Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  45 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Donald Trump thread v2.0


Recommended Posts

I don't think we need another party, but I would have to say that any of the existing (3rd) parties would certainly benefit at a minimum by his notoriety should the former President join with one.  Senator Paul is right, after the lackluster display of support to DJT by the Republican leadership, the party is in deep trouble should he leave it for a 3rd.  They have turned their collective elitist back(s) on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Former President Trump has reportedly offered to let the National Guardsmen still stationed at the Capitol stay at his Trump Hotel in Washington D.C.

“Trump has given permission for the troops to stay at Trump Hotel DC if any of them need, an advisor told the One America News Network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



While the majority of Trump supporters think that the Trump loss was due to a rigged election, their notion of rigging leaves a lot to be desired. It was not tampered with in the way they think. This was a systemic rigging brought on by a four-year effort to find any way possible to get rid of Trump and revert to business as usual.

If anything was rigged it was the information flow – a concerted effort by a complicit media machine that consisted of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the major TV news networks, PBS, NPR, and social media. This was aided and abetted by American and foreign intelligence agencies, the universities, big business, and the Democrat Party.

This began with calls for Trump’s impeachment before he set foot in office. After his inauguration, coordinated women’s protests cropped up across the country and the notion of #resist began, with Hillary Clinton leading the way.

Trump’s victory over Hillary in 2016 made the media reassess its coverage of Trump as analysts determined that Trump was given over a billion dollars in free publicity.

The coverage started to change. Trump was no longer portrayed as entertaining and oafish but as a bad person on many levels. Most editorials about Trump showed outright hatred. Objectivity was out of the question.

A good list of all the negative associations attached to Trump is linked here.

The institutional attacks began then and ran parallel to media hate. This involved a dubious investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, somehow orchestrated by Trump.

This investigation, led by Robert Mueller, dragged on for 675 days and included 500 witnesses, and found nothing actionable except against a few of the witnesses for lying. All the while members of the Democratic Party such as Adam Schiff would come on PBS News Hour time after time claiming they had secret damning evidence that would prove Trump is a Russian agent, a Russian asset, or a Russian spy.

The public was inundated with the Russian meme for almost two years as this investigation continued. And even after its conclusion, the Russian accusations continued to the end. Once that was over, another scandal was created around a phone call made to the Ukraine where Trump hints that the activities of Hunter Biden in Ukraine should be examined. That resulted in Trump getting impeached the first time.

Less noticeable to the public was the disappearance of coverage of the Trump rallies. You could argue that this was the key change in dealing with Trump.

During the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders had rallies much like Trump’s but they received no coverage from the media despite their popularity. This worked to keep Hillary as the candidate. During 2016, coverage of the Trump rallies was extensive and even MSNBC, the most biased cable channel, would show Trump rallies from beginning to end.

These rallies put Trump in a different and likeable light, which swayed a lot of voters. In the 2020 election, the rallies were now broadcast by obscure YouTube channels and maybe CSPAN. The major news outlets described them in negative terms. During the Covid months they were all described as horrible super-spreader events that risked people’s lives, implying that Trump was irresponsible.

To pile on, you had social media taking sides against Trump to the point that Twitter started to censure the president’s tweets and then took him off the platform. Facebook and Twitter both did a number of purges of conservative voices from their platforms for a variety of reasons, “hate speech” being the foremost.

Then there was the discovery by psychologist Robert Epstein that Google search results were being manipulated to push people in a liberal direction after the 2016 election. Leaked videos of Google founder Sergey Brin, almost in tears after the Hillary Clinton loss, revealed the bias of the company with promises of being more activist. Studies of company behavior showed that it promoted Get Out the Vote messages to those whom Google perceived as Democrats. The search results were also rigged.

During the 2020 election itself, the majority of the American public were kept in the dark regarding Biden’s mental health, the connection between the Bidens and China, and the entire Hinter Biden laptop story. The media buried the laptop story as if it never happened.

And you should note that the same media which made a huge fuss over John McCain’s age when he ran for President in 2008 (he was 72 at the time) said little about Joe Biden being 78 and frail.

