The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

ovember 9, 2019
Impeachment witness Fiona Hill blows Steele dossier out of the water
By Monica Showalter

Fiona Hill, President Trump's left-leaning former Russia advisor at the National Security Council, has pretty well blown the Steele dossier out of the water. According to the Daily Caller:
A former White House official who Democrats consider a key witness in their impeachment inquiry told lawmakers in October that she believed Russians likely planted disinformation about President Donald Trump with dossier author Christopher Steele.
Fiona Hill, who served as the White House’s top adviser on Russia affairs until July, told lawmakers she was “shocked” to find out that Steele, a former MI6 officer, was the author of the dossier. That’s in large part because when she had met with Steele in the years leading up to his dossier work, he was “constantly try to drum up business.”
Hill, who was deposed in the impeachment inquiry on Oct. 14, said Steele’s eagerness to obtain work made him vulnerable to Russian disinformation.
Click to expand...

It was always garbage and a good Russia expert such as herself could see it immediately.
It was a "rabbit hole." It was the sort of thing that the Russians liked to cook up. It was done to discredit President Trump because she knew they wanted to do that. And its purveyor, former British spy Christopher Steele, was just the right sort of dupe to get the ball rolling, Hill testified. She said as much back in September, too.
That's the takeaway from her deposition last October in her testimony to House impeachment inquiry chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, under questioning from Rep. Jim Jordan.

Same old Fiona Hill - not a liar or spinner, wise to the Russkis, and skeptical, as I argued here.
Which makes the people who were believers of the Steele dossier - from the partisan clowns at Buzzfeed to dishonest political schemers like James Comey, look like boobs.
It might just be that this element of the testimony is most valuable as the Horowitz report and the Durham investigation wrap up. Any experienced person who knows about Russia could see that the much-vaunted Steele dossier was a phony and not just phony, but a Russian bid to use a gullible, money-hungry dupe like Steele to get the problem out there.

