breadcrumb Willy3411 Blog

MSNBC Has Jerry Springer On To Blame Trump For Lack Of Civility

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.
On today’s podcast we talk about how the Democrats and the media are manipulating the coverage of the transcripts being released this week. Also, MSNBC had on Jerry Springer to talk about how President Trump is damaging civility in the country, ABC News is hot on the trail of whoever leaked the video of one of their reporters complaining they’d spiked a story on Jeffrey Epstein, the 7-year-old boy whose mother insisted he was a trans-girl chooses to live as a boy, and religious liberty is under attack again from the left.


MSNBC had the king of sleaze TV on to blame Donald Trump for the lack of civility in society and politics. It was possibly the least self-aware moment in the history of television. We have the unbelievable audio.

Listen to the show:

Post Comment

SCOOP: CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears

The Federalist has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this conclusion.

Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case.

In last week’s court filing, Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment.

Powell wrote:

Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense.


Full story:

Post Comment

Dems' impeachment vote puts them in big trouble

Yesterday's partisan House vote to advance the impeachment process is a double-edged sword for Democrats.
Since his surprise election in November 2016, Washington insiders have tried to drive the duly elected president out of office. First, it was based on a connection with Trump business interests and Russia. We endured nearly two years of lawyers amassing testimony and hearing from various witnesses. Americans footed a $40-million tab. There were no charges, and the process turned out to be a turd.
Then Democrats in Congress moved to the president's business interests. Reveal your tax returns. Give us your financial data, has been the cry by partisans. That issue is being resolved in the courts and may not be settled until after the next presidential election. No tab has been placed on this inquiry.
Now we are on to the famous Ukraine phone call. The president is accused of "quid pro quo," asking that the government investigate potential corruption charges against a potential political opponent's son, who may have been benefited financially when Biden was vice president. Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 monthly to sit on a Ukrainian company with no energy experience. His only experience was being the vice president's son. No average American would be even be considered for a position like this. Charges have been made on other potential "sweet deals" in other nations.
President Trump released a transcript of the conversation to clarify an unnamed "whistleblower's" complaint. There was no "quid pro quo" during the call. Ukraine received its aid; no Ukraine inquiry has been opened on the Biden family. But House Democrats won't let it go.

Congressman Adam Schiff, the pit bull for the partisan effort, lied about not knowing about the whistleblower. Apparently, his staff and partisan Democrat lawyers helped draft the complaint. Oh, the whistleblower wasn't actually on the call. He only heard another person's memory of it. Schiff is now holding secret hearings to find disgruntled federal employees who do not share President Trump's politics to give their opinion of the conversation.
It turns out that the whistleblower is a partisan Democrat who was fired from the White House for leaking information to the media. The more we know and the more that is made public, the more frustrated House Democrats must feel.
Meanwhile, President Trump did nothing inappropriate. The committee has apparently over 90 hours of transcript that has not been released to the public. This star chamber has become the star chamber of the century. Rep. Schiff appears to be coaching witnesses and keeps Republicans from asking legitimate questions.
This sham process will not prevail. Before the impeachment vote, media pundits predicted Republican support. In fact, there was only bipartisan opposition to the process. The legislation gives Schiff a "veto" over what is released, what questions can be answered or not, and who can be called to testify. Joe McCarthy would be proud of the majority.
You may not want President Trump as a neighbor or friend. You might not like this personal style. But he is president of the United States. He deserves the same attribute we hold for those seeking justice in criminal matters: innocent until proven guilty through a process to protect the rights of the innocent.

Post Comment

Impeachment Is Nothing But Throwing More Dirt And Hoping Some Will Stick

The process the Democrats have employed to gin up support for impeaching President Donald Trump has been almost as long as Chairman Mao’s long march. It has also been tragically absurdist. It is filled with twists and turns as the Democrats slog through the muck they have raked up in their attempt to obviate the 2016 presidential election by overthrowing the will of the American voter and throwing out President Trump.

Their march commenced with Trump’s historic election in November 2016, which prompted a Texas Democrat to announce his intention to introduce Articles of Impeachment within months of President Trump assuming office.