Then there were the anti-Trump books. One after the other described White House bedlam. You were gold to the major New York publishing houses if you could get a job in the White House just to get fired so you could write a book. In fact, there was no genuine dirt revealed in any of the books, just inuendo, acrimony, and accusations with the overall theme that Trump was “unfit” for office, whatever that was supposed to mean.

After four years of a free-for-all assault on Trump and the Office of the President, conservatives are told to believe that the election was rigged by mail-in ballot fraud.

It’s laughable when you consider the relentless and unwavering hounding of this president and subsequent pounding of the public psyche for four years. Are you supposed to believe that this effort by big media, the intelligence agencies, Chinese vested interests, bankers, big business, the Democrat party, and certain brand name Republicans including, above all, Mitt Romney, had no influence on how people voted?

To think Trump won by a landslide is to deny a concerted, coordinated, targeted, and relentless propaganda effort of four years. – jcd


Link to comment
Share on other sites



From the Article:


U.S. House Democrats are considering swiftly approving Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin’s legislation to activate a never-used section of the 25th Amendment under which President Donald Trump — or any unfit chief executive — could be removed from office.

Raskin’s legislation would create a congressionally appointed panel under the amendment to determine the fitness of the president to continue to hold power. The bill would not change the amendment, but rather establish a permanent, nonpartisan body that the amendment included more than 50 years ago but Congress never acted on.

Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat who also represents parts of Carroll and Frederick counties, has introduced the bill in several previous sessions — it never passed — saying an independent commission is necessary so Congress can use its authority to provide a proper check on the president.

As of Friday, the bill had not yet been reintroduced. With momentum building among Democrats to force Trump’s ouster, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Friday that she hoped the president would immediately resign.

“But if he does not, I have instructed the Rules Committee to be prepared to move forward with Congressman Jamie Raskin’s 25th Amendment legislation and a motion for impeachment,” Pelosi said.

Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, confirmed to The Baltimore Sun that Pelosi was referring to the bill Raskin previously titled “The Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act.”

Since the bill was already written for previous congressional sessions, it’s “easy to reintroduce,” Hammill said.

In previous versions, Raskin — a former constitutional law professor — said the independent commission would include elder statespersons such as former presidents or attorneys general as well as physicians, and psychiatrists, all selected in a bipartisan way by congressional leadership.

“My legislation does not mention Donald Trump,” Raskin told The Sun after introducing the measure a few years ago. “It would be an indefinite standing body. You’ve got people who are charged to act in a bipartisan way in the interest of national security. Presidential fitness is a matter of national security.”

Since invoking the 25th Amendment would require the participation of the vice president, Democrats have said impeachment may be necessary because Congress could do that on its own. Raskin, who is one of the impeachment leaders, tweeted Friday that Trump poses “a clear and present danger to the people and our Republic.”

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement Friday that “impeaching the President with just 12 days left in his term will only divide our country more.”

Trump’s fitness for office has been increasingly questioned since he encouraged a mob that violently stormed into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday causing a melee in which five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

Under the 25th Amendment, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can assert that the president is not fit to carry out his or her duties. A two-thirds vote in the House and Senate is required if the president resists.

Raskin has previously said the amendment did not intend to give so much power to Cabinet members who are often loyal to the president. Rather, he has said, a section of the amendment specifies that the vice president and a majority of “such other body as Congress may by law provide” can also make a determination about the president.

Raskin could not be reached for comment Friday about the legislation.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has been vocal in his opposition to the second impeachment, used Roberts’ planned absence from the trial as a point in favor of dropping the trial.

“The Constitution says two things about impeachment — it is a tool to remove the officeholder, and it must be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” the Kentucky senator wrote in an op-ed Sunday for The Hill.

“Neither one of those things will happen. President Trump is gone, and Justice John Roberts, properly noticing the absence of an officeholder being impeached, is declining to preside,” he continued. “That settles it for me.”

Speaking earlier this week on the matter, Paul referenced Roberts again, saying, “If the chief justice doesn’t preside, I think it’s an illegitimate hearing and really goes to show that it’s not really constitutional to impeach someone who’s not president.”