Trump was as much a victim of Russia as supposedly Hillary Clinton was. This ought to shift the focus of the Schiff impeachment query but don't bet on it. It lays out th reality that Schiff may be revealed as a boob in his zeal to Get Trump, too, given all the nonsense he's desperately trying to string together just as the Russian hoax crowd (which included him) earlier did.
The full 426-page transcript is here. Here is the long, clunky passage:
MR. JORDAN: Dr. H'i11, was Christopher Steele's dossier a rabbi t hole?
DR. HILL: I thi nk i t was a rabbi t hole.
MR. JORDAN: You think the Russians were trying to influence us and get us to buy into something that was absolutely not true?
DR. HILL: But that was not on any basis once I got into the administration I didn't see that that was a rabbit hole that my former colleagues in the Natjonal Intelligence Council had gone down to. The way that the Russians operate is that they will use whatever conduit they can to put out information that is both real and credible but that also masks a great deal of disinformation. So I've written a book on Vladimir Putin, and if you, you know, have a moment when you want to have a sleep aid, you know, late at night, I've laid all of that out there. And Putjn himself has gone around, you know, claiming there were dossiers on h'im trying to red j rect people to look in other places for i nformati on
[My note: It's not a sleep aid. It's heavy lumber, sure, but it's one of the best Putin books.]
When I was at the Nationat Intelligence Council there was some person who kept constantly writing to us, telling us that we were missing, you know, whole things about, you know, Vladimir Putin, which was clearly, you know, kind of an effort on the part of the Russians to send us down rabbit holes of inquiry that would kind of distract us from looking at the actual issues that we should be rea11y concerned about. And thi s was under the Bush admi ni strati on .
MR. JORDAN: So I j ust want to be c1ear, there was a story done in Politico on you last month. In that reporting it says Steele might have been played by the Russians into spreading disinformation. That's what you think happened wi th
DR. HILL: It's very 1ike1y that the Russians planted disinformation in and among other jnformat"ion that may have been truthful, because that's exactly, again, the way that they operate. And I think everyone should always be cogni zant of that.
MR. J0RDAN: Yeah. So i nformation that Chri stopher 5tee1e was played by the Russians, that information was used, as you well know, by our Justice Department, specifically our FBI, as part of the basis for securing a warrant to spy on an American citizen.
DR. HILL: I think it's already come out that that wasn't exactly the case, that the dossier was basically out there when those investigations had already taken place.
MR. JORDAN: WeIl, that's not accurate. It was part of what was taken
DR. HILL: Wel1, some of the information was that it had come through other ways. But, look, I don't want to also get into, again, a discussion that could go down a ctassified avenue, I just want to te11 you oo, You know, that the Russians
MR. JORDAN: I'm not disPuting that.
DR. HI LL : attacked our democracy . And also, the point that actually hasn't come out and, again, why I've been very cross in the media, is that the Pres'ident waS attacked aS we11, because the Russians sought to discredit him. And I've been very unhappy with the media coverage of all of this, which is why I don't want to start, you know, k'ind of basi cal1y doi ng test'imony by vi rtue of an arti c1e that you've read in Politico. Because everybody wants to sensationalize things, everybody wants to spend time look'ing at the things that seem sexy, and they don't want to actually look at, you know, talk to what the facts are.
MR. JORDAN: I'm not trying to do that. Doctor, te11 me about your relationship with Chri stopher Steele.
DR. HILL: He was my counterpart when I was the director, the national intelligence officer.
JORDAN: And so HI LL: So i nevi tably , when I had to do l'iai son meet'ings wi th the U. K. , he was the person I had to meet wi th.
MR. JORDAN: And so you had a worki ng relat'ionship wi th him for how long? DR. HILL: For the whole period that I was national intelligence officer, so that would be from 2005 to the end of 2009.
MR. J0RDAN: 0kay.
DR. HILL: 5o anybody who was working in the intelligence agencies at the time
MR. JORDAN: I get it.
DR. HILL: -- who was dealing with Russia would have to deal wi th hi m. He reti red as I understand, at the end of 2009.
MR. J0RDAN: The story on you says that you spoke with him in 2015. So can you tel1 me about that conversation? DR. HILL: That was prior to the t'ime that I had any knowledge about the dossier. He was constantly trying to drum up business, and he had contacted me because he wanted to see if I could give him a contact to some other individual, who actually I don't even recal1 now, who he could approach about some business issues. MR. JORDAN: And earlier you said there were all kinds of folks who contacted you from time to tjme wanting to get involved and have contact w'ith various political campaigns. Is Mr. Steele one of those i ndiv'iduals
DR. HILL: He was not.
MR. JORDAN: He was not, okay. And then the same article mentions that yotl, when you were hired, as soon as you were hired you told Mr. McMaster that you had worked with Mr. Steele. Is that right?
DR. HILL: Yes, in the course of my official duties as NIO, because I thought , obvi ously , gi ven the si tuati on , i t would be worth saying that. I also told Ambassador Bolton this as we1I.
MR. J0RDAN: Okay. And you did that based on the fact that Steele was i n the news?
DR. HILL: Correct.
MR. JORDAN: Okay. And you did that after you were hired or before you were hired?
DR. HILL: I mentioned it to General Kellogg when he was i ntervi ewi ng me as well .
MR. JORDAN: 0kay.
DR. HILL: I mean, you can't, you know, choose who you have to interact with.
Click to expand...
 
Sen. Dick Durbin: American Families Must ‘Accommodate the World’s Ambition’ to Be Part of America
National Immigration Forum







“There has to be an orderly process here, a process that really accommodates the world’s ambition to be part of the future of America,” he said, although “we cannot open our doors to everyone who wants to come through tomorrow.”

Durbin leads the Democrats’ immigration policies, but he did not say how many millions of foreigners should be accommodated in the United States.

A 2017 report by Gallup said that 150 million people want to be accommodated in the United States. The number may be far higher — 37 million people from just Central America want accommodation in the United States, the Gallup report noted.

But Durbin dismissed Americans’ rational worries about the financial and civic impact of diverse, mass migration into their stable and prosperous communities:

I think part of the resistance to immigration is primal. It’s a stranger. It’s a new and unfamiliar face. And the first reaction is “Am I all right? Am I going to be safe? Is this person a threat to me?” That’s part of the primal reaction against immigration.
Click to expand...
In contrast, Durbin praised migrants, saying, “Many of them are in some respects even more ambitious and determined than we are in our lives, and they can make our lives better with their contribution.”

Durbin’s comments show how progressives think about Americans, migrants, and the United States as a “Nation of Immigrants” — instead of a homeland for Americans.

