Leftist Media Is Simply Propaganda.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
The Walls are Closing In — but Not on Trump
Democrats and their media propaganda arm have been telling us since President Trump took office that “The walls are closing in.” First it was the Mueller investigation, then every fake news story from the media, from Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen being in Prague to Don Jr. calling his father about the Trump Tower entrapment meeting with some Russians.
Every “bombshell” revelation about Stormy Daniels or Omarosa meant that “the walls are closing in.” Mueller’s report, despite the best efforts of Andrew Weissman and his merry band of partisans, was a dud. As was the Ukraine phone call, with whistleblowers and Rep. Adam Schiff, perhaps one and the same, contradicted by the actual call transcript which Trump released.
For a humorous walk down memory lane, watch this YouTube montage of Democrat and #NeverTrump stooges telling their shrinking cable news audiences repeatedly that, “The walls are closing in” on President Trump.
Other oft-repeated phrases were, “This is the beginning of the end” and “It’s a tipping point” as this montage reminds us, with every bit of news described as “a bombshell.” It seems the entire U.S. media receives its talking points from a single source, as they all sound the same and use the exact same words or expressions. The original JournoList may be defunct, but media collusion is alive and well.
News this week suggests that the walls are indeed closing in, but not on President Trump. Instead it’s officials in the Obama administration, up to and including President Obama himself, who notice the size of their rooms beginning to shrink.
As many of us hoped, Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Russian collusion hoax is now a criminal investigation rather than simply an administrative inquiry. For those patiently, or impatiently, sitting through the calm before the storm, the storm has finally arrived.
This means that Lone Ranger Barr and his sidekick Tonto, U.S. Attorney John Durham, have enough suspicion that some individuals have broken the law to now shift the investigation into the realm of criminality. Durham now can issue subpoenas and impanel a grand jury. Indictments and prosecutions...
‘Consensus’ witness to testify but he worked against Trump in Ukraine
What he heard was the phone call for which we all have a transcript.
We have the transcript of the call he is referring to below, and there is no quid pro quo, but Army officer Alexander Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council, didn’t think it appropriate, nor did he like Rudy Giuliani’s role. Giuliani, as the President’s lawyer, was investigating the 2016 election, and the Bidens. Giuliani said the Bidens came up as part of the investigation into corruption in the 2016 election.
It’s 13 months before the election, and House Democrats want to take the next election out of Americans’ hands.
The President will have no rights during Vindman’s ‘depositions’ and will have no ability to question. The House Democrats have set themselves up as investigators, prosecutors, and jury.
The House Democrats get to release whatever they want and keep all other information from the public.
ESPIONAGE? HE WORKED AGAINST TRUMP IN UKRAINE
Laura Ingraham told a panel on her show last night that “buried in the New York Times piece tonight…I found it very interesting. He’s a decorated colonel, by the way, in the Iraq war. Because Col. Vindman immigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani though they typically communicated in English.”
“Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House, apparently against the president’s interest. And usually, they spoke in English.”
She found that interesting, but one panelist, law professor, and former DOJ attorney John Yoo said, “I find that astounding. Some people might call that espionage.”
That might be an exaggeration or not, but should Ms. Hill and Mr. Vindman been telling Ukrainians how to get around the President?
THE ARMY OFFICER WILL STATE IT WAS NOT “PROPER”
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”
Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden’s son served while his father was vice president.
“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump’s comments in the call.
The Times says, he will testify that he watched with alarm as “outside influencers” began pushing a “false narrative” about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests.
Consensus view??? Does that mean it can’t be investigated if there is a consensus?
According to documents reviewed by The Times on the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was leading an effort to...
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”
Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden’s son served while his father was vice president.
“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump’s comments in the call.
The Times says, he will testify that he watched with alarm as “outside influencers” began pushing a “false narrative” about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests.
Consensus view??? Does that mean it can’t be investigated if there is a consensus?
According to documents reviewed by The Times on the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was leading an effort to...
Let’s Talk About That Video Of The Gun-Shooting Killer Robot
Every time I’m posed with the question, “But why do you neeeeeeeed an AR-15″, I’m tempted to reply, “Because I need something to take on our future robot overlords.” I’m only half-joking, by the way. I can’t watch a video by Boston Dynamics without getting a sinking feeling in my gut that we’re actually engineering the objects of our own demise, so when a video popped up on YouTube over the weekend featuring a gun-toting robot that can stay on target even while taking a hockey stick to the back, I had to stop myself from proclaiming to the world, “See, I told you so!!” before I even watched the clip.
I’m glad I didn’t actually say anything, because the video actually features a clever bit of CGI instead of a real hunk of clanking metal. In fact, if you watch the entire segment, it quickly becomes apparent that either the robot is fake or the guys at “Bosstown Dynamics” are terrifyingly ignorant of proper range safety. Do watch the whole clip, which is pretty amusing and an incredible example of just how realistic CGI can be these days.
Over at Mediaite, Caleb Howe notes that an awful lot of folks did think the video was real, at least at first glance. I don’t blame them, frankly. Not only were the visual effects outstanding, the idea of a robot that can shoot guns doesn’t seem so far-fetched once you’ve seen a robot parkour, open a door, or even nimbly run under its own power. It’s only a matter of time before the robot in the video above isn’t just a creation of visual effects artists, but a real hunk of cold, unthinking, unfeeling, metal that will do the bidding of...
Over at Mediaite, Caleb Howe notes that an awful lot of folks did think the video was real, at least at first glance. I don’t blame them, frankly. Not only were the visual effects outstanding, the idea of a robot that can shoot guns doesn’t seem so far-fetched once you’ve seen a robot parkour, open a door, or even nimbly run under its own power. It’s only a matter of time before the robot in the video above isn’t just a creation of visual effects artists, but a real hunk of cold, unthinking, unfeeling, metal that will do the bidding of...
TWO ILLEGAL ALIENS AMBUSH, MURDER SHERIFF’S DEPUTY IN CALIFORNIA
El Dorado County Sheriff’s Deputy Brian Ishmael, 37, was slain early Wednesday morning in the community of Somerset. An off-duty sheriff’s deputy from San Joaquin County was doing a ride-along with Ishmael and was also shot.
The pair were responding to a 911 call reporting people stealing marijuana plants outside a private residence. But the caller, Christopher Ross, did not tell police that he had a business arrangement with the growers.
“Had he been truthful with our deputies and the 911 dispatcher, this tragedy would not have occurred,” El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini told reporters.
Ross, 47, is charged with involuntary manslaughter and remains incarcerated on $50,000 bail, jail records show.
When Ishmael and the off-duty deputy announced their presence at the back of the 75-plant growing operation, “they were immediately confronted with gunfire,” D’Agostini said.
Ishmael was struck once in the upper chest, above his bulletproof vest, and once in the foot, the sheriff said. The off-duty deputy, whose...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)