Just a reminder . . .

And now, on Trump’s orders he is investigating “crimes” by our security services trying to protect our country from Russian gangsters.

55 thoughts on “Just a reminder . . .

  1. No reminder needed; this putz is nothing more than a corrupt minion of the Grifter in Chief,

    And the list of his embarrassments is a lot longer than presented here.

    Truth will out…tick, tick, tick.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. And, ‘they’ say Trump has done nothing that is impeachable.

    It’s looking more and more every day like the GOP ‘theys’ are as corrupt as ‘djt’, when ‘they’ say there is no-there-there.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. So the Commonwealth’s Attorney suspects you have a garage full of cocaine but is denied a warrant by a judge for insufficient cause. He then approaches a man on trial for burglary, and says, “I’ll dismiss the charges against you but I need your skills to look in a garage for me.”

    Like

      1. No, that’s what was done to Hunter and Joe Biden in Washington DC.

        In Ryan’s case — however botched its issue — there was a warrant. My favorite was Kit Hurst. No knock warrants should only be issued in extreme cases and there had better be i’s crossed and t’s dotted.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. There was a warrant for Ryan Frederick’s house and garage, but it was obtained fraudulently, by Dets Shivers and Wilie, who sent a burglar to scout and determine if Frederick was growing a few marijuana plants. The warrant was obtained by conducting an illegal search.

          So the warrant should have been thrown out at trial, since it was obtained by defrauding the court, as was done with Carter Page.

          There’s no such thing as a ‘no knock warrant’ in VA. All searches are supposed to be ‘knock and announce’ and expedited forced entry is only supposed to be when there are exigent circumstances, a rule mostly ignored.

          Like

          1. So the Commonwealth’s Attorney (the President) suspects
            you have a garage full of cocaine (were involved in influence peddling and corruption)
            but he is denied a warrant by a judge (an investigation by the DoJ) for insufficient cause.

            He then approaches a man on trial for burglary (a country in an existential struggle),
            and says, “I’ll dismiss the charges against you (give you the weapons we promised),
            but I need your skills to look in a garage for me (a favor though).”

            You readily admit the abuse of power (you defend the abuse of power).
            Yeah, I get it. Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m not the one who forgot it. Obama and Holder boasted of the ‘wingman’ relationship at the time.

        The problem is that you weren’t the least upset when it was Holder and Obama.

        Like

        1. @Tabor
          You seem very confused. Or are you trying to shift the subject matter to hide your hypocrisy. The issue is not with the AG being a “wingman.” There have often been close relationships there. JFK and RFK come to mind.

          The issue is an administration ignoring Congressional subpoenas. Read YOUR post above where that is made clear. You raged against that behavior when it was in the Obama administration but not now when the behavior is 100x more egregious and DIRECTLY connected to criminal behavior by the President. And, BTW, I never once offered support for what Holder did in that regard even when it was obvious these subpoenas were part of the extensive Republican program of harassing the Obama administration.

          Back to the present day, here is something you may not understand. NOBODY tries to block the testimony of witnesses who can exonerate them.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Then Barr should be held in contempt of Congress for doing a hell of a lot more. How you don’t see the hypocrisy (there I said it) of what you are saying is un-freaking-believable. Again, its ok if MY guy does it, but not when YOURS does. Extremely sad.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Tabor
            No, I have not forgotten about Holder being held in contempt. There is nothing in what I just wrote which would indicate that I have. This is you continuing to shuck and jive rather than admit the truth – You were very vocal in condemning Holder but defend the same behavior by MULTIPLE Trump administration figures. The hypocrisy is palpable.

            You could throw this back at me if I had ever defended Holder defying legal subpoenas – I didn’t. I believe in the rule of law even when it was being abused by a Republican Congress constantly conducting bogus investigations.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. The two memes look like prophylactics to me. We won’t know whether Barr’s actions are corrupt until we see the results of his investigations. The memes are just a preemption to weaken any impact, should Barr’s results prove powerful and compelling.

    Like

    1. You mean the way Barr got out in front of the release of the Mueller report and
      L-I-E-D about what was actually in it. You mean he is conducting investigations of his own actions?

      Barr’s results are predetermined, just as he did with the Mueller Report. Obstruction times 10, at a minimum, in that report and he claimed there was no obstruction.

      Sorry Mr. Roberts, but your perceptions of the truth are, in a simple word even you should be able to comprehend, wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “Sorry Mr. Roberts, but your perceptions of the truth are, in a simple word even you should be able to comprehend, wrong.”

      Why attack me, personally, Mr. Green? Here, for example, you want to make the point that AG Barr is corrupt and a liar. But the assertion is undermined by a number of factors, especially that Barr made the Mueller report itself public, which he was not obligated to do.

