, we also tested a missile that would have violated the INF Treaty.

At the time, Russia said we were “escalating military tensions.”

Anything that roils the Russkies militarily is a pretty good thing, one would think.

But when news broke last last year that the treaty would be scuppered, The New York Times called it a “landmark” pact “which grew out of President Ronald Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986.”

“Now that the treaty is largely in tatters, the question is whether the decision to leave it will accelerate the increasingly Cold War-like behavior among the three superpowers: the United States, Russia and China,” the article read.

First, it’s worth noting The Times admitted Russia was violating the treaty and China, never a signatory, was developing weapons that fell under the aegis of the pact without the United States being able to counter.

The Obama administration also accused the Russians of violating this treaty, even though they never decided to test missiles of their own.

How America’s withdrawal was going to “accelerate the increasingly Cold War-like behavior among the three superpowers” when it merely meant the United States could be able to compete on equal footing is beyond me.

Second, think about that language for a second.

In 1987, the Nintendo Entertainment System was a “landmark” video game system, the Amiga was a “landmark” computer and glasnost was a “landmark” opening up of the Soviet Union’s political systems by Gorbachev.

All three of those things have been superseded by time and events. So has the INF treaty. Pacts that limit our military capability, particularly when they’re being violated by the other party, aren’t a good thing.

Adding intermediate-range ballistic missile capability is a good thing, meanwhile.

Then again, it’s curious to think how this will be spun as a capitulation to the Kremlin and Putin by President Donald Trump. It hasn’t yet, mind you, but where there’s a will…

https://www.westernjournal.com...tent=libertyalliance

Just received my Donald Trump 2020 Christmas Wrapping Paper. Christmas will be a hoot this year.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
Just received my Donald Trump 2020 Christmas Wrapping Paper. Christmas will be a hoot this year.

You savage. Love it.

quote:

The treaty, according to The Hill, is credited with helping bring the Cold War to a close.

The treaty had no influence on the Cold War other than to give the Soviets a bit of a breathing spell to postpone their collapse. The Soviets were driving themselves into bankruptcy by trying to keep up with the US’s armaments program. A couple of quotes from the era:

“There was a view, which I and some others held, that the principal benefit of certain programmes was the cost to the Soviets of countering them. Those highly leveraged investments seemed a very good idea. The deployment of relatively modest bomber forces on our side, for example, caused the Soviets to make a huge investment in bomber defence, vastly greater than our investment in bombers. Even if we never managed to deliver a single bomb, the programme would have paid for itself many times over by diverting resources from what could otherwise have been offensive capability on the Russian side.”
— Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, Reagan administration; quoted by David Pryce-Jones, The Strange Death of the Soviet Empire (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1995), 121.

But this summed it up most clearly and succinctly:
“But the economic base of the West had proved stronger in the Cold War. Military parity had squandered immense sums which could have been invested elsewhere: ‘On our side we made a false analysis. You could say the Americans forced us to arm ourselves to death.’”
— Egon Krenz; quoted by Pryce-Jones, Strange Death, 264.

Egon Krenz was the last Communist leader of East Germany before the collapse.
We should all recognize, however, that the US didn’t “force” the Evil Empire and its subjects to spend a cent on armaments. The Soviet Union started the Cold War and was the sole reason it was perpetuated for so long. The US rearmed after WWII because of the activities and threats of the USSR and its minions.

Impeachment prompts House Democrat to switch parties

https://www.washingtonexaminer...at-to-switch-parties



Rep. Jeff Van Drew, one of two House Democrats who do not support articles of impeachment against President Trump, is likely to switch parties.

“Several high-level sources with ties to Van Drew” said his chief of staff has notified the lawmaker’s campaign and congressional staffs that he’s switching to the GOP, the New Jersey Globe reported Saturday.

A representative for Van Drew has not yet returned a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.

Van Drew was elected in 2018 to fill the seat held for more than two decades by Republican Frank LoBiondo, who retired.

Van Drew was facing a difficult reelection bid. His seat was rated “toss-up” by many election analysts, and in addition, liberal Democrats were threatening to challenge him in a primary due to his opposition to impeachment.