Democrats have tossed every piece of dirt and dung at the president hoping that something would stick. Well, nothing has. People who just throw anything in the air end up covered with the stuff they are tossing. In other words, if you ever want to know what the Democrats are doing, just observe what they are accusing everyone else of doing.

The Russia Accusations Were Proven False
Take Hillary Clinton. She was so devastated by her loss to President Trump that she joined others to claim the Trump campaign had “colluded” with the Russians to affect the outcome of the election. After 22 months of the Robert Mueller investigation, even his team of politically biased investigators concluded that there had been no “collusion,” conspiracy, coordination, or cooperation.

But we did find the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee had engaged an opposition research firm with ties to Russia and the United Kingdom to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump. The now-infamous Steele dossier was created out of whole cloth using those foreign sources to simply make up some of the most outrageous lies against Trump in the history of American politics.

And now Nancy Pelosi, who had attempted to slow down Democrats’ impeachment fantasies, has yielded to the pressure of her radical colleagues. She has spread this unauthorized “impeachment inquiry” among six different House Committees, ostensibly freezing out House Judiciary because Chairman Jerrold Nadler continues to embarrass Democrats with his pronouncements and ineffective hearings that have brought their less-than-stealthy intention to impeach President Trump to public disapprobation.


That leads us to the process Speaker Pelosi now wishes to employ—a process that betrays the precedent for these proceedings. Pelosi has gotten caught up in Trump Derangement Syndrome. During the Nixon and Clinton proceedings, the attorneys for those presidents could represent their clients, and in some cases, they were allowed to question witnesses. Not so in the 2019 political attack by Democrats.

Impeachment is “somber,” Pelosi says. If she truly believed that, then why would she select one of the most-virulent Trump attackers to lead the investigation? Of course, impeachment is a partisan process, but in the Nixon and Clinton cases there was overwhelming, bipartisan support for the investigations, confirmed by a vote of the full House to authorize them. Why so different now?

Because, in the aforementioned cases, there were allegations that many believed were, or easily could be, substantiated. Further, in the earlier proceedings, each side believed the rules of impeachment would be followed, but we haven’t even voted on such rules in President Trump’s case. And as I mentioned earlier, Democrats have hyped impeachment of Donald J. Trump since Election Day 2016.

Full story:
Post Comment

Senate Should Launch ‘Nuclear Option’ And Dismiss Impeachment Charges

Appearing on Thursday night’s edition of “Hannity” on Fox News, Levin broke down California Rep. Adam Schiff’s prior knowledge about the whistleblower complaint, contending that he likely revealed it only to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“How do I know that?” he asked rhetorically. “Because she goes to the podium like Eva Perrone and she declares — now we’re gonna have an official impeachment inquiry without the transcript. How did she know? Because Schiff tipped her off about what what was in this complaint.”

After continuing to criticize the complaint, Levin turned his attention to the Senate, which he contended was not Constitutionally bound to take up an impeachment trial.

Citing a “responsibility to protect the Constitution and protect this country and protect the office of the presidency,” Levin said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should “launch a nuclear option.”

What am I talking about? Mitch McConnell was on TV saying, ’67 votes to change the rules.’ They changed the rules when it came to the courts and they can change the rules here. Simple majority with a nuclear option allows the Senate to dismiss those charges … as soon as they come to the Senate.

The weekend Fox News host insisted the current impeachment inquiry isn’t a “House impeachment inquiry,” but rather is a “Democratic Party impeachment inquiry.”

“Only the Senate has the power to police what the House Democrats are doing, and they should not participate in this!” Levin exclaimed. “It is not a House impeachment inquiry. There was no vote. It’s the Democratic Party’s abuse of power. The Senate is not Constitutionally required to hold a trial. It should in most cases, but in this case it should dismiss what is an absolutely defective, what will be bunch of charges. Nancy Pelosi has intentionally prevented the Republicans from issuing subpoenas in this process. They are supposed to be able to. They must not allow her to prevail in her unconstitutional lawlessness! Senate, you better damn well step up.”