      So, if you want to show that your own perception of Barr is valid, you would do better to substantiate your assertion that he “L-I-E-D” instead or making irrelevant claims about my ability to comprehend the truth.

      Like

      1. One, I attacked your perception of the truth, not you personally.
        Two, I attacked your ability to comprehend because you prove by your words on a regular basis that you cannot comprehend without bloviating about how smart you think you are.
        Three. 10 times obstruction was mentioned in the Mueller Report, yet Barr said there was no obstruction.
        Four, your blind loyalty to Donald J Trump and his minions is as anti-American as it gets.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “I attacked your perception of the truth, not you personally.”

        Right. My perception is not part of me personally.

        RE: “I attacked your ability to comprehend because you prove by your words on a regular basis that you cannot comprehend without bloviating about how smart you think you are.”

        And yet, you don’t attack my words, which should be easy, just me, which any child could do.

        RE: “10 times obstruction was mentioned in the Mueller Report, yet Barr said there was no obstruction.”

        Barr gave his reasons. Many lawyers in the media agreed with them, although others did not. So, again, this really is about your perceptions, which you have neither supported nor defended.

        Like

        1. “Many lawyers in the media agreed with them, although others did not”

          The ratio was about 430 to 1 agreeing with obstruction. Alan Dershowitz got paid more to agree with Barr than he was offered to agree with the rest of those who saw the crime for what it was.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “The ratio was about 430 to 1 agreeing with obstruction.”

            I doubt that. Can you substantiate your claim in any way, or are you just blowing smoke, hoping no one will call you on it?

            Doesn’t matter. Nancy Pelosi agreed the Mueller report gave no basis for impeachment, at least insofar as she chose not to pursue impeachment until something “better” came along. Assuming you support Democrats, you are at loggerheads with your own party.

            Like

  5. @Roberts
    “prophylactics”

    I will not argue that these “memes” are not intended to put whatever these so-called “investigations” yield into immediate disrepute because, clearly, the “memes” remind everyone of Barr’s sordid past and recent behavior. And based on that past and his obviously malign motives, nothing he produces can be trusted.

    I know folks like you have been lead down the primrose path time and again with high hopes of confirming your wildest conspiracy theories just weeks away. And each time the hopes have been dashed. Reality is such a cruel taskmaster. Learn from that experience.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “And each time the hopes have been dashed.”

      Not true. The Mueller investigation, for example, turned out to be a nothingburger, just as I and all my fellow conspiracy theorists predicted.

      Like

  6. @Roberts

    A nothingburger -meticulously documented evidence that the Trump campaign was intertwined with Russian agents and that the President personally committed obstruction of justice that would have gotten him indicted had he not been President. Not to mention numerous criminal indictments and pleas and irrefutable proof that it was RUSSIA and not the Ukraine that was interfering in our election. THAT nothingburger?

    You are simply providing evidence here of just how effective Trump toady Barr was in obfuscating what it really reported. But, really, he only fooled those who wanted to be fooled.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “nothingburger -meticulously documented evidence that the Trump campaign was intertwined with Russian agents and that the President personally committed obstruction of justice that would have gotten him indicted had he not been President. ”

      And yet, the current impeachment inquiry is in response to the Ukraine phone call and is not based on the Mueller investigation. Why? Because Mueller turned up nothing impeachable.

      Like

      1. Mueller turned up PLENTY that was impeachable and even suggested that the Congress take up his findings since he was unable to indict. Speaker Pelosi hesitated to follow that clear suggestion preferring to let the next election deal with this traitor. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one and Pelosi did not think the effort was worth it given the unwillingness of the GOP Senate to put country ahead of party.

        All that changed when Trump brazenly doubled down on seeking foreign interference for his next campaign. Now, instead of a complicated argument for obstruction of justice, we have a clear and easily understood crime of bribery and extortion. A crime spelled out in the Constitution. That changes the politics and the GOP continue to defend Trump at their peril.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The facts are so painfully clear. Between the bribery, extortion, and obstruction there is no question that trump and his henchmen (and women) should be removed and in some cases imprisoned.

          Unfortunately, until the likes of Hannity, Carlson, and Ingram tell their weak minded and ignorant listeners the truth the “base” will stay mesmerized and the numbers won’t change enough for the
          Spineless GOP Senate to remove him.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “Now, instead of a complicated argument for obstruction of justice, we have a clear and easily understood crime of bribery and extortion.”

          You agree, then, that the Mueller report proved a failure for impeachment.

          I expect Ukrainegate will, too, especially since Joe Biden more clearly committed bribery and extortion. By his own boast.

