|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 8, 2022 19:04:33 GMT
1-8-2022
In other words mostly red states. And no I have no problem with it. It’s the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 9, 2022 15:22:25 GMT
1-9-2022…
I listen to him spin and all I want to do is scream.
I’m so tired of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 9, 2022 15:24:02 GMT
Why are the Democrats not pushing back on Republicans for trying to rewrite history?
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 9, 2022 15:25:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 9, 2022 16:02:05 GMT
Apparently there is some question of whether Nancy Pelosi could have called the National Guard.
So instead of focusing on the fact a group of trump supporters after a rally where trump ginned these supporters up enough they attacked the Capital with the goal of stopping the certification of a legal election the Republicans are trying to blame Nancy Pelosi.
That just shows you how screwed up the Republican Party and people who continue to vote for them has become.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 9, 2022 16:05:23 GMT
For what exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 9, 2022 17:07:21 GMT
He would have a royal meltdown screaming for these “terrorist” be thrown into jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 9, 2022 22:33:10 GMT
Paul Manafort wrote a book. But what he is ignoring is he had his day in court and with a jury of his peers and he was found guilty multiple times.
“A riveting account of the HOAX that sent a presidential campaign chairman to solitary confinement because he wouldn’t turn against the President of the United States.
The chief weapon deployed by the government-corporate-media Establishment against the Trump presidency was propaganda. Time and again, allegations from anonymous sources were disseminated by a partisan media, promoted by a dishonest Democrat Party leadership, and ultimately debunked when the facts surfaced. But by the time the truth came out, it was too late. There had already been casualties.
One of the highest profile casualties was Paul Manafort.
Desperate to defeat Donald Trump—or hamper his presidency after he won—Democrats and their Establishment allies colluded with foreign operatives to concoct a completely false narrative about Paul’s supposed conspiracy with pro-Russian elements in Ukraine to further Vladimir Putin’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. But it wasn’t just defamation of Paul’s character. They took the unprecedented step of enlisting the US intelligence and law enforcement communities in using their power against President Trump and his campaign team.
Political Prisoner finally exposes the lies left unchallenged by media who pronounced Paul guilty long before his case ever saw the inside of a courtroom. Not only is it untrue that Victor Yanukovych or any of Paul’s clients were “pro-Putin,” it is the opposite of the truth. Paul’s work in Ukraine and throughout his career was 100 percent aligned with US interests in the countries he worked in, sometimes even acting as a back channel for the White House itself.
Neither was Paul guilty of laundering money, evading taxes, or deliberately deceiving the US government by failing to register as a foreign agent—which he wasn’t. These were all politically motivated charges manufactured by the Special Counsel’s team for one reason and one reason only: to get Paul to testify against Donald Trump about a conspiracy that never existed. When they hear the basis of these spurious charges, Americans will wonder what country they are living in and what has happened to our system of justice.
Political Prisoner tells the real story of Paul’s life and career, exploding the lies about his work in Ukraine, his previous work with foreign governments and business interests in other countries, his involvement with the Trump campaign, and the “process crimes” for which he was wrongly convicted and sent to prison. It is no exaggeration to say that everything most Americans think they know about Paul Manafort is false.”
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 9, 2022 22:51:19 GMT
Funny, even a one of former's supporters on the jury found the evidence overwhelming against Manafort and found him guilty!!
Um, wasn't Manafort charged and prosecuted under the former administration?...
You bet he was!!
