90 Miles From Tyranny

Friday, November 22, 2019

He Ain't Gonna Let You Cross That Street...

Trucks Don't Take Corners So Well.....

Looks Like She Changed Her Mind Too Late...

This Is What Happens When You Forget To Secure Your Stripper Pole...

When You Get WAY Too Carried Away At The Dance Club...

Graphic: Female Suicide Bomber Explodes Bomb Inside Office...

They Could Never Do This Commercial Today!!

Vorpal Rabbit Vs. Headbutt Goat

..And This Little Piggy Went Weee Weee Weee

When The Bottle Hits You!

Animated Gif Collection #15

How Republicans Won Phase One Of Impeachment

The first phase of impeachment did not go well for Democrats. It needed to be a time when support for the inquiry and impeachment grew. Instead, it shrank.

With the likely conclusion of Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment proceedings, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at how things went for the majority Democrats and minority Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Democrats ideally would have started their inquiry with credible bipartisan support and run things in such a way that public opinion developed in their favor. Public opinion would build pressure on Republican members toward an impeachment vote that had even stronger bipartisan credibility.

That did not come even close to happening. To begin with, not only was the vote to begin proceedings not bipartisan, there was bipartisan opposition to it. Polling initially looked promising for impeachment, with media outlets attempting to claim significant bipartisan support for inquiry and removal, but then the polling moved in the wrong direction for Democrats.

Emerson polling showed that support for impeachment flipped since October from 48 percent support with 44 percent opposing to now 45 percent opposed and 43 percent in support. Among key independents, the switch was even more pronounced. In October, 48 percent supported impeaching President Donald Trump, with 39 percent opposed. Now, 49 percent of independents oppose impeachment, while only 34 percent support it.

A new Marquette University Law School poll found that 40 percent of registered voters in the swing state of Wisconsin think that Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 53 percent do not think so. Another 6 percent weren’t sure.

A new Gallup poll shows that Trump’s approval has ticked up two points since the impeachment drama began, with 50 percent of Americans opposed to it and 48 percent in support. Henry Olsen notes that Gallup polls all adults, not just registered voters, meaning that a poll of registered voters would have Trump’s job approval even higher and impeachment opposed by closer to a 52-46 margin.

And not only are no Republicans expected to join with Democrats in an eventual impeachment vote, some members expect the bipartisan consensus against it to grow.

Republicans, by contrast, needed to aim for bipartisan opposition to the impeachment proceedings, keep their members in line, make the case that the impeachment proceedings lacked fairness, and that concern about Ukrainian corruption was legitimate. They managed to do all that.

Here’s why things went well for Republicans in phase one of impeachment.
It was completely unclear what crime, much less what high crime, Trump was accused of committing.

Before we get to the politics and how they were played by Republicans and Democrats, it should be noted that President Donald Trump has not been credibly accused of committing any crime, much less a high crime or misdemeanor. It’s almost shocking that Trump, of all people, keeps managing to do well on this score. Yet, as with the Russia collusion hoax, in which he was accused of being a traitor to his country, the lack of evidence for the charges against him is...

Fiona Hill Testifies that Obama Was Putin's Puppet

While the fake news media are trying to convince you that Trump investigating the obvious and blatant corruption of the Biden family in Ukraine is a crime, one of their witnesses declared that Obama danced to Putin's tune.

Fiona Hill testified that Obama refused to give military aid to Ukraine despite the fact that the "interagency" — the unelected wonks like Vindman who think they not Trump should run foreign policy — said that the U.S. should provide weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves against the Russian invasion.

Hill testified that Obama refused to provide lethal aid to Ukraine so as to not upset Putin.

That's pretty clear evidence that Obama, not Trump, was in Putin's pocket.

Hill's testimony also creates problems for the Democrats' impeachment narrative.

After all, the elite policy wonks said the U.S. should arm Ukraine to help defeat Russia's invasion, but Obama said he wouldn't because that would make Putin mad. Given that the Democrats are saying in the impeachment hearings that Trump temporarily not following the "guidance" of the interagency is an impeachable offense, clearly, Obama's permanent rejection of the interagency guidance must also be a crime.

