h/t Instapundit
[Interfax Ukraine] - Ukrainian ex-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin has demanded that the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) open criminal proceedings against former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden for illegal influence on him as the prosecutor general of Ukraine.
Why do these clowns think they can con us in this way?
Several of these people work for Schiff! They're on his f---ing staff! The FBI's Insoectie General briefly changed the rules to allow them all to collaborate on preparing these bogus charges! The Biden family is corrupt as sin, and their buffoonish paterfamilias is the corrupt assholes who ACTUALLY pressured - not maybe, not appeared to try to threaten but actually did Force the firing of a prosecutor who was looking into ACTUAL corruption in the country at issue-- actual graft BY BIDEN's IDIOT COKEHEAD THIEVING SON.
ALL of this is public knowledge.
Completely surreal. Directly out of Lewis Carroll: it's the Queen of Hearts and sentence first, then trial by jury... a jury of Mad Hatters and neurotic White Rabbits and snoozing Dormice.
Complete lunacy. A national disgrace.
F--- these morons. Shame on them for trashing our nation and our Constitution.
#9
I doubt Biden will be shipped out to Ukraine. It doesn't seem as if he will face justice here at this time. Some good will come from all the exposure of corruption.
[The Hill] Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) attempt to ask about the whistleblower whose report helped spark the impeachment inquiry is running into a roadblock in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts.
A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.
The question from Paul is expected to name the individual. Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.
Paul indicated to reporters after a closed-door Republican dinner that he was not backing down from trying to ask his question.
"It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow," the libertarian-leaning senator told reporters as he headed back to the Senate chamber.
The Senate is in its first of two days for senators to question both House managers and President Trump's legal team.
Continued on Page 47
#2
Video of Shifferbrains calling Bolton a liar gives fence sitter Murky an easy out. Droopy now sees no advantage in pretending to be undecided. Willard left out in the cold.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
01/30/2020 5:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.
Why is he pretending Eric Ciarmella's identity as the whistleblower isn't already public knowledge? Is he gonna start calling fouls like that all game?
"If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma," Philbin asked. "Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that?"
Whistleblower was a Klingon analyst who has returned to the mothership and cannot be named or bothered.
Likelihood of Whistleblower or Hunter Biden being called to testify in impeachment trial? Feel free to file under 'snowball's chance in hell.'
"Protecting the identity" -- ...of someone known to the world
"Whistleblower" -- who is a longtime partisan activist, a protege of Trump's likely rival in November
"Preserving integrity of the process" -- ... by shielding the faux-whistleblower and his close friend who works for Schifferbrains, plus other individuals on Schifferbrain's staff who all collaborated in what would normally be a criminal action ... except that an additional conspirator at the FBI helpfully changed the rules - BRIEFLY! - to allow this criminal action to go forward.
And now the Chief Justice is preventing our representatives from even asking about - from even asking a simple f---ing question! - if this obvious conspiracy to frame president, refute the results of the 2016 election.
And to throw the upcoming election to the protege of this moronic little partisan activist masquerading as a protector of all that is right and sacred.
And that protege, that Dem presidential candidate and rival of the president, is himself guilty of the exact same corruption and interference which these shit-for-brains Shitshow Clowns falsely accuse the president of.
#6
/\ "Preserving integrity of the process" -- ... by shielding the faux-whistleblower and his close friend who works for Schifferbrains, plus other individuals on Schifferbrain's staff who all collaborated in what would normally be a criminal action ... except that an additional conspirator at the FBI helpfully changed the rules - BRIEFLY! - to allow this criminal action to go forward.
I believe you have nailed it (at least in part) Lex. Obfuscation and deception at entirely new levels.....well, not if you count the 3000 Clinton emails and 'homebrew' server.
The conspirators in this SS are all bound up with each other in such a ridiculously tight interwoven fabric that the protected ones are protectors and vice versa. Utterly ridiculous.
#9
/\ The whistle-blower is not a whistle-blower. He is a conspirator and seditionist.
Excellent point! I've not trusted that fok'n Roberts since he made the Obamacare call. Roberts has obviously received the 'hands off' memo. Of all the questions fielded, that's the only one he sent to the dustbin ?
I have a gut feeling the (not too bright) Bidens were simply following the Clinton Foundation - Intelligence Community cover for action model.
Hat tip to Rand Paul. I hope someone verifies the 'whistleblower-Biden' connection and sticks it squarely up the dems arse.
#14
John Roberts appointed the judge that signed off on deepstate FISA warrants. The same judge could have issued bench warrants(?) to said DOJ and FBI criminals who file the fraudulent claims.
#18
What is Justice Roberts' opinion on the Dred Scott decision?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/30/2020 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#19
IMO I can't help but wonder if Dem's have something on Roberts to blackmail him with.
Here are some of Rand's recent tweets;
Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul 1h
My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul 1h
My exact question was:
Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together 1/2
Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul 1h
and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. 2/2
Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul
My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.
Posted by: Jan ||
01/30/2020 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Roberts is an establishment, globalist, eGOP man at heart. He will do anything to keep the status quo and the elites in power. That is why he does the things he does.
#23
You spend a lot of time speculating on the whistleblower and really not any on Dershowitz.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
01/30/2020 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
#24
EC, Dershowitz is one of the most brilliant criminal defense attorneys this nation has produced. His comments on first Mueller and now impeachment have been dead-on, thoroughly expert, completely nonpartisan-- consistently, fearlessly, for three years now. He has nothing whatsoever to gain - in fact, he's lost a great deal, personally and socially - from this fearless, sober, totally consistent defense of principle.
