Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

More Beyoncé!

[Unregistered]

Hi gang ,

After all his blather let’s see if conmen can address the following

In last 25 we have discovered that

1) trumps a billion dollar LOSER

Old news that everyone knew before Trump was elected. Libs like to pretend it's a BREAKING BLOCKBUSTER BOMBSHELL NEWS. It isn't.

The big story in the New York Times on October 25, 1995 was that Trump was the "Comeback King":

"Though there are still four years to go in the 90's, business and government leaders in New York honored Donald J. Trump yesterday for pulling off what they called "the comeback of the decade." Mr. Trump, the developer who came to epitomize opulent wealth during the 80's before tumbling into deep financial trouble, has managed to erase much of his debt and is moving ahead with major projects at a time other developers are idling."
http://archive.fo/sylQJ#selection-371.1-375.240

In fact there is a video in which Trump himself says he was "billions of dollars in debt" during that time period.

https://twitter.com/nedryun/status/1...3-years-ago%2F

Just old news that won't change anyone's minds.

I wonder when the wunderkinds of liberal media and their gullible audiences will figure out all this stuff is available on the internet.

[Unregistered]

2) his AG has been hit with contempt

The problem with libs is that hypocrisy runs deep in their veins.

Jerry Nadler tweet in 2012: “Just joined the #walkout of the House chamber to protest the shameful, politically-motivated GOP vote holding AG [Eric] Holder in contempt.”

Nancy Pelosi in reference to holding Holder in contempt: “What is happening here is shameful."

BTW the vote to hold Holder in Contempt? 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting with Republicans.

And let's not forget the words of Jerry Nadler back in 1998 when it came to releasing the Star report: "Now, Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material, that is material that by law, unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release."

Blah, blah, blah. Who can take anything that comes out of these hypocrites' mouths seriously?

Answer: Gullible libs.

[Unregistered]

3) don jr got an invite from

Senate intel


Chair if senate intel is a Republican right ?

Tee hee
Bwa ha ha
😂😂😂😂😂😂

A precedent has already been established by the previous administration how this may possibly play out.

- January 2012 Patrick Cunningham, chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, invoked his Fifth Amendment right in connection with the Fast and Furious scandal. He resigned and took a job in the private sector.

- April 2012 General Services Administration (GSA)’s Jeffrey Neely invoked his Fifth Amendment right when the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called Neely to testify about improper spending. This was the guy pictured in a bathtub with glasses of wine at a Las Vegas resort which cost the agency more than $800,000. A judge sentenced him to three months in jail and three months home detention.

- January 2013 Deputy Director of the IRS Greg Roseman invoked his Fifth Amendment right about helping a friend procure potentially $500 million worth of IRS contracts.” Roseman retired after 32 years of federal service and lives comfortably on his government pension.

- May 2013 (Senate Finance Committee) and again March 2014 (House Oversight Committee) IRS Director, Lois Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right over allegations that the IRS had targeted conservative nonprofit groups for additional scrutiny of their applications for tax-exempt status. Lerner lives comfortably in retirement these days on her government pension.

- October, 2013 Department of Veterans Affairs Assistant Secretary of Human Resources John Sepulveda invoked his Fifth Amendment right amid revelations that two 2011 conferences held in Orlando, Fla., near Walt Disney World, cost taxpayers $6.1 million, and included spa treatments, helicopter rides, and expensive tickets to shows. Sepulveda resigned from his post. No charges were brought.

- October 2013 Environmental Protection Agency official John Beale invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. This guy bilked the government out of nearly $1 million and got 32 months in prison for it.

- November 2015 Diana Rubens, senior executive director for the Philadelphia office of the Veterans Benefits Administration invoked her Fifth Amendment right amid allegations she utilized loopholes within the VA's employee transfer program that allowed her to pocket large sums of taxpayer dollars. A review of the case by the Inspector General recommended the Justice Department proceed with criminal charges. No charges were brought, nor was she fired from her position. She was demoted, but her demotion overturned. She received a bonus of almost $8,700 in 2014, the same year she was under federal investigation for allegedly abusing her authority for personal gain.

- November 2015 Kimberly Graves, a senior executive director for the St. Paul, Minnesota office of the Veterans Benefits Administration invoked her Fifth Amendment right when accused of abusing her authority to take advantage of the VA's PCS procedures and of embezzling public funds. No charges were brought, nor was she fired from her position. She was demoted, but her demotion overturned. She received a bonus of almost $8,700 in 2014, the same year she was under federal investigation for allegedly abusing her authority for personal gain.

The VA stated it lacked the authority to recover upwards of $400,000 from Rubens and Graves. Both Graves and Rueben will likely retire comfortably on their government pensions when the time comes.

- September, 2016 State Department Employee Bryan Pagliano ignored a subpoena to appear at a House hearing. A House panel voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify. Three months earlier he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right more than 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition over his involvement in setting up Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Nothing came of the the contempt charges as it was assumed Pagliano would just plead the Fifth again. Pagliano walks off into the sunset with no charges against him.

[Unregistered]

It only took seven years for that subpoena case against Holder and the DOJ to be settled.

Subpoena fight over operation Fast and Furious documents finally settled
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...holder-1313120

Just another big nothingburger.

So if it takes another 7 years to sort the mess Democrats are making in DC, Trump will have ended his second term two years earlier.

Bwahahaha!

[Unregistered]

The problem with libs is that hypocrisy runs deep in their veins.

Jerry Nadler tweet in 2012: “Just joined the #walkout of the House chamber to protest the shameful, politically-motivated GOP vote holding AG [Eric] Holder in contempt.”