Durbin’s comments came during an interview by the head of the National Immigration Forum. The forum works with businesses to deliver cheap migrant labor to employers, such as dairies and Uber, while wrapping the supply of cheap labor in noble — and sincere — rhetoric.

This extra labor supply boosts employers, investors, and landlords — but it also nudges down Americans’ wages, nudges up their rents and housing costs, and packs their kids’ schools.















 
Imtired said:
See? That's what I mean. Your whole decision process seems to be based on "who" and not "what". Also, using words like "cunt" and "whore" isn't necessary and takes away from any point you are trying to make. Why the deep-seated anger? What have women done to you to make you so enraged? I loathe Trump will all my being but I'm also dispassionate enough to see that he is mentally ill. I don't allow him to get him my head whereas you seem to give Hillary, Maxine Waters, and others a lot of power over your emotional state.
Click to expand...
Stop deflecting and answer the question please.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
Stop deflecting and answer the question please.
Click to expand...
You first. My initial question:

"Are you capable of thinking how you would feel if it were Barack Obama who had done the things Trump is being accused of? Serious question. Imagine Obama mocking a disabled reporter, Imagine Obama being caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the p*ssy. Imagine if Obama had paid off a porn star. Are you capable of honest introspection? Would you be as unconcerned with some of Trump's behavior if you substituted someone you don't like into that equation?"

Your answer:
"Can you imagine having the media and deep state in your pocket the way the Kenyan did?
Do you remember that pos holder being help in contempt?
How about that cunt Lerner or the whore HRC?
Get real lady."

Stop deflecting and answer my question please. Can you take the examples I mention of things Trump has done--things we've seen him doing on video, heard him state on tape, or had his lawyer admit to--then picture Obama doing them instead, and be ok with it?
 
Imtired said:
You first. My initial question:

"Are you capable of thinking how you would feel if it were Barack Obama who had done the things Trump is being accused of? Serious question. Imagine Obama mocking a disabled reporter, Imagine Obama being caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the p*ssy. Imagine if Obama had paid off a porn star. Are you capable of honest introspection? Would you be as unconcerned with some of Trump's behavior if you substituted someone you don't like into that equation?"

Your answer:
"Can you imagine having the media and deep state in your pocket the way the Kenyan did?
Do you remember that pos holder being help in contempt?
How about that cunt Lerner or the whore HRC?
Get real lady."

Stop deflecting and answer my question please. Can you take the examples I mention of things Trump has done--things we've seen him doing on video, heard him state on tape, or had his lawyer admit to--then picture Obama doing them instead, and be ok with it?
Click to expand...
No, I am not ok with anything Obama did.
 
ice-arrest.jpeg

The untold story of those August illegal immigration raids
subscriptions-badge-vip.svg

JAZZ SHAW Posted at 6:16 pm on November 09, 2019
Back in August, ICE conducted a series of immigration raids at food processing plants in Mississippi, netting nearly 700 illegal aliens in the process. What should have been seen as a stunning victory in the battle against illegal immigration was, of course, immediately panned by congressional Democrats as some sort of heartless assault on “working people who weren’t hurting anyone.”
On Thursday, Democrats from the House Homeland Security Committee held a rare field investigation into the matter, led by the committee’s chairman, Mississippi Democrat Bennie G. Thompson. The hearing was held at Tougaloo College and they were grilling Jere Miles, the head of the Homeland Security investigative office in New Orleans. No Republicans participated in the hearing, so the Homeland Security official was mostly left on his own. Miles was accused of heartlessly going after “undocumented workers were doing no harm.” Miles quickly straightened them out. (Washington Times)

Most of the 680 illegal immigrants nabbed in August’s immigration raids at poultry plants in Mississippi worked under stolen American identities, the Department of Homeland Security’s top investigator told Congress Thursday, rebuffing Democrats who insisted the “undocumented” workers were doing no harm.

“They stole the IDs of 400 U.S. citizens,” said Jere Miles, who leads Homeland Security Investigations’ New Orleans office. “Where’s their voice?”
Mr. Miles was defending the Aug. 7 operations against seven processing plants as both a success and a deterrent to future illegal immigrants, battling with Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee who called a field hearing in Mississippi to criticize the raids.
Click to expand...
 