          Like

          1. The Mueller report did not lead to impeachment for the reason that I described. It failed to find the easy to understand “smoking gun” that would have made an impeachment politically viable. That is moot now since the Democrats are laser focussed on this clear case of bribery and extortion in Ukraine

            Joe Biden was not seeking anything for himself when he confronted the Ukrainian government about its doing TOO LITTLE to clean up corruption. He was following administration policy that was coordinated with several NATO allies.

            The difference between acting in the national interest and acting in personal interest is not a hard difference to understand if you really, really try.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Joe Biden was not seeking anything for himself when he confronted the Ukrainian government about its doing TOO LITTLE to clean up corruption.”

            A lot of people pretend that is true, but given the facts as we know them, Biden was as guilty of bribery/extortion as Trump is said to be. Legally, it doesn’t matter if the intent to commit bribery/extortion was to gain personal or family benefit. Moreover, if anyone wants to claim Biden’s quid pro quo was in the national interest, the exact same can be claimed for Trump’s.

            Like

          3. “Moreover, if anyone wants to claim Biden’s quid pro quo was in the national interest, the exact same can be claimed for Trump’s.”

            To quote Mr. Murphy. “BULLSHIT!”

            Like

          4. @Roberts

            Please share. What “facts as we know them” show that Vice President Biden was guilty of bribery and extortion with respect to his mission to Ukraine? And what is the source of those “facts.” “Alternative facts” do no count. Nor do unsubstantiated slanders by Dear Leader.

            https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/23/politics/fact-check-trump-ukraine-hunter-biden-joe-biden/index.html

            To make it easier for you I will agree that seeking a benefit for a family member would be just as culpable as seeking a personal benefit. But, there is no actual evidence of any such thing.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. RE: “Please share. What ‘facts as we know them’ show that Vice President Biden was guilty of bribery and extortion with respect to his mission to Ukraine?”

            I didn’t say Biden was guilty of bribery and extortion.” I said that he looks as guilty as Trump does. The facts are:

            • Biden committed an obvious quid pro quo, just as Trump is accused of doing.
            • Biden stood to personally benefit from his quid pro quo (via legal protection of his son), just as Trump is accused of standing to benefit personally from his alleged quid pro quo.

            RE: “I will agree that seeking a benefit for a family member would be just as culpable as seeking a personal benefit. But, there is no actual evidence of any such thing.”

            The evidence that Trump sought a personal benefit is circumstantial, just as the evidence that Biden sought a personal benefit is circumstantial. Biden’s son did, in fact, benefit, just as Trump might, if Ukraine uncovers proof of Biden corruption. The only difference between the two sets of circumstances is that Biden already got his benefit. Trump hasn’t yet gotten his.

            Like

          6. “The evidence that Trump sought a personal benefit is circumstantial”..

            I didn’t know that his own words could be considered “circumstantial”. “I want you to do me a favor, THOUGH”…

            Those that are blind that choose NOT to see.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. ” Joe Biden more clearly committed bribery and extortion”…
            Vice President Biden worked to enforce the policies of not only the government of the US, but also the will of the majority of the western world.

            There is absolutely zero proof of that which you claim. And just because you habitually use conspiracy based sites to back your assertion, all you do is look foolish. Every single theory has been blown out of the water. Yet you continue to want to believe they are true.

            Whereas there is documented and ADMITTED proof of the bribery and extortion committed by Trump, Pompeo, Barr and Giuliani.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. RE: “Vice President Biden worked to enforce the policies of not only the government of the US, but also the will of the majority of the western world.”

            So did President Trump.

            RE: “There is absolutely zero proof of that which you claim.”

            Are you saying there is zero proof that Biden committed a quid pro quo, even when he bragged on video about doing just that?

            And are you saying that Hunter Biden didn’t benefit from the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor, when it is a matter of record that he did?

            Or are you saying there is no evidence to show that Biden intended for his quid pro quo to benefit his son?

            If that’s what you mean, there is also no evidence to show that Trump intended to benefit, personally, from his “quid pro quo.” If you have such evidence of Trump’s intent, (beyond guesses and mind reading) let’s see it.

            Like

          9. @Roberts

            First . . . “… Joe Biden more clearly committed bribery and extortion”

            Now . . . “I didn’t say Biden was guilty of bribery and extortion.”

            What is happening here is that you cannot defend the first statement with actual facts as requested so you simply pretend you did not say what you did.

            With all due respect, that is pathetic and childish. And then you proceed with even more nonsense.

            1. Biden was seeking a quid pro quo on behalf of the United States government. Trump was seeking a quid pro quo on behalf of his campaign. Your pretending that they are equivalent is foolish at best. Dishonest at worst.

            2. That Hunter Biden needed any sort of legal protection is an “alternative fact” or, in plainer language, just another LIE. He had done nothing wrong. He was not under investigation. The examination of the owner of Burisma was already a year in the past.