What Republicans are doing is using the impeachment farce to shine a light on the many failings of the Democrats that the fake news media will never cover, including how the Democrats, not Republicans, have always been on Russia's side.

To see who was really putting America first, we can compare Obama's deference to Putin to Trump's actions that have gone directly against Putin's interest, such as provided weapons to Ukraine. Trump held the military aid up for a short time only because of his concerns about corruption and the fact the Europeans should be providing more aid to Ukraine. Unlike Obama Trump did what Putin didn't want done and what the interagency wanted done.

But that's not the only evidence we have that Obama was dancing to Putin's tune.

In March 2012 Obama told Russian president Dimitry Medvedev the following: "On all these issues, particularly on missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space[.]"

Putin did give Obama space and didn't act aggressively during the 2012 campaign, which is why Obama was able to mock Mitt Romney for Romney's concern about Russian aggression.

Why did Putin agree? Because Obama also told Medvedev this: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

That's far from the only example of Obama doing Putin's bidding for political gain. Here's a few things that Obama did that really helped Putin:

1. Obama "reset" our relationship with Russia even though Russia continued to hold pieces of the country of Georgia that they had taken by force.

2. Obama let a Russian company get control of 20% of U.S. uranium reserves.

3. Obama canceled a missile defense system for Europe, which was designed to prevent Iran from being able to blackmail the E.U. because Putin didn't like it.

4. Obama set up a deal with Iran, a Russian client in the Middle East, so that Iran would be able to develop nuclear weapons once Obama was out of office.

5. When the Russian client running Syria used chemical weapons against civilians, Obama did nothing despite having proclaimed that to be a red line. Instead, he turned the problem over to the Russians, who we now know allowed their client to retain some chemical weapons.

Compare that to how Trump's been treating Putin:

1. Got Germany to cancel a massive natural gas deal with Russia which cost Putin billions.2. Got NATO to significantly increase defense spending.3. Increased sanctions on Iran to get them to stop nuclear weapon development.4. Bombed the Russian client's air base in Syria in response to the Syrian government using chemical weapons against civilians.5. Significantly increased U.S. defense spending.6. Provided lethal aid to the Ukrainians to help them fight off the Russian invasion.7. Has told Russia to get its troops out of Venezuela.8. Has increased sanctions on Russian entities.

This part of an interesting pattern where Democrats accuse Trump of crimes that he isn't committing but Democrats are. Examples include the following:

Accusing Trump of "bribing" Ukraine when in fact that's what Biden did.
Accusing Trump of going easy on Putin when in fact that's what Obama did.
Accusing Trump of putting kids in cages when in fact that's what Obama did.
Accusing Trump of financial crimes and profiting from his office when in fact that's what Hillary did.
Accusing Trump of being racist when it's the Democrats who ignore the mass shooting of blacks in Chicago and deny black kids decent educations.

The reality is simple: the whole story that Trump and Republicans are soft on the Russians is a big lie. Since back in the old days, when leftists supported Hitler because he was allied with Russia, 'til the present, leftists have always supported...

Read more: HERE

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #12

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #11

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #10

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #9

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #8

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #7

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #6

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #5

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #4

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #3

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #2

Leftist Narrative Destruction Picture Of The Day #1

Durham Probe Expands to Pentagon Office That Contracted FBI Spy Stephan Halper

Justice Department prosecutor U.S. Attorney John Durham is questioning personnel connected to the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, which awarded multiple contracts to FBI informant Stephan Halper. Halper, who was informing the bureau on Trump campaign advisors, is a central figure in the FBI’s original investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, SaraACarter.com has learned.

These latest developments reveal the expansive nature of what is now a Justice Department criminal probe into the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign. The revelation also comes on the heels of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report regarding the bureau’s investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, announced to Fox News’ Sean Hannity Wednesday night the lengthy investigative report will be released to the public on Dec., 9.