Van Drew told the Washington Examiner this week he did not want to discuss impeaching Trump.

“Honestly, I’m just tired of talking about it,” Van Drew said as he left the House chamber. “I’m taking a break. I’m not getting into this. I’m going to wait until I know everything. Right now, I’m radio silence.”

Polling indicated Van Drew would not win a likely Democratic primary.

Party switches are rare in Congress.

Only two representatives have changed parties in the last decade. The most recent was Justin Amash from Michigan, who dropped the Republican party label and became an independent because of his opposition to Trump.

https://www.breitbart.com/clip...r-did-nothing-wrong/

On Saturday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Up,” former Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden defended her son, Hunter, by stating he “did nothing wrong, and that’s the bottom line.”

Biden said, “I know my son. I know my son’s character. Hunter did nothing wrong, and that’s the bottom line.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jill, you might want to double check that "character"

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.breitbart.com/clip...r-did-nothing-wrong/

On Saturday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Up,” former Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden defended her son, Hunter, by stating he “did nothing wrong, and that’s the bottom line.”

Biden said, “I know my son. I know my son’s character. Hunter did nothing wrong, and that’s the bottom line.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jill, you might want to double check that "character"

Well, we can start with Coke and crack and go from there, Jill.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.breitbart.com/clip...r-did-nothing-wrong/

On Saturday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Up,” former Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden defended her son, Hunter, by stating he “did nothing wrong, and that’s the bottom line.”

Biden said, “I know my son. I know my son’s character. Hunter did nothing wrong, and that’s the bottom line.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jill, you might want to double check that "character"

Hunter Biden resigned from Burisma when the news got hot and his daddy was running for President.
If it was a legitimate job there would have been no need to resign.

'Pity liberal editorial writers': Trump campaign mocks newspaper editorial boards for backing impeachment

https://www.washingtonexaminer...-backing-impeachment

The Trump campaign dismissed a number of editorial boards at major news publications that have announced their support for impeaching President Trump.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this week on two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. It will then go to the Senate for a trial, where it's expected to be dismissed quickly.

The Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and USA Today have all called for Trump to be impeached based on the articles.

“Pity liberal editorial writers. They have never recovered from Election Day 2016," Tim Murtaugh, Trump 2020 communications director, told the Washington Examiner on Saturday.

The New York Times' board, which endorsed Trump's impeachment on Saturday, described the president requesting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden as a "textbook example of an impeachment offense," arguing that it's exactly "as the nation's framers envisioned it." They also pointed to the White House's decision not to participate in the House's inquiry, alleging that that decision "left Congress with no choice but to press ahead to a Senate trial."

A different Trump campaign representative noted the New York Times editorial board did not support President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998. In the editorial's piece, they argued that a "polarized party-line vote" would "assault the Constitution." They warned that such an impeachment could set a dangerous precedent and noted that "presidents stay in office unless the case against them is so strong that it persuades at least a substantial part of the public — and their representatives in Congress — on the grounds specified by the Constitution."

Editorial boards from 115 newspapers supported impeaching Clinton after the release of independent counsel Ken Starr’s report. The New York Times's decision not to back impeachment came two months after the report was released publicly.

While some have supported Trump's removal from office, a multitude of publications in more moderate areas who endorsed Hillary Clinton appear more skittish to support impeachment, according to Politico.

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
Well, we can start with Coke and crack and go from there, Jill.

Then move on to an Arkansan pole-dancing, baby-poppin' hooker. Mighty clean living, that Biden boy of yours does, Jill. JSMH...

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
The Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and USA Today...

Good start for a list of Leftist POS rags. Wouldn't even use ANY of them to shred and put in the cat box...

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Impeachment prompts House Democrat to switch parties

https://www.washingtonexaminer...at-to-switch-parties



Rep. Jeff Van Drew, one of two House Democrats who do not support articles of impeachment against President Trump, is likely to switch parties.
.

AWESOME.

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Impeachment prompts House Democrat to switch parties

https://www.washingtonexaminer...at-to-switch-parties



Rep. Jeff Van Drew, one of two House Democrats who do not support articles of impeachment against President Trump, is likely to switch parties.
.