#25
My problem with Dershowitz is that he basically stated this:
If the President just thinks he's acting in the public interest (which is supposed to include his own reelection), he can do any quid pro quo he wants with anyone.
This is absurd and the defense of an autocrat. I have not heard from a single authority on constitutional law (and they can't be all mad leftists) who'd agree.
And yet no Republican has come out against this. Be careful where you tread.
The next president may not be one you like.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
01/30/2020 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Seeking political gain is what politicians do. There is no concept of "quid pro quo" in politics; all political negotiations, strategems, maneuvers are in one way another the application of pressure or inducement for political advantage.
What the Democrats are trying to do is to criminalize democratic politics. That is truly outrageous and disturbing.
#27
Seeking political gain is what politicians do. There is no concept of "quid pro quo" in politics; all political negotiations, strategems, maneuvers are in one way another the application of pressure or inducement for political advantage.
What the Democrats are trying to do is to criminalize democratic politics. That is truly outrageous and disturbing.
#36
A President blackmails the president of another country to dig up dirt on political opponent. If not, this country would not get aid it badly needs.
Points:
1) Blackmail (in American) is threatening to release harmful information about someone unless they do something you demand. There was no blackmail threat.
2) political opponent - I keep hearing this phrase on the BBC. The investigation was about Hunter Biden, the son and Burisma. Not Joe Biden.
3) Trump did send aid in the form of Javelin anti-tank missiles. Much more kinetic than the dried food they got during the Obama administration.
#39
SteveS
You're correct, I should have used "extorted" (the German term "erpressen" makes no difference).
Posted by: European Conservative ||
01/30/2020 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
#40
If Dershowitz said dual use is hokay then no problem for EC
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
01/30/2020 22:12 Comments ||
Top||
#41
Let me be clear. I don't say that anything of this happened
Mein freund, the law doesn't concern itself with what-if and imagine-this and maybe-possibly.
There are facts, and there is law. Both are on the president's side. This is a bulkshit prosecution that is 100% political, and it must be halted - forthwith.
Here's Schiff, speaking about the credibility of his star witness -- try not to laugh, or spit out your (coffee) (bourbon) (single malt whiskey):
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., now the lead House impeachment manager [claimed that his supposed star witness] Bolton had a distinct "lack of credibility" and was prone to "conspiracy theories."
[Schiff said,] "given the history, where we've had the politicizing of intelligence over WMD [weapons of mass destruction], why we would pick someone who the very same issue has been raised repeatedly, and that is John Bolton's politicization of the intelligence he got on Cuba and other issues, why we would want someone with that lack of credibility, I can't understand."
And here's BOLTON HIMSELF -- again, the star witness -- impeaching, as it were, his own credibility:
Bolton himself had admitted in the past that he would be more than willing to lie if he felt it was in the nation's best interest.
“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton said in an interview with Fox Business in 2010.
#46
We could just hear from Bolton and make up our minds then.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
01/30/2020 22:56 Comments ||
Top||
#47
Even if a resident has conditioned a benefit on another party's rendering a political service to that president's political prospects, that would be well within the realm of LEGALLY-PERMISSIBLE POLITICAL OPERATIONS.
Some examples (names masked in order to get you to think objectively, and not with NeverTrumper-spleen):
POTUS-1 says to Nation-A, I will deliver Benefit X to you after I win the election. Implied request: Don't make waves for me and disrupt my re-election campaign between now and November.
POTUS CANDIDATE -2 says to Nation-B, I will deliver Benefit Y to you after I win the election. Implied request: Don't release the hostages you hold and thereby disrupt my re-election campaign between now and November.
Here's the point: none of the above ACTUAL PROPOSED POLITICAL TRADE-OFFS IS ILLEGAL.
None.
No "high crimes" were committed in any of these actual, real incidents. No "misdemeanors."
They're all examples of POLITICS - "horse-trading," "sausage-making," hardball, curveball spitball whatever-the-fook-ball you want to call it. But not criminal activity.
Not criminal. Just politics.
If we lose that distinction, then democratic politics becomes impossible.
In short we will have a permanent, rolling Shitshow in which normal democratic political operations are deemed criminal activity - to the detriment of BOTH the criminal justice system AND the democratic political process.
#48
As I have said, future Presidents will take note.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
01/30/2020 23:13 Comments ||
Top||
#49
By the way, there are at least a half a dozen other examples of presidents using the normal, standard, unobjectionable instruments of political influence - per Machiavelli your "zuckerbrot und peitsche," "carota e bastone," carrot & stick - to coax, wheedle, cajole, induce, bully, lean on, bludgeon, beat etc a desired outcome out of another nation's leader.
That's politics. Not criminal activity. Never.
We WANT our presidents to be cunning and ruthless practitioners Machiavelli's arts of princely behavior. We expect it, we allow it.
God forbid we should allow raving mad hypocrites like Schifferbrains to strut and posture and pretend that this type of activity - which they themselves engage in DAILY-- is somehow criminal.
#5
Once again Hillary considers herself above the law. If she refuses to be served Tulsi Gabbard's lawyers can proceed to a judgement against Hillary's assets to settle the $50 million law suit. But that may be very little since she can stay in her home and unless she has other assets then not can be taken by the local Sheriff.
#8
Surprised she doesn't have all her assets under the Foundation's ownership. She could then just lease them directly, at a very reduced rate of course, with cash from her 'Director's Stipend'.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
01/30/2020 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