Agreed - this latest impeachment sham is ridiculous.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...


The Washington Post has been slammed after it admitted it misquoted Donald Trump in his call to a Georgia elections investigator and issued a correction to its January story.

The Post issued a lengthy correction on Monday after audio of the December call between the then president and Frances Watson was released.

At the time, the outlet published a bombshell report claiming Trump urged Watson to 'find the fraud' and told her she would be 'a national hero' if she did. 

The Post has now said they misquoted him after the Georgia Secretary of State's Office released the December 23 recording. It was located it in a trash folder on the investigator's device as the office responded to a public records request, a source told CNN.

The original Post story now has a prominent correction, reading: 'The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump's comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. 

'Trump did not tell the investigator to "find the fraud" or say she would be "a national hero" if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find "dishonesty" there. He also told her that she had "the most important job in the country right now."'

So a trusted media source actually believed made up Trump quotes?   Only now that the actual recording was found in a trash folder on someone's computer......

  • Like 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2021 at 8:47 AM, DanteEstonia said:

@Bobref does the Constitution, or the Judicial Act, specify how the Chief Justice is selected?

The Judiciary Act of 1798 fixed the number of Supreme Court Justices at 6: a Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices. Therefore, the Chief is a separate office, and the President nominates a Justice specifically for the position of Chief Justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

The Judiciary Act of 1798 fixed the number of Supreme Court Justices at 6: a Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices. Therefore, the Chief is a separate office, and the President nominates a Justice specifically for the position of Chief Justice.

So the method of selection for the office is legislatively determined, rather than constitutionally determined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

So the method of selection for the office is legislatively determined, rather than constitutionally determined?

The legislation creates 2 offices: Chief Justice and Associate Justice. Both are filled by the Constitutional process, i.e., nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump urges Americans to get Covid-19 vaccine: 'I would recommend it'



Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday urged Americans to get vaccinated to help curb the Covid-19 pandemic, calling it "safe" and "something that works."

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly," Trump told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo.
"But again," he continued, "we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also. But it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."
The comments -- which amount to Trump's most energetic endorsement of vaccination -- come as vaccine hesitancy among Republicans continues to threaten the US' path to herd immunity. While 92% of Democrats either have gotten vaccinated or want to get vaccinated, that number plummets to 50% among Republicans, a CNN poll conducted by SSRS shows.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The Deep State Thwarted Trump’s Afghanistan Withdrawal



To his credit, President Joe Biden decided to pull American troops out of Afghanistan by September. However, they aren’t out yet. And President Donald Trump’s struggle against his own staff and the military brass demonstrates the power of Washington, D.C.’s war lobby. If there is conflict anywhere in the world, the latter wants America in it.

Indeed, Trump’s presidency highlighted the breadth and depth of what is commonly called the deep state. He stood almost alone within the Beltway in seeking to end what he knew was a foolish military enterprise. And not just in Afghanistan.

However, he proved unable to halt even one “endless war.” When he conducted a Pentagon purge in his administration’s waning days, outsiders feared a coup attempt. But Trump was merely attempting to fulfill his long-held objective of bringing American troops home. According to Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu of Axios, “For all the feverish media speculation about the president’s secret agenda at the Pentagon, the ultimate goal was simple: Steamroll the generals and extract America from its foreign engagements, leaving behind a done deal that could not be easily reversed by the next administration.”

Shortly after the November election Trump’s head of personnel, John McEntee, gave marching orders to Douglas Macgregor, recently added as a special advisor to the Pentagon: Get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Africa and complete the partial withdrawal from Germany. [editors’ note: Douglas Macgregor is a senior fellow with The American Conservative.] Unfortunately, this was an impossible ask. But it illustrated Trump’s frustration. Especially with the first country on the list, Afghanistan. Trump was no ivory tower theoretician. Instead, in his gut he understood, along with most Americans, that spending almost two decades attempting to build democracy in Central Asia made no sense.

