quote:

Originally posted by Browndrake:
I just got home from the Trump Rally in Grand Rapids, MI. It was absolutely rockin’ in that place tonight. Every seat was filled and there were a bunch on the floor. I think there were over 11,000 in Van Andel Arena and a lot more in the street who couldn’t get in. The energy in the crowd was fantastic and Trump and Trump Jr. did not disappoint.
I think it says a lot when at 2+ years into his Presidency Trump can pack people into a stadium like that and get the kind of response that he was getting. He’s winning, which means we’re winning. I feel better and better about 2020 all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Nice. Watched most of it on my flight home today. I love these rallies. Would love to see one in person one day.

quote:

The whole Russia collusion investigation hoax formed a major component of the ongoing Demo/Progo effort to undo the 2016 elections, in other words, to engineer an American coup (here and here). This attempt involved getting foreigners to vote (noted above), insisting on no voter id requirements, use of vote harvesting, calling on electors of the Electoral College not to vote for Trump, incessant recount demands, a faked up dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign, calling for a military coup, misuse of the FISA process, the weaponizing of the IRS, EPA, and our law enforcement/intel agencies for use against American citizens, trying to fill the streets with violent ANTIFA thugs, and more. The progos sought and seek to destroy our core institutions in order to gain and keep power.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

I love these rallies. Would love to see one in person one day.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://hotair.com/archives/20...ong-trump-interview/

Why did Mueller decisively conclude that Donald Trump and his campaign didn’t collude with Russia but punt on obstruction?

Was it because Trump outplayed Mueller on an interrogation? After threatening a subpoena once early last year, Trump’s attorneys angrily objected to the idea and threatened to force Mueller into court. Mueller retreated and left the idea as an unspoken backstop while the White House prepared the ground by cooperating as fully as possible. The strategy was to build a case in court where they could claim that Mueller didn’t need to interrogate the president in order to get the answers to any questions:

Central to the Trump strategy — developed first by Cobb and Dowd and later carried out by Giuliani, Sekulow and the Raskins, as well as Flood, who from his White House perch represented the office of the presidency — was to cooperate fully with every request for documents and witnesses from Mueller, including Trump’s written answers to some questions.

Their goal: to satisfy Mueller’s hunt for information to the extent that the special counsel would not have legal standing to subpoena the president’s oral testimony. …

“No matter what question they would say they wanted to ask, I felt confident we could turn it over and say, ‘You already have the answer to it,’ ” Giuliani said. “If they said, ‘Why did you fire Comey?’ I’d give them five interviews, and particularly the Lester Holt tape, where he goes into great detail as to his reasons.”

..

They tried in December and January to get Trump to talk with them, to no avail. Instead, Mueller closed up shop and left the obstruction question unanswered. He left it to Barr and Rosenstein to reach the final conclusion on obstruction, which had critics and observers from James Comey to Andrew McCarthy asking the same question: If Barr and Rosenstein could answer that question, why did we need a special counsel at all?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

answer - we didn't

quote:

The very few of us who publicly challenged and deplored Russiagate allegations against candidate and then President Donald Trump from the time they first began to appear in mid-2016 should not gloat or rejoice over the US attorney general’s summary of Robert S. Mueller’s key finding: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election.” (On the other hand, those of us repeatedly slurred as Trump and/or Putin “apologists” might feel some vindication.)

But what about the legions of high-ranking intelligence officials, politicians, editorial writers, television producers, and other opinion-makers, and their eager media outlets that perpetuated, inflated, and prolonged this unprecedented political scandal in American history—those who did not stop short of accusing the president of the United States of being a Kremlin “agent,” “asset,” “puppet,” “Manchurian candidate,” and who characterized his conduct and policies as “treasonous”? (These and other examples are cited in my book War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate, and in a recent piece by Paul Starobin in City Journal.) Will they now apologize, as decency requires, or, more importantly, explain their motives so that we might understand and avoid another such national trauma?

quote:

Asshole Jerrold Nadler (DEM)

quote:

...rationale for how he's handling the Mueller repor

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
Just coming up for air.

Rush on Bret Baier
President Trump in Michigan
Rush on Hannity's TV show

Talk about those two being ON FIRE! OMG!

quote:

“One point I’d like to make, Anderson, that I don’t think has come up very much before, and I’m alluding now to the President’s criticism of President Obama for all that he did or didn’t do before he left office with respect to the Russian meddling. If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel Mueller’s investigation,” Clapper said Wednesday on CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by nojoy:
Flake is such a Rino:

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019...2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Former Republican Sen. Jeff Flake would prefer a Democrat win the 2020 election than have President Donald Trump serve a second term, saying that "four years is difficult enough to unravel some of the damage" done internationally by the administration.
Flake, a longtime Trump critic who argued Thursday that the Republican Party should not support Trump in 2020, was asked if it is better for a Democrat to win the election if Trump is the Republican nominee.
"Yes ... and this notion, this narrative that's been built up, that Donald Trump is the only one that can cobble together the Electoral College and win is just a fallacy," Flake replied at an Intelligence Squared debate in New York City. The organization bills itself as a "non-partisan, non-profit" group that hosts debates aimed at promoting various points of view.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Guys like Flake and Trump want to save conservatism by ushering in socialism. Way to go guys. Makes a ton of sense.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Guys like Flake and Trump want to save conservatism by ushering in socialism. Way to go guys. Makes a ton of sense.

Pardon me? Can you explain? Just how is President Trump "ushering in socialism"? Maybe you meant Kristol?????? That would make sense. I'm HOPING it's a typo on your part...