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 9, 2022 23:16:26 GMT
Another Black man shot by cop, with witnesses... Witness disputes North Carolina cop's claim man 'jumped' in front of his car and he had to shoot: 'I saw everything'Sarah K. Burris January 09, 2022 *** Those who saw the incident happen, however, allege that the cop hit 37-year-old Walker with his truck and then jumped from the truck and shot the man. A graphic video (below) of the aftermath has been posted to Twitter with witnesses telling the story of what they witnessed. *** Bystander Elizabeth Ricks, who was also present after the incident, got out of her car to try and apply pressure to Walker's wounds to save him, said Keenan Willard of WRAL News. According to Willard's tweets, Ricks said that the cop who shot Walker didn't many any effort to help or render aid. She said that instead, he was "calling his boss" with the sheriff's office. *** The shots did not go through the windshield," officers also said. That would confirm witnesses saying that the deputy hit Walker first with his truck, got out of the car and then shot him in the back. (Note the crowd that is NOT hostile or loud. Note also how the police (one in white shirt) only checked victim for a few seconds otherwise the victim was only attended by a woman)
UPDATED:press conference by Chief of police What has been found thus far is that the sensors in the deputy's truck that serve as a kind of "black box" for vehicles didn't indicate any collision of any kind. Chief Hawkins corrected the myth that the deputy was not immediately taken into custody and questioned. She said that he was absolutely taken into custody, but he was not arrested. She also said that the story doesn't match the eye-witness testimony. *** "So, the question of, was he struck by a vehicle," Hawkins began. "The witness said that he was not struck by a vehicle." *** There was a windshield wiper that was torn off, the chief said. There was also damage to the window. The "black box" in the truck showed that there was no collision. It's unclear if the truck had any kind of front-mounted radar system that would detect any such collision and avoid it or if it senses impacts. *** The story appears to be that Walker may have done something to the deputy's truck and that the deputy reacted by shooting Walker. *** www.rawstory.com/jason-walker-police-chief-findings/www.wral.com/fayetteville-police-cumberland-county-district-attorney-hold-press-conference-on-fatal-shooting-involving-cumberland-county-depu/20070572/ |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 9, 2022 23:30:12 GMT
Ain’t that the truth..
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 9, 2022 23:33:06 GMT
Now this is funny…
|
|
Gem Girl
Pearl Clutcher
......
Posts: 2,686
Jun 29, 2014 19:29:52 GMT
|
Post by Gem Girl on Jan 10, 2022 0:16:21 GMT
"The chief weapon deployed by the government-corporate-media Establishment against the Trump presidency was propaganda." from Paul Manafort?! Snort.
This is coming from the hired flunky of someone whose entire candidacy was predicated on being a "reality TV star" based on his having been a bogus "successful businessman." Many of us could create real, contributing, and actually successful businesses with what the D got handed to him.
He's also working from TFG's playbook of victimhood, despite their wealth & privilege. My violin could not be smaller.
Delusion is, apparently, highly infectious.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 10, 2022 16:33:47 GMT
1-10-2022
Definition of morally bankrupt
: having or acting as if having no morals
a morally bankrupt politician
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 10, 2022 16:36:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 10, 2022 16:37:40 GMT
And he groveled with his 'apology' to Carlson...
Not much different with his fealty to former after former made disparaging remarkes about his wife and father!!
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 10, 2022 17:49:24 GMT
Hope they succeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 10, 2022 18:56:12 GMT
Specifically :
The 1868 amendment says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 10, 2022 19:51:55 GMT
Here is what one former First Lady is doing….
And what another Former First Lady is doing. Selling what she calls an “iconic” hat were “some” of the proceeds will go to a charity. We all know how the trump family views charities….
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 10, 2022 21:09:17 GMT
He’s hiding something…
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 10, 2022 21:39:16 GMT
I knew who before the tweet loaded.
But as regular readers know, Jordan said he was unconcerned about the scrutiny. "If they call me, I got nothing to hide," the far-right lawmaker said in July. In October, during a House Rules Committee hearing, the Ohioan echoed the sentiment, insisting, "I've said all along, 'I have nothing to hide.'"
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 10, 2022 21:54:27 GMT
From the attachment…
Under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known as the Disqualification Clause, “No Person shall be a . . . Representative in Congress . . . who, having previously taken an oath, as a member
of Congress . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
4. Persons who trigger this constitutional provision are disqualified from congressional office, just as persons who fail to meet the age, citizenship, and residency requirements of Article I, section 2 of the Constitution are disqualified from congressional office. “The oath to support the Constitution is the test. The idea being that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again, until relieved by Congress.” Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N.C. 199, 204 (1869). Consequently, such persons “do[] not meet the constitutional . . . qualifications for the office” under N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-127.2(b).
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 10, 2022 22:02:18 GMT
Can we take them all down?