Indeed, in their discussion of the D.C. battle over Afghanistan, Swan and Basu noted that “Trump’s calls to halt the ‘endless wars’ could be traced back to at least 2011, when he was a real estate developer and reality TV celebrity. He’d sent scores of tweets railing against the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan while mulling the idea of running for president.” In 2016 he picked up votes in America’s heartland from Americans who feared that President Hillary Clinton would live up to her reputation as the War Queen, a veritable Democratic neoconservative who never met a war that she didn’t want them to fight.

However, becoming president didn’t mean that Trump actually made policy. Wrote Swan and Basu: “Once in office, though, Trump’s ambitions to withdraw from Afghanistan and other countries were subdued, slow-rolled, and detoured by military leaders.” Almost everyone else in Washington seemed determined to fight not just one but several “endless wars” and do so, well, endlessly. Members of the blob, as the permanent foreign policy establishment has been called, appeared to want U.S. troops stationed in every nation on earth.

Thus, the last-minute appointment of Macgregor and ambitious orders for him were essentially Trump’s Hail Mary pass to reverse nearly four years of malicious obstruction by his own employees, such as National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, as well as the generals who were supposed to carry out his instructions. So Macgregor engineered a direct presidential order for withdrawal, without which there would be no chance of carrying out Trump’s wishes. Thinking they were in control of the policy process, guardians of the deep state were surprised to receive the presidential mandate. Wrote Swan and Basu: “The U.S. government’s top national security leaders soon realized they were dealing with an off-the-books operation by the commander in chief himself.”

Officials could have acted to carry out the president’s wishes. Alas, no. Again, the permanent government mobilized to prevent the elected president from carrying out the people’s will. Swan and Basu related: “News of the memo spread quickly throughout the Pentagon. Top military brass, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, were appalled. This was not the way to conduct policy—with no consultation, no input, no process for gaming out consequences or offering alternatives.”

What they really meant, of course, was that the decision was one which they opposed—indeed, had resolutely resisted for years. The Pentagon did not believe that even one of America’s many wars should be ended, apparently ever. Trump’s officials were determined to preserve the conflicts, at least for Joe Biden, and hopefully, in their view, far beyond the latter’s tenure.

As a result, the president’s final effort predictably finished like all of his earlier attempts to force change: dead in the water, which left Biden to decide Afghanistan. In this case, at least, Biden plans to do the right thing. But there still is plenty of time for some of the same actors to sabotage his decision.

Trump challenged the tired interventionist consensus which dominates Washington in other areas, but his appointees undercut him at every turn, consistently promoting their personal positions instead. Swan and Basu reported: “At the Pentagon, [Defense Secretary Mark] Esper had begun losing favor with Trump almost as soon as he was nominated. Even before he was confirmed he offered his full-throated support to the NATO alliance.” Which raised the question, why did Trump nominate Esper?

Swan and Basu also cited Jim Jeffrey, a Never-Trumper who never should have been appointed, as actively subverting the president’s Syria policy. Jeffrey admitted that he misused his position, advancing his views rather than the decisions of the president and interests of the American people. He even acknowledged misleading Trump about troop levels in Syria. Swan and Basu observed: “It was a stunning admission. But it was one that reflected the mindset of some of the national security leaders and savvy bureaucrats who had repeatedly thwarted the commander in chief’s demands over four years.” What they all had in common was representing the blob rather than the American people. Jeffrey was rewarded for his disloyalty with a comfortable think tank sinecure.

The Trump experience offers a warning to any future president who challenges Washington’s permanent war culture and its enablers.

The president controls only one aspect of his presidency: his staff. He doesn’t choose legislators, journalists, bureaucrats, or lobbyists. Nor does he select foreign leaders and events. Unfortunately, Trump didn’t understand the importance of choosing his people carefully.

Swan and Basu noted that “Trump would grow more and more frustrated. He had become convinced that the Pentagon was working against him, boxing him into staying in countries that he broadly viewed as terrorist-filled gas stations in a desert.” And Trump was right. The Defense Department’s objective evidently was to never leave any spot on earth where U.S. military forces range. This official obstruction was especially effective because of his neglect, however. Swan and Basu explained, “He would rant about ‘deep state’ subversion, but those talking him out of his instincts were mostly people that he himself had appointed.” He gave away authority over his own presidency.