McConnell has said that he would have “no choice” but to continue proceedings in the Senate should the House vote to impeach the president.



Post Comment

Trump's Syria pullout lured the big ISIS rat out of his hole and ... boom!

In some cheering weekend news, ISIS's big terrorist chieftain, founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was rendered into that proverbial grease spot on the desert floor. He won't be missed.

It's a victory comparable to the military rubout of al-Qaida founder, Osama bin Laden. According to NBC News:

The world’s most wanted terrorist, Islamic State group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was the target of a deadly U.S.-led raid in northwestern Syria, sources told NBC News early Sunday.

Forensic testing is underway, but officials believe al-Baghdadi is among the dead, the sources said.

A U.S. Special Ops mission targeted the ISIS leader near Barisha, Syria, overnight. The mission included helicopters, jets and U.S. drones, the sources said.
The U.S. fired from the air and then landed and gathered intelligence, the sources said. Several others were also killed in a convoy. There were no reports of U.S. casualties.


So much for all that "expert" opinion in the last few weeks in the mainstream media that President Trump's pullout of U.S. troops from Syria would inevitably bring the recrudescence of ISIS. Even Saturday Night Live mocked that one, and on the night of the rubout, that didn't age well from even the first minute.

Trump has just shown that it's not always necessary to stage troops on foreign land to be effective.

In reality, the ISIS leadership just got decapitated, something that's going to have an impact on global terrorist operations. They just lost their big fish.

It almost makes one wonder if the terrorists themselves were fooled by the media/expert naysaying.

The terrorists, who are known to be voracious watchers of CNN and other mainstream news, decided that Trump was a wimp, a pacifist, a non-fighter for pulling U.S. troops out; Trump wouldn't fight them, they thought, leaving them with a field day. The coast was clear and it didn't take long before they popped out of their holes.

Boom. That was a mistake.

Such was the suggested thinking of one military expert featured on Fox News, (hat tip: Roger Luchs, who also helpfully sent us the link), clear enough for even a baby to understand.

Seems Trump had them covered all along and chose the just-right moment to lure them out of their rats nests, blowing them to hell.

And leaving egg all over the faces of the so-called experts.

With pacifists like this, who needs warmongers?

Here's a pretty good tweet to sum it all up:

Bill Mitchell
Isn't it weird that things always turn out so well for a president who has "no idea what he is doing" but the self-proclaimed "smart people" get everything wrong constantly?

3:49 AM - 27 Oct 2019

Post Comment

Pelosi’s deceptive ‘impeachment vote’

Speaker Pelosi is playing word games, trying to pull a fast one on the Republicans, the American people, and the Constitution by appearing to “authorize” a formal impeachment inquiry, while not actually passing an impeachment resolution that would trigger rights for Republican House members to call witnesses and issue subpoenas.

That is why, when ambushed by NBC News, she was careful to make a distinction and say “It is not an impeachment resolution.” It was a walk-by comment:


Speaker Pelosi is holding a vote, a resolution, to affirm her previous declaration of a House “inquiry”…. Pelosi is not delivering a House “Resolution on Impeachment” for a vote, because if she did hold a vote on an impeachment resolution, the minority and the Executive branch would gain rights therein.

Note that the final wording of the resolution is not yet available, and Sundance believes that the Lawfare Group, based at the tax-exempt Brookings Institution, is carefully wording the exact measure to be up for a vote on Thursday.

The rules for an “impeachment investigation” would provide rights for the minority and also rights for the Executive branch.

So instead of having a House vote to authorize an impeachment investigation, with subsequent rights for the minority; they are having a House vote to affirm the “impeachment inquiry” with an entirely different set of House rules that do not include rights for the minority.

Nice trick huh?

The question becomes: Why is Pelosi calling a vote now? Some analysts, such as law professor Ann Althouse, believe that Pelosi may want to end the impeachment campaign, and hopes for enough no votes from members elected in districts that voted for Trump that she can all off the quest and avoid further damage.



Read more:
Post Comment

This is a list of Willy3411's Blogs. Click here for Willy3411's Blog List

We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here