November 10, 2019
Impeachment Mashup
By Clarice Feldman

Democrats have tried to impeach every elected Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

They’ve never succeeded and there’s no reason to believe this time is different. As Bill Mitchell tweeted:
“If China thought there were any real chance of Trump’s impeachment of loss in 2020, they wouldn’t be negotiating and making trade deals now. The stock market and China know the same thing. Trump won’t be impeached and he wins in 2020.”
Click to expand...
Why this practice persists is that they are continually reluctant to accept political outcomes they don’t like. David Hirsanyi argues this point well as well as illustrating perfectly the left’s projection of their actions onto their opponents:
“Can Republicans relearn how to accept political outcomes they don’t like?” What in holy hell is the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman talking about? According to the piece, Matt Bevin’s (completely legal) request to re-canvass the Kentucky election portends unwillingness by the GOP to accept the results the democratic process. Talk about projection.
We shouldn’t have to say more than “Stacey Abrams.” And it’s not just that the Democrat is a full-blown conspiracy theorist, it’s that leading members of her party enable her attacks on veracity of elections. Joe Biden claimed, without any evidence, that “voter suppression is the reason why Stacey Abrams isn’t governor right now.” Pete Buttigieg said suppression “racially motivated” in his remarks to the group that Abrams “ought to be governor.” And they’re not alone.
Abrams lost by 54,723 votes.

Waldman gives Abrams a pass for her recalcitrance, because, he notes, she “ended her campaign for governor of Georgia but pointedly refused to call it a ‘concession’ because, she said, it would grant the election, in which her opponent engaged in various forms of voter suppression, a legitimacy it did not deserve.” Well, yes, that’s the point, isn’t it? Everyone has a reason for why they don’t accept results. Democrats tend to rely on nebulous claims of “voter suppression.” But Abrams had legal avenues available to her, and they turned up nothing.
Click to expand...
The incomparable Sharyl Attkisson has done a streamlined timeline of the actions to drive President Trump from office.
It began August 15, 2016, before he was even elected when Peter Strzok FBI counterintelligence chief and his lover FBI attorney Lisa Page met with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe about creating an “insurance policy” in case Trump were elected. She marks the dates and the players and ends with this:
Oct. 31, 2019: The House approves impeachment process rules. The vote is largely along party lines, with two Democrats siding with Republicans.
It could be a coincidence that so many key names in this timeline -- from John Brennan and James Comey, to Ukraine and CNN -- factor into the Trump impeachment push. And, further, it could be a coincidence that we have ended up where some Trump critics said they hoped to be, even before he was sworn in.
On the other hand, in retrospect, the biggest surprise might be that, all things considered, it took them so long to get to this point.
Click to expand...
Despite the countless headers, amounting to little more than leaks from Adam Schiff and anonymous “insiders,” once the Schiff hearings got underway it was clear the factual basis for claiming Trump’s call to Ukraine’s president was improper bore the same relationship to the contents of the call as Schiff’s “parody” of it.
The Department of State “star witnesses” in their secret basement hearings proved disastrous for him and the impeachment effort. As the rolled-out transcripts this week reveal. William B Taylor, Jr., was the senior American diplomat in Ukraine. He “admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until
215470_5_.png
late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.” His source for the president’s intentions was the New York Times.
If the Times had somehow read into the anodyne Trump-Zelensky conversation Trump’s mind, it was clear that there was no evidence their mind-reading was accurate. Not only did Ukraine’s president deny any pressure, but the timeline of military aid doesn’t follow the Times’ fable:
Under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn’t aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.
“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”
“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.”
“And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked.
“That is correct,” Taylor responded.
Taylor also testified that he didn’t see any official readout of the July 25 phone call until it was declassified and released by Trump in late September.
“I did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25th,” he said.
Click to expand...
Taylor also admitted that U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, “told me many times that President Trump said it was not a quid pro quo.” He also admitted that Ukraine’s president never committed to conduct the investigations that the President asked for before military aid was released to Ukraine.
Lost in all this is an even more serious reason to question the wisdom the bureaucrats' in the foreign policy and national security establishments rush to provide military assistance to Ukraine -- evidence of “Chinese attempts to buying up some Ukrainian technology.” Something about which the administration rightfully had serious concerns.
"[T]here is substantial reason to question a key underlying assumption of the House Democratic narrative that Ukraine is a such a reliable friend of the United States, deserving of our unquestioned support to combat Russian aggression, that President Trump’s hesitancy in immediately releasing the military aid jeopardized vital U.S. national security interests. Combating Chinese military ambitions is certainly vital to U.S. national security.”
Click to expand...
 