It is bad enough for a president to choose people who won’t actively implement his agenda. It is far worse to turn the administration over to those determined to obstruct his policies. Swan and Basu highlighted the problem: “Trump did not help his own agenda when he surrounded himself at the start with generals, many of whom had made their careers at U.S. Central Command. They fundamentally disagreed with the president’s worldview. They were personally invested in Afghanistan. And several would come to see it as their job to save America and the world from their commander in chief.” In truth, they were the primary architects of nearly two decades of dismal failure, yet Trump allowed them to determine policy for the future.

Trump’s experience shows the importance of a president choosing those committed to implementing his vision and doing so from the start. Although McEntee provided Trump with important allies, like MacGregor, by then it was too late. There was little time to make changes the president could have easily mandated earlier.

Swan and Basu related the comic opera routine that occurred when Macgregor requested the White House draft the formal order to pull out: “His own decision to seek a presidential order for an immediate Afghanistan withdrawal had set off a bizarre round of bureaucratic make-it-up-as-you-go. Late on Nov. 10, one of McEntee’s subordinates drafting the memo for the president called Macgregor to say they didn’t know how to do it: ‘We’re trying to put this together but we don’t have a model for this and we want to get the language straight’.”

The president also must recognize that the Pentagon, like any other agency, will stymie, lie, dissemble, sabotage, and stonewall. Swan and Basu quoted Trump’s early political advisor Steve Bannon on the generals: “They literally would not give you any information. And the information they gave you was bullshit. In every presentation, they say you’re 18 months away from turning the war around. Always. You’re always 18 months away.”

Of course, some military officers believe their own propaganda. They often labor assiduously to avoid confronting reality. They hate to admit defeat. They seek to push failure into the future, onto their successors. When I visited Afghanistan a decade ago, some officers were refreshingly candid, but only when we were talking informally, without their superiors present. For years American military personnel continued to die in Afghanistan for an optimistic future that never arrived.

Even now, the military brass peddles shopworn arguments when it has nothing better to offer. Wrote Swan and Basu: “The generals pushed aggressively for more troops, warning that pulling out could create a vacuum for terrorists to gain a stronghold like the Islamic State group, or ISIS, did when President Obama withdrew from Iraq in 2011.” In fact, Iraq’s problem was continued sectarian conflict and corrupt administration, not lack of a residual U.S. force presence, which would have been a target for the discontented on all sides. As for Afghanistan, the world is full of other ungoverned and ill-governed places, where terrorists already can and do locate.

Pentagon officials consistently played on Trump’s fears. As Swan and Basu described:

They painted a vivid picture of Kabul falling to the Taliban if U.S. forces withdrew precipitously in the final days of the Trump presidency. In previous conversations with Trump, they had raised the specter of Saigon in 1975, where images of American helicopters evacuating people from rooftops as the North Vietnamese took control of the capital city would become engraved in the historical record of the Vietnam War. The unsubtle warning: This would be Trump’s legacy if he rushed to the exit.

An ugly picture, to be sure, but those making these claims were the same people who had blocked troop withdrawals earlier in the Trump’s presidency. No one would have been talking about a hurried exit at the end of his term had the military not earlier resisted his clear wishes. By making a measured withdrawal impossible, and then using that failure to oppose any pull out, the hardline “remainers” sounded a bit like the defendant who murdered his parents and then asked the judge for mercy as an orphan.

Any peace-minded president also will inevitably face what amounts to the Senate’s warmonger caucus. It concocted the worst arguments on behalf of endless war. Alas, Trump’s own failings made him uniquely susceptible to such claims. Wrote Swan and Basu:

Hawks like [Sen. Lindsey] Graham cynically used this argument—”stay there to protect the oil”—to convince Trump to keep forces in Syria. They were playing to Trump’s long-held view that the U.S. should have taken the oil from Iraq after the 2003 invasion to subsidize the war effort. That would have breached international law. But they knew that transactional arguments were more likely to resonate with Trump than human rights arguments about the plight of the Kurds or the fate of Afghan women. So they talked about the oil.

