The 2020 USA POTUS election politics, the civil war, and the world war (Part 1)

419

War news

Republican Mike Garcia appears likely to win his bid for a seat in Congress in, of all places, California! From the NY Times:

A victory for Mr. Garcia would most likely be seized upon by party leaders who are eager to show that the president maintains support in the kinds of suburban areas that Democrats are counting on to win back the White House. Even before the pandemic, Democrats had tried to cast the race as a referendum on Mr. Trump, a message they hoped would resound with voters who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 by nearly seven points.

The Democrat party partisans at the NY Times write that, of course, with the deepest regret. :rofl:

The Republicans, in another special election, also have picked up a seat in Wisconsin.

Please allow a bit of time for the Democrat propagandists in the mainstream media to spin these outcomes to appear unfavorable for Trump. Trust me, they are working hard on that effort. The election happened only yesterday. Their lies will be forthcoming very soon.

Other war news

The Jensen revelations still have Democrats back on their heels. Quite obviously our mainstream media is doing zero in depth reporting on this, so out of step is the news with their preferred “Trump is a Russian conspirator” narrative.

Judge Sullivan is also bollixed up, damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Here is my take, big picture:

Democrats will attempt to salvage what they can. The completed Jensen investigation is obviously NOT of highest importance for them. Instead it is Durham’s work which is most threatening to, and frightening for, Democrats. I believe, if Sullivan cooperates, they will attempt to force Barr, upon appeal, to make revelations (from Durham) he does not want to be making at this time. While I believe Barr will outsmart the Democrats, including Sullivan, this remains to be seen.

Noted in passing

Sally Yates continues to appear clean and untainted. I personally do not believe for a moment that Samantha Power has any culpability whatsoever. In my view, the fraudulent unmaskings done in her name were perpetrated in reality by someone else. I hope Barr can get to the bottom of that.

The dirty actors clearly remain Comey and his several FBI higher ups, Brennan, and Clapper. These people all rue the day Sidney Powell was born.

Obama? Wild conservative partisans claim he was inside the conspiracy. I dunno. Much more likely, I think, is that it was set up so Obama would at least have plausible deniability. Some of this stuff, after Jensen’s release, is entirely obvious. Obama’s involvement is not obvious, at least not yet to me.

1 Like
420

Luv it!! I’m usually always on the losing side in my state. :blush:

421

You try to offer benefit of the doubt. But gotta confess I NEVER saw this one coming. It almost makes no sense; but it is real. Biden has been caught squarely in a bold faced lie:

Biden lied to George Stephanopoulos within the last week!

Comey? Sure. Clapper? Sure. They both are dirty. But why Biden was anywhere near this, why his name is on the list and so CLOSE to the inauguration, I have no clue. It’s not a good look, that is for certain. The mainstream media will cover for Biden, but still . . . . . . .

Power? Look, she is on the list at least six separate times. I once spoke personally with Power . . . back in 2003. I’ve absolutely nothing in common with her politics. And her husband is a left wing nut case. But I always thought she was an honorable person and she steadfastly denies doing what it now appears she did.

There are so many other names on that list, all high ranking Obama officials in a manifestly corrupt administration. I suppose it is possible Power went over to the dark side. But I hope not and I hope Durham can get to the bottom of what the hell was going on. It is distressing!

422

I honestly don’t understand this. Were we not done with all the Russia interference probe, Muller report, etc… 3+ years! Is it just me tired of this shit? I thought democrats dragged it on for ever as it is. I can understand. Sore loser stuff and was worth making sure our elections are not too vulnerable going forward. But now republicans are necroing this again? I’m confused. Why remind people of all this now?

Besides, it doesn’t seem like the requests were illegal so who cares about who asked why nearly 4 years ago. Also, logically, I don’t understand how they could have been targeting Flynn specifically if his name was masked in the reports in the first place? Were there other documents making him suspect? I mean you’d have to know it was him to request unmasking to prove that it was him… I’m either missing something or there is a flaw in logic in the argument that it was targeting him.

But overall I’m missing why voters should care much about this. I mean, we’re not re-voting in the 2016 election are we? We have more pressing issues than debating this junk again. Or is it just to point out that Biden cannot remember what he did request 4 years ago - which admittedly is probably worth pointing out (and not good optics for him LOL) while providing a convenient distraction from the COVID-19 narrative?