AWESOME.

Is it? Would he not be a Rino?

quote:

Polling indicated Van Drew would not win a likely Democratic primary.

I try to be realistic in political expectations, but it sure looks like 2020 could be quite a year

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...stayed-home-in-2018/

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy told Breitbart News exclusively that Republicans think they can retake the House majority in 2020 by turning out millions of voters who backed President Donald Trump in 2016 but stayed home in the 2018 midterm elections.

In fact, in his latest exclusive interview on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel, McCarthy explained that Republicans would currently be in the House majority had these voters turned out in 2018—and that the GOP would have held at least 28 more seats than the party currently has.

“There were 8.5 million Trump voters who voted in 2016 who did not turn out in 2018,” McCarthy said. They’re identified. If they turned out in 2018, and we know exactly where they live, we’d still be in the majority. We would have won 28 seats that we currently don’t have.”

Having the president atop the ticket in 2020, McCarthy said, will help the GOP turn those nearly nine million voters out who didn’t vote in 2018 but did in 2016.

“The one thing I’ve seen in intensity level and others, is they will show for the president,” McCarthy said. “They just don’t cross over to show up in the off years. It’s a challenge that President Obama, something that he had. But what I think and see is they’re going to show up for this president and there’s going to be even more who show up. If you look at the rallies and who shows up at the rallies, the number of first-time voters and the number of minorities inside those rallies and others, proportionally much higher than showed up for the president the first time in his campaign in 2016. So I think the turnout is potentially even going to be greater.”

To retake the majority in 2020, Republicans need to, at this stage, win a net 19 seats back from the Democrats. There are currently 31 districts represented by Democrats that President Trump won in 2016, and another 20 or so that Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton won in 2016 that are considered battlegrounds.

.....

https://theconservativetreehou...-agenda/#more-178666

long Victor Davis Hanson interview at link

Deep and compelling discussion between Victor Davis Hanson and Epoch Times’ Jan Jekielek about President Trump, his effectiveness, and an overall era of apoplexy amid the left as President Trump deconstructs the progressive agenda.

'Tell us what you found': Lindsey Graham invites Giuliani to testify about Ukraine trip in Senate

https://www.washingtonexaminer...raine-trip-in-senate



Sen. Lindsey Graham welcomed the notion that President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani could appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to share his knowledge on Ukraine.

"Rudy, if you want to come and tell us what you found, I'll be glad to talk to you,” the South Carolina Republican said in an interview set to air Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation.

“We can look at what Rudy's got and Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and anything else you want to look at after impeachment," he continued. "But if Rudy wants to come to the Judiciary Committee and testify about what he found, he's welcome to do so."

Giuliani recently confirmed that he was on a fact-finding mission in Ukraine to track down information that could prove the Democrats' impeachment efforts to be unsubstantiated. Trump has also claimed that Giuliani may have credible information. According to him, Trump has asked him to brief both the Department of Justice and Republican senators about his findings.

Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is set to speak more his invitation to Giuliani on Sunday.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://theconservativetreehou...-agenda/#more-178666

long Victor Davis Hanson interview at link

Deep and compelling discussion between Victor Davis Hanson and Epoch Times’ Jan Jekielek about President Trump, his effectiveness, and an overall era of apoplexy amid the left as President Trump deconstructs the progressive agenda.

I watched all one hour and seven minutes of this. I strongly encourage all members of this forum to watch this interview. Hubris and Nemesis; Trump as a Sophoclean tragic hero; the definition of the deep state, its origin and true nature, its composition and the rationale of its members; the 'medieval exemptions' for the progressive elitest class; the obscenity and hypocrisy of identity politics. The wheels of the gods.

Do you want to have a real understanding of what is happening in this nation? Do you want to feel empowered as an American citizen and as a conservative? Then, I implore you to invest the time and watch this interview. I'm not exaggerating. Take the time and you'll see. Victor Davis Hanson is a national treasure.

We're about to be deluged with fawning stories about how honorable Comey is because he's now apologized for the minor clerical and sloppy errors by the FBI during the FISA process.