This is a terrible reason to illegally occupy another country and insert U.S. military personnel into a war zone involving multiple hostile forces. But regarding North Korea, Graham had earlier dismissed the risk of nuclear war since any conflict would be “over there.” Preserving peace was never his concern.

Ultimately, the president is elected by the people to decide the toughest issues. That includes issues of war and peace. In failing to enforce his will he failed the American people. Wrote Swan and Basu: “As passionately as Trump apparently felt about pulling America out of the Middle East and Afghanistan, he avoided giving an order to force the military’s hand.” It his responsibility to do so, to force the Pentagon to act after he decided that U.S. troops should come home. In the end, he could blame no one but himself for not pulling American forces out of multiple conflicts abroad.

Afghanistan is a tragedy. But it no longer should be America’s tragedy. Now Biden must fulfill Trump’s promise to end the conflict.


  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Or, maybe we boned the intervention and occupation of Afghanistan from day 1?

Edited by DanteEstonia
edited for clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Or, maybe we boned the intervention and occupation of Afghanistan from day 1?

Of course we did Dante.  But what does that have to do with the inability of any POTUS since to get the U.S. military effectively out of Afghanistan?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Of course we did Dante.  But what does that have to do with the inability of any POTUS since to get the U.S. military effectively out of Afghanistan?

The rationale seems to be “Since we’ve been there so long, and become entrenched, if we pull out, that will create a vacuum, and what will likely flow into that vacuum is something not in the best interests of the USA.”  The fallacy here is that somehow, someday, some faction will come along to occupy that space consonant with US interests. That has never happened in the history of the world on anything approaching a long term basis. We ought to have learned that lesson by now. You don’t put US boots on the ground somewhere without an exit strategy firmly in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bobref said:

The rationale seems to be “Since we’ve been there so long, and become entrenched, if we pull out, that will create a vacuum, and what will likely flow into that vacuum is something not in the best interests of the USA.”  The fallacy here is that somehow, someday, some faction will come along to occupy that space consonant with US interests. That has never happened in the history of the world on anything approaching a long term basis. We ought to have learned that lesson by now. You don’t put US boots on the ground somewhere without an exit strategy firmly in place.

We also have this ignorant idea that we can export our system of government as well. The Emir of Afghanistan should have been restored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...


Former President Donald Trump ripped the ”LameStream” media Monday for its failure to cover allegations by Special Counsel John Durham that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid an Internet company to spy on Trump.

“Can you imagine that, what should be the biggest story of our time, bigger than Watergate, is getting absolutely no mention, ZERO, in the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC Fake News, NBC Fake News, CBS Fake News, ratings-dead CNN, and MSDNC,” the former president said in an emailed statement from his Save America PAC.

“This in itself is a scandal, the fact that a story so big, so powerful, and so important for the future of our Nation is getting zero coverage from LameStream, is being talked about all over the world,” Trump added. 

The 45th president further accused the media of ignoring the “many Biden corruption scandals” before the 2020 election and “they won’t talk about this, which is potentially even bigger.”

“It shows how totally corrupt and shameless the media is,” he continued.

Durham, who was appointed by then-Attorney General William Barr in May 2019 to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe, filed documents Friday claiming that Clinton’s campaign paid an internet company to “infiltrate” computer servers at Trump Tower and the White House in an effort to link Trump to Russia. 

The filing pertained to conflicts of interests in the case of Michael Sussmann, a Clinton campaign lawyer, who is charged with lying to the FBI.

Sussmann allegedly told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker that Sussmann wasn’t working for the Clinton campaign when he handed over documents in September 2016 that purportedly tied the Trump Organization to a Kremlin-connected bank.

In fact, the indictment alleges, Sussmann had billed the Clinton campaign for calls and meetings with tech executive Rodney Joffe and the campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias, in which they “coordinated and communicated” about the allegations

“Can you imagine if the roles were reversed and the Republicans, in particular President Donald Trump, got caught illegally spying into the Office of the President?” Trump asked. “All hell would break loose and the electric chair would immediately come out of retirement.