423

The Flynn thing was a political hatchet job, which was obvious to me at the time when they blackmailed him into pleading guilty by threatening his family. They already had the transcripts of his call due to spying on him as part of the Trump campaign,as has now been revealed, and then they sent the FBI to “interview” him about the call solely as an entrapment measure.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-unmaskers-unmasked-11589411876

The Flynn unmasking is important because it occurred amid a media frenzy over supposed Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Leaks to the Washington Post about the conversations between the Russian ambassador and both Mr. Flynn and soon-to-be Attorney General Jeff Sessions were played up as central to the collusion scandal. They caused Mr. Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia probe and Mr. Flynn to be fired. While unmasking isn’t illegal, leaking intelligence

That and Schiff’s whole Trump-Russia narrative falling apart as lies from the start casts a lot more doubt onto the morals and motives of the Obama administration and the Democrats since.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts-11589326164?mod=trending_now_pos1

In December 2017 he told CNN that collusion was a fact: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help.” In April 2018, Mr. Schiff released his response to Mr. Nunes’s report, stating that its finding of no collusion “was unsupported by the facts and the investigative record.”

None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it… The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. Most remarkable, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted the bureau’s reason for opening the case was nonsense.

1 Like
424

Because it is necessary for the truth finally to emerge.

They were not technically illegal. But leaking the information to the press, as happened, was manifestly against the law and punishable by serious jail time.

When there is serious, intense, effort to overturn the legitimate outcome of a presidential election, some Americans really do care.

It’s called “unmasking”. And numerous higher ups in the Obama administration, to include even Biden, made many improper requests to do so. The requests were improper in that the only goal was to undermine the incoming Trump administration and to set a predicate for removal of Trump if at all possible.

You are missing a whole lot, probably on account of where you obtain your news day to day.

You are a smart woman and a very well respected member here. The fact of your ignorance of what actually happened is frightening to me, because if you don’t know a great many other Americans are also unaware. This is a testament to the virtually total control of the mainstream media by the DNC.

I will offer a single historical analogy, which might ring a bell:

Do you remember the blue dress? It was more than twenty years ago. The mainstream media had the story but they would not report it because of the incredibly negative impact on Bill Clinton. Only after everything came out on Drudge did they finally report fully and honestly. People who did not read Drudge back then are where you are now with this current situation. There is a whole lot going on that the American mainstream media is withholding . . . . on purpose.

1 Like
425

Judge Sullivan has moved against his political enemies with the appointment of another judge to defend, to his court, the continued prosecution of Flynn. This is a show of scintillating political bias on the part of Sullivan. Here is his goal in my view:

Sullivan wants either to force Trump to pardon Flynn outright, or to force Barr into an appeal which might reveal early a portion of the Durham investigation.

Either way, Sullivan is now clearly revealed as dirty and biased. The Democrats well recognize the danger posed to them by Durham’s investigation. There was SO much wrongdoing! When it all comes out the mainstream media might not be able to contain the damage.

Just as an observation:

Back late in 2016 the Democrats were so absolutely certain of a Hillary victory. When Trump won it threw them off their game and they did not recover their footing quickly. When they finally did there was not a lot of time remaining in Obama’s term. So much to do; so little time. They got a little sloppy and the coverup has been ongoing ever since.

426

Dear Lord did you have to go and mention Schiff! :laughing: :laughing:

That guy is the biggest POS scuzzball liar in America today. Just the mention of him here imparts an indelible stench to the entire thread!

427

Yes I remember the blue dress. Was basically the main evidence against Clinton in the perjury case during his impeachment since it has his errr … DNA on it. :wink:

As far as getting my news, I’m ok. And please do not presume to know where I get my news from. I’m not checking one source (although my first US source is The Hill normally). In fact, I’d say I possibly get more perspective than most because I’m checking news from two foreign countries (my former home country and my DH’s). That helps me keep context of what matters a lot more than just US-centric news. Things that get people outraged (from either side) over here sometimes barely make the news overseas. For example, this Flynn situation was absent completely from most of them. They talked about Trump’s emphasis on the economy, the cost of COVID-19 across several countries, the disagreement between Trump and Fauci on re-opening schools, food chain disruptions, but nothing on Flynn unmasking. That just tells me that this story ranked extremely low in terms of importance to the world situation which matters to me since I still have family overseas.

Now I get the gist of what happened here, or at least enough to categorize it in terms of importance. There are still many parts I don’t understand the motivation for, but that’s fine because it does not change my perception of either side (irredeemably corrupt), although I must admit I’m way more sympathetic to Flynn’s personal situation since he now sounds like an unlucky dude caught in the crossfire of Trump land vs. Dems hell bent on refusing to admit they lost the election by their own doing. And, I kinda get Republicans feeling that they deserve vindication of their claims the whole time.

