Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Well that opinion would well earn you a ban hammer in any forum run by ME, I can tell you that.

If Twitter wants to ban people that say Israel did 9/11 and that they sent secret messages to all the Jews of NYC to warn them, Twitter has every right to do so. EVERY right. They own the platform. Of course they are NOT doing that. They give those people a checkmark and invite them to make money off outrage farming. Then blame the Jews for advertisers leaving.

Anyways I hope you're aware enough to at least know Elon's huffing and puffing about suing the ADL for "defamation" is going nowhere.

Well in this case, "The Jews" have openly claimed responsibility. That the ADL went on an advertising boycott campaign against Twitter is not in dispute.

[Da Geezer]

It's required to actually impeach him for sure. I didn't think so with an inquiry. If I'm wrong McCarthy just made up a power for himself.

Did Pelosi hold a vote on the Trump impeachment inquiry? My recollection is that no inquiry at all was held.

And Trump turned out to be right in mentioning Hunter Biden's activities during his "impeachable" call to Zelinsky. Everyone here forgets that Biden had come in 4th and 5th in Iowa and NH at the time of the call. It is not impeachable for a President to inquire about an American criminal.

I've read that an impeachment inquiry gives the various committees more subpoena power than they have as just oversight.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Hey now Nancy is a woman of impeccable integrity...pelosi rips.jpg

[Hannibal]

F51fFExW8AAblIH?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

Did Pelosi hold a vote on the Trump impeachment inquiry? My recollection is that no inquiry at all was held.

And Trump turned out to be right in mentioning Hunter Biden's activities during his "impeachable" call to Zelinsky. Everyone here forgets that Biden had come in 4th and 5th in Iowa and NH at the time of the call. It is not impeachable for a President to inquire about an American criminal.

I've read that an impeachment inquiry gives the various committees more subpoena power than they have as just oversight.

Trump implied he might withhold military aid to an ostensible ally unless they provided him dirt or announced a sham "investigation" into the Bidens. In the end he didn't do that but let's not pretend he didn't make that ask. Would Trump have given a shit about possible Joe Biden business deals in Ukraine if he wasn't running for President? Of course not.

And yes, I said I didn't think an inquiry required a vote. And posted an article where McCarthy and Pelosi took the exact opposite positions they are doing now.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Everyone here forgets that Biden had come in 4th and 5th in Iowa and NH at the time of the call. It is not impeachable for a President to inquire about an American criminal.

Everyone forgets that because it isn't true. Trump's "perfect" phone call took place on July 25, 2019, over five months before the Iowa caucus.

Read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky | CNN Politics

[THE_WIZARD_]

TDS

[THE_WIZARD_]

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,”

[THE_WIZARD_]

There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except his good friend Rudy Giuliani.

[THE_WIZARD_]

"If the prosecutor is not fired, you are not getting the money. Son of a bitch they fired him."

[THE_WIZARD_]

Grassley Obtains & Releases FBI Record Alleging VP Biden Foreign Bribery Scheme

Grassley, Comer to continue joint inquiry into FBI handling of significant, politically charged investigations


WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today released an unclassified FBI-generated record describing an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and a Ukrainian business executive. Grassley acquired the record, an FD-1023, via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers.

“For the better part of a year, I’ve been pushing the Justice Department and FBI to provide details on its handling of very significant allegations from a trusted FBI informant implicating then-Vice President Biden in a criminal bribery scheme. While the FBI sought to obfuscate and redact, the American people can now read this document for themselves, without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats, thanks to brave and heroic whistleblowers. What did the Justice Department and FBI do with the detailed information in the document? And why have they tried to conceal it from Congress and the American people for so long? The Justice Department and FBI have failed to come clean, but Chairman Comer and I intend to find out,” Grassley said.

“The FBI’s Biden Bribery Record tracks closely with the evidence uncovered by the Oversight Committee’s Biden family influence peddling investigation. In the FBI’s record, the Burisma executive claims that he didn’t pay the ‘big guy’ directly but that he used several bank accounts to conceal the money. That sounds an awful lot like how the Bidens conduct business: using multiple bank accounts to hide the source and total amount of the money,” House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer said. “At our hearing with IRS whistleblowers, they testified that they had never seen or heard of this record during the Biden criminal investigation, despite having potentially corroborating evidence. Given the misconduct and politicization at the Department of Justice, the American people must be able to read this record for themselves. I thank Senator Grassley for providing much needed transparency to the American people. We must hold the Department of Justice accountable for seeking to bury this record to protect the Bidens.”

Grassley first disclosed the FBI’s possession of significant and voluminous evidence of potential criminality involving the Biden family last year. He has since worked to unearth the FBI record, eventually partnering with Comer on a subpoena to compel its public disclosure. After delays, the FBI provided a highly redacted version of the document to select members of the House of Representatives, but it remained shielded from the public and omitted key details, including references to recordings. Following the FBI’s failure to fully comply with the congressional subpoena, Grassley received the legally protected disclosure with limited redactions to protect a trusted FBI source, handling agents, department whistleblowers and identifiers related to other ongoing investigations.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Nothing to see here.

[Hannibal]

[Mike]

Gift cards cause hurricanes. FAX.

[THE_WIZARD_]

loon large.jpg