DOJ Attorney General William Barr, who appointed Durham, is conducting a separate investigation alongside Horowitz’s probe. Both investigations are examining how U.S. intelligence agencies began investigating now debunked ties between Russia and Trump campaign personnel in the 2016 presidential election.

Multiple sources confirmed to this news site that Durham has spoken extensively with sources working in the Office of Net Assessment, as well as outside contractors, that were paid through Pentagon office.

Department of Justice officials declined to comment on Durham’s probe.

In 2016, Halper was an integral part of the FBI’s investigation into short-term Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page and George Papadopolous. Halper first made contact with Page at his seminar in July 2016. Page, who was already on the FBI’s radar, was accused at the time of being sympathetic to Russia. Halper stayed in contact with Page until...

#donaldtrumpjr

Memo Given To Fusion GPS Described Ukrainian Lawmaker As Potential ‘Conduit’ For Publicizing Information

A memo given to Fusion GPS in May 2016 includes information from Serhiy Leshchenko, a former journalist and Ukrainian lawmaker.
The memo could shed light on Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr’s testimony where she said Leshchenko was a source for Fusion, which is best known for its work on the Steele dossier.
The author of the memo suggested Leshchenko could be used as a “conduit” to publicize information about Paul Manafort.
Leshchenko, who has denied being a witting source for Fusion GPS, is best known for his role in publicizing the “black ledger,” which purported to show illicit payments from Ukrainians to Paul Manafort.

A May 2016 memo provided to Fusion GPS could help settle an enduring mystery about how a Ukrainian lawmaker served as a source for the opposition research firm, which investigated Donald Trump and his campaign on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

The memo, which the Daily Caller News Foundation obtained earlier in 2019, cited information from multiple Ukrainian sources regarding Paul Manafort, the now-former Trump campaign chairman. One of the sources named in the document is Serhiy Leshchenko, a former Ukrainian journalist who served in 2016 as a member of the Rada, Ukraine’s parliament.

The memo’s author described meeting with Leshchenko, and suggested he could be used as a potential conduit to publicize information about Manafort.

“It should be noted that Leshchenko regularly advocates on anti-corruption matters and cooperates with various [non-governmental organizations] to that end, so he could potentially be a good conduit for publicizing information,” reads the memo, which was drafted May 12, 2016.

The author also suggested the “potential dissemination of ...

This information was leaked to CNN by an entity that is intentionally trying to diminish the December 9th release of the SHOCKING FISA Abuse Report.

An FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation for allegedly altering a document related to the surveillance of onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The lower-level line attorney, who is no longer with the bureau, is being scrutinized by U.S. Attorney John Durham as part of his criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, according to CNN.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz uncovered the document as part of his investigation into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses, which concluded in September, and has been in contact with Durham. The Connecticut-based prosecutor's administrative review, overseen by Attorney General William Barr, turned into a criminal investigation this fall, giving Durham the power to impanel a grand jury and hand down indictments.

No charges relevant to the situation appear to have been filed in court. A Justice Department representative did not immediately return a request for comment.

Horowitz's team interviewed the FBI official, who admitted to making a change to the document. Unclear is how much sway the document had in the FBI's effort to obtain warrants approved by the FISA Court to electronically surveil Page, but the change to the document was substantive enough to twist its meaning.

"If there was an FBI agent sworn to uphold the Constitution who can be proven to have altered the document in connection with a legal proceeding, including the obtaining of a FISA warrant, that's really serious. It doesn't get a lot more serious than that," former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Thursday evening on CNN.

Horowitz confirmed Thursday that he expects his FISA report to be released to the public on Dec 9. He has also predicted minimal redactions after a classification review and final session for witnesses to provide feedback.

Republicans believe Horowitz's report will reveal an effort to undermine President Trump's 2016 campaign in which the FBI misled the FISA Court in its reliance on an unverified dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, whose research about Trump and his associates was partially funded by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins Coie law firm. Some have even predicted indictments and prison time for officials who signed off on the warrants.

Democrats, as well as current and former FBI officials, have dismissed allegations of wrongdoing and have raised concerns that information about U.S. intelligence-gathering could be leveraged to discredit...