That being said, don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the clarifications on this story from you guys. But I still find it difficult to care and I’d like to move on from what I feel was/is useless and petty stuff. None of this really helps one side or the other convince me that they will be able to move our country forward in the next 4 years in a direction I can agree with. On the contrary, it points more towards evidence that both parties are still very much at each other’s throats, unable to let go, will stop at nothing to win at all costs, and thus only confirms my expectations for this election that whoever wins, we can once again kiss goodbye to 4 years of meaningful compromise and legislation that solves the countries many gaping problems (healthcare, education, inequality, debt, entitlement reform, tax reform, environmental protection, economy, … take your pick). That worries me WAY more than trying to call a winner in the Flynn affair.

428

Bingo!

I have always found compromise with socialist/communists difficult . . . . no . . . . make that impossible!

429

What’s wrong with The Hill? It is notoriously one of the least biased sources around. Certainly less biased than Fox or CNN (not even gonna try to rate the Drudge report).

430

Probably worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the unmaskings took place PRIOR TO the pivotal Kislyak telephone call . . . which supposedly was the basis for this activity!! More lies.

In reality, what was happening was ongoing surveillance by Obama’s minions of the Trump transition team, in effort to derail the new administration before it ever had time to get off the ground.

Does anyone remember, very early in the Trump administration, the cornucopia of “leaks” designed to embarrass the new administration and Trump in particular? Trump could not talk to a foreign leader without the conversation being reported in either the NY Times or the WaPo. No POTUS can conduct business under those circumstances, and the many Obama holdovers still in their positions knew that very, very well. Again, continuation of Obama effort to harass, intimidate, and destroy if possible the new administration.

431

It has a notorious liberal bias.

432

I agree, along with all the pointed out remarks from shinobi. Biden is dems guy & he can’t remember… :sweat_smile:

433

Not anywhere I checked. (here or here or here)

If anything, some ratings place it leaning conservative rather than liberal. I think it’s pretty close to center myself but either way it’s close enough and avoids a lot of opinion pieces and sensationalism found in many other outlets.

Can you provide your source for media bias rating of The Hill? Or do you mean liberal biased with respect to your own allegedly unbiased news sources?

434

Not sure how asking someone about known information (and them then lying) is “entrapment”. I guess it’s only allowed to ask about things that can’t be verified in any manner, so that there’s no way to tell if the person is being truthful.

But then again it was Trump who fired Flynn specifically for lying, not the FBI…

435

No such thing exists. And to be clear I, too, read The Hill. I’m unaware of a truly unbiased news source today . . . things being so polarized. What I do is to monitor liberal sources, which are everywhere and easy to find, but also read and monitor conservative press viewpoints, which are less prominent and somewhat more difficult to locate. Then I decide for myself which side has it right.

In the present instance what was happening at the very end of the Obama administration could not be more clear. For doubters, the “get Trump” movement on the left has been ongoing ever since. It continues today apace.

436

I found this comment elsewhere:

Powell has a nuclear arsenal of legal precedent on her side. Not just DC Circuit Court Rules. Not just last week’s SCOTUS 9-0 decision on amicus curiae. Not just a giant pile of Brady evidence. She also has Sullivan on-record rejecting the very things he is now ordering.

And, she has this dandy from Judge Sullivan’s own lips, “It’s a very serious offense. … Arguably, this undermines everything this flag over here stands for! Arguably, you sold your country out!” Shortly after, he asked the Mueller team if they ever considered charging Flynn with “treason”.

Sullivan is in deep s**t. She is going to carve him up like a Christmas turkey and serve him to the Appellate Court and Supreme Court if necessary.

For anyone unaware, Sidney Powell is Flynn’s current counsel . . . . and she is legal dynomite!!

Also, on chance you might not know, that nine to zip SCOTUS ruling last week was written by none other than RBG!!! It’s all so tantalizingly juicy. :laughing:

437

The entrapment came when the FBI misreported on, heavily edited, and then subsequently “lost” their original interview notes about what Flynn said to make it look like he lied when he didn’t.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/497064-why-dismiss-the-flynn-case-because-the-fbi-cant-prove-it

the government’s entire case boils down to the testimony of two FBI agents: Peter Strzok, who was terminated for misconduct, and Joe Pientka, who appears to have been the case-agent on the Trump-Russia investigation and to have played a significant role in serial misrepresentations made to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The FBI does not electronically record most interviews. There is no tape or transcript of Flynn’s actual words. The government’s entire case would consist of Strzok’s and Pientka’s testimony about what Flynn said.

As for the legal case against him, here’s his lawyer’s recap and rebuttal to Obama’s recent comments about how lying should be prosecuted. Pretty rich given all the perjury that had been going on among the last administration’s officials (and wasn’t, as yet, prosecuted),

https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Obama-Memo-Edits-NEW-FINAL.pdf

1 Like
438