“The good news is, everybody is talking about not only this atrocity against our Nation, but that the press refuses to even mention the major crime that took place,” the former president said.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the leading GOPer on the House Judiciary Committee, said Durham’s filing shows that Trump was right all along when he accused the Clinton campaign of spying on him and called Russian collusion allegations a hoax.

“Yep, there was spying going on, and it was worse than we thought because they were spying on the sitting president of the United States,” Jordan told “Fox & Friends” Sunday. “And it goes right to the Clinton campaign. So God bless John Durham.”

Hmmm - Was Trump REALLY right about this?  Was it really a hoax after all?  I mean did the Clinton Campaign actually spy on the Trump campaign with help from the Obama administration?  Wasn't there some history of a campaign spying on another campaign?  Watergate comes to mind......


Link to comment
Share on other sites


So there you have it. 

Russiagate, the collective delusion that Donald Trump was secretly a Russian agent aided and abetted by the Kremlin, the topic of uncountable inches of Washington Post and New York Times copy and the entire primetime lineup of MSNBC, was a dirty trick by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Not just part of it. All of it. One of the most diabolical, successful misinformation campaigns ever concocted. 

We already knew that the Steele dossier was garbage. Christopher Steele was paid indirectly by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt, which he did by turning to other Clinton operatives, laundering every outlandish rumor about Trump he could find into an “investigative” document. 

He shopped it to the FBI, which couldn’t verify his sources or any of his stories, but the agency dragged out the investigation to cast maximum suspicion on the new president. In the meantime, Steele found willing accomplices in the media to push his propaganda. The dupes at BuzzFeed even decided to print the whole pack of lies, with the flimsy rationale of “Well, why not?” 

We got to the point where New York magazine was running a cover story that was one long piece of fan fiction that Trump was secretly a real-life version of “The Americans,” a sleeper agent now seated in the highest office in the land. The Times and Washington Post won a freaking Pulitzer! 

A made-up story 

Now another piece of Russia, Russia, Russia is kaputski. A computer server operated by Trump’s company was secretly communicating with a Russian firm, claimed Slate magazine and endless Twitter threads of would-be tech experts. 

But as special counsel John Durham outlines in his latest indictment, that was just a story made up by tech executive Rodney Joffe, who desperately wanted a job with the Clinton administration. He hacked Trump’s servers, cherry-picked privileged Internet data he had access to, and molded it to look like something nefarious. 

He was coached by lawyer Michael Sussmann — who was being paid by the Clinton administration, although he lied about that to investigators. Sussmann goes to the FBI as a “concerned citizen” — not a “Clinton stooge” — to try to get them to bite. The ultimate goal: Be able to leak to the Times that Trump is under official investigation. 

Durham “definitely showed that the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia,” says Kash Patel, the former chief investigator for the House Intelligence Committee. 

Beyond outrageous 

Of course, Hillary didn’t get what she wanted — the presidency. But her operatives didn’t stop, going on CNN to give “very concerned” interviews about a theory they knew was bull. All to undermine Trump’s presidency. It would take three years for the Mueller report to finally put the lie to rest, and we’re now, five years out, at the point where Durham is detailing the full conspiracy. 

If this had happened to a Democrat, the press would be losing its mind. A candidate for president weaponized the nation’s Justice Department to pursue an investigation into their political opponent based on what they knew were lies. Americans were wiretapped! Some were entrapped for flimsy claims of perjury. The director of the FBI went into the Oval Office to tell the president that there was a sexual rumor floating around, so that it could be promptly leaked to the media. “Outrageous” doesn’t cover it. And still no shame from Hillary Clinton and her supporters, because it’s Donald Trump — anything is fair game to take him down. 

All these things we’ve been lectured about over the past four years: Norms being broken, internet misinformation, perversion of government — it was all happening. It was the Democrats who were doing it. Think anyone in the left-wing media will notice?

Notice this story is basically showing up at one place......I don't think anyone else is going to notice.....


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...