Probably too short on time ☹️
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 11, 2022 0:22:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 11, 2022 0:35:47 GMT
Jamie Raskin throws Jim Jordan's words from Benghazi back in his face for Jan. 6 investigation Sarah K. Burris January 10, 2022 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) was complying with requests from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack until former President Donald Trump told him to stop, Punchbowl News reported Monday. But Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the committee, told Jordan that he should refer back to his own words during one of the many Benghazi hearings his party held last decade. "To answer Jim Jordan, I would quote Jim Jordan from the views that he expressed in the final Benghazi report, where he said that all of the truth must come out," said Raskin. "Everybody needs to testify, and nobody's got the right to hide anything from Congress. So, I think he had it right then. Jim Jordan, more than anybody else, knows what dogged, aggressive investigation is about, even when he's on a wild goose chase, he demands all the information he wants, and we're not on that. We are on the central investigative mission certainly of this decade, if not this century, to get to the bottom of this terrible political crime that was incited and to a substantial extent organized by Donald Trump." "Article I of the Constitution gives each House of Congress the right to set the rules of its own proceedings," Raskin explained. "We are also -- have disciplinary power over members, including the power of censure, admonishment, all the way to expulsion from the body and the speech and debate clause says members of Congress should not be questioned for their legislative work and judgments outside of congress, clearly implying they can be questioned inside of Congress. And, of course, that's a habitual occurrence with the Ethics Committee where we call people all the time so there's nothing remotely extraordinary about the idea that we can call and demand the presence of members." He went on to say that the implication that the investigation isn't legitimate "was soundly, thoroughly repudiated by the D.C. Circuit." If Congress doesn't have the power to research the attack on Congress "then there are no legitimate legislative purposes. So, we've got to put that lie to bed immediately." www.rawstory.com/jamie-raskin-warns-jim-jordan/ |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 11, 2022 1:57:26 GMT
I think the same could be said of the 25th amendment. I can't think of a better case than Trump after Jan 6. He was unhinged to the point Mark Milley was worried about what he might do. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 11, 2022 2:09:33 GMT
Amendments 14 and 25 are very drastic actions...
It is truly amazing how much is included in the Constitution.. the for thought involved...
Unfortunately some urgent content is not included.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 11, 2022 2:09:46 GMT
These guys are unbelievable….
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 11, 2022 2:36:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 11, 2022 2:38:43 GMT
Jamie Raskin throws Jim Jordan's words from Benghazi back in his face for Jan. 6 investigation Sarah K. Burris January 10, 2022 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) was complying with requests from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack until former President Donald Trump told him to stop, Punchbowl News reported Monday. But Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the committee, told Jordan that he should refer back to his own words during one of the many Benghazi hearings his party held last decade. "To answer Jim Jordan, I would quote Jim Jordan from the views that he expressed in the final Benghazi report, where he said that all of the truth must come out," said Raskin. "Everybody needs to testify, and nobody's got the right to hide anything from Congress. So, I think he had it right then. Jim Jordan, more than anybody else, knows what dogged, aggressive investigation is about, even when he's on a wild goose chase, he demands all the information he wants, and we're not on that. We are on the central investigative mission certainly of this decade, if not this century, to get to the bottom of this terrible political crime that was incited and to a substantial extent organized by Donald Trump." "Article I of the Constitution gives each House of Congress the right to set the rules of its own proceedings," Raskin explained. "We are also -- have disciplinary power over members, including the power of censure, admonishment, all the way to expulsion from the body and the speech and debate clause says members of Congress should not be questioned for their legislative work and judgments outside of congress, clearly implying they can be questioned inside of Congress. And, of course, that's a habitual occurrence with the Ethics Committee where we call people all the time so there's nothing remotely extraordinary about the idea that we can call and demand the presence of members." He went on to say that the implication that the investigation isn't legitimate "was soundly, thoroughly repudiated by the D.C. Circuit." If Congress doesn't have the power to research the attack on Congress "then there are no legitimate legislative purposes. So, we've got to put that lie to bed immediately." www.rawstory.com/jamie-raskin-warns-jim-jordan/Jamie Raskin is just the best. I hope that they put a lot of pressure on Jordan. |
|