Sheriff Joe said:
No, I am not ok with anything Obama did.
Click to expand...
Ok, so that answers my question. It's not the what, it's the who, which is the purest form of bigotry and prejudice. Basically, if Trump makes fun of a disabled reporter, it's ok with you because Trump is the one who did it. If Obama were to do the same, it would not be ok with you because it was Obama who did it. And you don't see any problem at all with that sort of blind cult-like thinking? I find that frightening as hell to be so blinded by the "other" that I can't form an objective opinion on anything.

Now, I'll try my best to answer your questions, though most of them I can't without some clarification and evidence.

First you wrote:

1) "Can you imagine having the media and deep state in your pocket the way the Kenyan did?

Ok, lots of problems with the above the first being that none of it is true. Obama is not from Kenya, he just isn't. No matter how much you want this to be true it has been proven unequivocally that it isn't, with real evidence such as long term birth certificate and a birth announcement in a Hawaii paper. And none of that would be relevant anyway but I sense I know why you cling to it (see my last sentence in this post).

As for your claim that the media as in his pocket as well as the "deep state" (whatever that means in your head), please cite some evidence of this. Not RedState or Breitbart, give some real evidence, not opinion pieces.

2) Do you remember that pos holder being help (sic) in contempt?

Ok, so by POS Holder I'm assuming you mean Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general. I find that example fascinating since Holder was held in contempt by a GOP majority for....wait for it....failure to respond to a subpoena for certain documents. Sound familiar??? However, in Holder's case he actually agreed to comply with the request for documents if Daryl Issa would certify that doing so would satisfy the subpoena requirements (versus it being a "fishing expedition"). Issa refused to do so. In Eric Holder's case, he was cleared of all wrongdoing and the contempt charge was dropped.


3)How about that cunt Lerner or the whore HRC?

The above doesn't merit a reply. Why not just use the n* word when addressing Obama while you're at it? (though I suspect that is what you are trying to not so subtly do when you call him "Kenyan").
 
Imtired said:
Ok, so that answers my question. It's not the what, it's the who, which is the purest form of bigotry and prejudice. Basically, if Trump makes fun of a disabled reporter, it's ok with you because Trump is the one who did it. If Obama were to do the same, it would not be ok with you because it was Obama who did it. And you don't see any problem at all with that sort of blind cult-like thinking? I find that frightening as hell to be so blinded by the "other" that I can't form an objective opinion on anything.

Now, I'll try my best to answer your questions, though most of them I can't without some clarification and evidence.

First you wrote:

1) "Can you imagine having the media and deep state in your pocket the way the Kenyan did?

Ok, lots of problems with the above the first being that none of it is true. Obama is not from Kenya, he just isn't. No matter how much you want this to be true it has been proven unequivocally that it isn't, with real evidence such as long term birth certificate and a birth announcement in a Hawaii paper. And none of that would be relevant anyway but I sense I know why you cling to it (see my last sentence in this post).

As for your claim that the media as in his pocket as well as the "deep state" (whatever that means in your head), please cite some evidence of this. Not RedState or Breitbart, give some real evidence, not opinion pieces.

2) Do you remember that pos holder being help (sic) in contempt?

Ok, so by POS Holder I'm assuming you mean Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general. I find that example fascinating since Holder was held in contempt by a GOP majority for....wait for it....failure to respond to a subpoena for certain documents. Sound familiar??? However, in Holder's case he actually agreed to comply with the request for documents if Daryl Issa would certify that doing so would satisfy the subpoena requirements (versus it being a "fishing expedition"). Issa refused to do so. In Eric Holder's case, he was cleared of all wrongdoing and the contempt charge was dropped.


3)How about that cunt Lerner or the whore HRC?

The above doesn't merit a reply. Why not just use the n* word when addressing Obama while you're at it? (though I suspect that is what you are trying to not so subtly do when you call him "Kenyan").
Click to expand...
1. Do you have to be from Kenya to be Kenyan?
2. Why does the left (you) bring race into every conversation?
You know Obama is more white than black, right?
Obama is white when he needs to be and black when he wants to be and dumb all the time.
3. You think the media isn’t left leaning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top