            3. “The evidence that Trump sought a personal benefit is circumstantial.” More “alternative facts.” Even the heavily edited “transcript” provides direct evidence. Not only was Trump demanding these spurious investigations of debunked conspiracy theory nonsense, he was also demanding that the President of Ukraine personally go to the press to announce them. There is no other plausible reason for such a demand other than to hurt Trump’s political opponents.

            Liked by 3 people

          10. RE: “What is happening here is that you cannot defend the first statement with actual facts as requested so you simply pretend you did not say what you did.”

            Not at all. Biden “more clearly committed bribery and extortion” because he boasted about it on video. Whether he committed bribery and extortion as a matter of law is a differnt question, on which I offer no opinion.

            RE: “Biden was seeking a quid pro quo on behalf of the United States government. Trump was seeking a quid pro quo on behalf of his campaign. Your pretending that they are equivalent is foolish at best.”

            Then I’m foolish. Tell us how you know Trump was seeking a quid pro quo on behalf of his campain.

            RE: “That Hunter Biden needed any sort of legal protection is an ‘alternative fact’ or, in plainer language, just another LIE.”

            Whether he needed it or not, the fact is Hunter Biden did benefit from the firing of the prosecutor. For example, had Barisma been shut down, his position on its board would have ended.

            RE: “‘The evidence that Trump sought a personal benefit is circumstantial.’ More ‘alternative facts’…There is no other plausible reason for such a demand other than to hurt Trump’s political opponents.”

            Only to those promoting the conspiracy theory that Trum committed impeachable offenses. The public record contains ample evidence that Ukraine itself contributed to meddling in our 2016 election (see the January 2017 Politico article poste here at Tidewater Forum, for example). That alone is reason for Trump to seek investigatory assistance from the new Ukrainian president, under existing treaty. What you call “alternative facts” are in reality valid explanations that refute the claim that Trump sought a personal benefit. Just as Biden supporters claim his quid pro quo served the national interest, so can Trump supporters make the same claim for his alleged quid pro quo.

            Like

          11. A bottomless pit of brain dead nonsense. It never stops with you. I cannot remember a single time when you were persuaded by evidence or even a time when you got over your “goofy counterfactual obtuseness” and acknowledged an established fact.

            RE:”Biden “more clearly committed bribery and extortion” because he boasted about it on video.”
            Utter nonsense. Biden NEVER boasted of having “committed bribery and extortion” on video or anywhere else.

            RE: “Tell us how you know Trump was seeking a quid pro quo on behalf of his campaign.”
            Okay. I read the “transcript.”

            RE: “Hunter Biden did benefit blah blah blah”
            Burisma was not under investigation and replacing a crooked prosecutor with an honest one as the international community was demanding would do NOTHING for Burisma. If anything it would make any dishonest dealings more of a problem.

            RE: “Then I am foolish”
            Okay

            Trump’s silly claim that it was the Ukraine who hacked the DNC servers and even had one in a hidden location has been debunked over and over again. Mueller proved in detail who did it – Russians. Your pretending that forcing the Ukraine to add substance to this server nonsense was in our national interest is risible.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. “ It never stops with you”

            No, and it won’t; bombarding someone who has no ability to understand reality for what it is, will only make you crazy and make them happy.

            FWIW; your depiction of the facts of the matter are spot on.

            Trolls die when they are not fed.

            IMO.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. “Trolls die when they are not fed.”
            Oh, so true. But to not challenge this guy is to allow the truth to die. He maybe the 400 lb guy Trump was talking about, but it is incumbent of those who believe that truth is more important than fiction, cannot allow his counterfactual bullshit go by the wayside. I have a bullshit flag and I will continue to use it.

            Liked by 2 people

          14. @Green

            I wish there was a larger audience (perhaps some with an open mind) to appreciate your (and Paul’s) effort to educate. Admirable.

            Somewhere Cervantes is smiling….

            Liked by 2 people

          15. @ Adam Green

            RE: “He maybe the 400 lb guy Trump was talking about, but it is incumbent of those who believe that truth is more important than fiction, cannot allow his counterfactual bullshit go by the wayside.”

            I keep asking you to substantiate your assertions, but you never do. Since you consider yourself to be the arbiter of truth, why not give us some? As it is you say nothing but make insults, which you can’t validate, either.

            Do you really think anybody in this world actually sits around waiting for you to say what’s true and false, just because you say it?

            Like

          16. My comments have all been substantiated by those that have gone before me. Your choice to ignore what has already been stated is just the continuation of your counterfactual way of life.

            My wife doesn’t even wait around for me to substantiate things. You however, are a fertilizer spreader too the nth degree. Regardless of whatever substantiation I provide, you will counter it with some BS conspiracy counter that has been debunked numerous times.

            The Wizard of Oz called and he wants his balloon and smoke machine back.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s