Nancy Pelosi in reference to holding Holder in contempt: “What is happening here is shameful."

BTW the vote to hold Holder in Contempt? 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting with Republicans.

And let's not forget the words of Jerry Nadler back in 1998 when it came to releasing the Star report: "Now, Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material, that is material that by law, unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release."

Blah, blah, blah. Who can take anything that comes out of these hypocrites' mouths seriously?

Answer: Gullible libs.

House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., in 2012 during Fast and Furious debate : "This has been rushed to the Floor. The American people expect us to address the issues that matter most to them. Issues like jobs and the economy and education and healthcare. . . what troubles me most is under the Republican majority, everything has to be a fight."

McGovern 2019: “I know that Pelosi is someone who respects the institutions of our government and is horrified by what she’s seeing unfold.”

Neither Pelosi nor McGovern were horrified by the Obama administration's arguably more expansive use of this tactic. Attorney General Holder abused executive privilege by arguing that documents upon which President Obama had never even been briefed qualified for protection under executive privilege. This was an unprecedented expansion of privilege. By contrast, Barr is facing a contempt charge for, in part, simply upholding the law requiring him to withhold Grand Jury materials.

[Unregistered]

The problem with libs is that hypocrisy runs deep in their veins.

“if this body [Congress] determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role . . .because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

Linsday Graham speaking about Bill Clinton. The ultimate in hypocrisy.

[Unregistered]

Old news that everyone knew before Trump was elected. Libs like to pretend it's a BREAKING BLOCKBUSTER BOMBSHELL NEWS. It isn't.

The big story in the New York Times on October 25, 1995 was that Trump was the "Comeback King":

"Though there are still four years to go in the 90's, business and government leaders in New York honored Donald J. Trump yesterday for pulling off what they called "the comeback of the decade." Mr. Trump, the developer who came to epitomize opulent wealth during the 80's before tumbling into deep financial trouble, has managed to erase much of his debt and is moving ahead with major projects at a time other developers are idling."
http://archive.fo/sylQJ#selection-371.1-375.240

In fact there is a video in which Trump himself says he was "billions of dollars in debt" during that time period.

https://twitter.com/nedryun/status/1...3-years-ago%2F

Just old news that won't change anyone's minds.

I wonder when the wunderkinds of liberal media and their gullible audiences will figure out all this stuff is available on the internet.

The New York Times revealed that more than 30 years ago, some of Trump's businesses lost quite a bit of money. Because of that, he paid no federal income taxes for eight of the 10 years for which they had data. This is a pretty common way to account. Some of the biggest companies in the world paid no federal income taxes for exactly the same reason. That list would include Amazon, Delta Airlines, Chevron and General Motors.

[Unregistered]

“if this body [Congress] determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role . . .because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

Linsday Graham speaking about Bill Clinton. The ultimate in hypocrisy.

He's "evolved".

[Unregistered]

An Preview of what Democrats have in store for the rest of America




The City of Oakland is in such dire financial straits that it is planning to use $2.9 million from state gas tax revenues to keep the city’s lights on, rather than using the money to fix pothole-riddled roads, for which the funding was intended.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday that the city is facing severe financial shortfalls, despite a booming economy that has seen wealthier households relocate from San Francisco across the bay to gentrifying neighborhoods.

The problem is that the city’s costs are rising faster than its growing revenues, thanks partly to pension obligations — an increasingly common challenge for large, Democrat-run cities that made ambitious promises to public sector unions.

As Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf — famous for tipping off illegal aliens to an impending federal law enforcement sweep, in an effort to defend her “sanctuary city” — noted in her recent budget statement to the city council last week:

Though cranes are rising across the skyline and Oakland’s revenues are growing at a steady rate due to the strong real estate market, the City’s expenses continue to rise faster than revenues. Personnel-related expenses, particularly the cost of medical benefits and pensions – as well as insurance, utilities, and fuel costs – are growing at 2-3 times the rate of inflation and revenue growth.

The deficit for this year will be $25 million. As a result, the Chronicle notes, Oakland — which is generously extending benefits to illegal aliens — can barely keep its street lights on.

To deal with the crisis, the city is shifting money from pothole repair to street lighting, even though the money raised by the 2017 gas tax must be used for transportation.

The Chronicle notes that Oakland’s believes that street lighting qualifies:

Enter the state gas tax.

The mayor is proposing to use the $2.9 million to pay for the street-lighting portion of the shortfall, then use the savings to keep the parks open.

According to Article 19 of the state Constitution, gas tax money is to be used for the “research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for nonmotorized traffic).”

Oakland officials feel that gives them the cover to use the tax money to light the streets as well.

The city will still apparently have other funds, both from the gas tax and its own revenues, to use for pothole repair — though less than it would otherwise have had.

Republicans attempted to repeal the gas tax hike in a 2018 ballot initiative, but the state government gave the measure a misleading title. As a result, the measure failed, though polls showed a majority of Californians opposed the hike.

The budget notes that the city will spend $150,000 per year on a legal fund to assist illegal aliens facing deportation.

[Unregistered]

2) his AG has been hit with contempt

Jonathan Turley:

"The House Judiciary Committee is voting to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress and to secure a vote of the entire House of Representatives in order to send the matter to federal court. The problem is that the contempt action against Barr is long on action and short on contempt. Indeed, with a superficial charge, the House could seriously undermine its credibility in the ongoing conflicts with the White House. Congress is right on a number of complaints against the White House, including possible cases of contempt, but this is not one of them.

As someone who has represented the House of Representatives, my concern is that this one violates a legal version of the Hippocratic oath to “first do no harm.” This could do great harm, not to Barr, but to the House. It is the weakest possible case to bring against the administration, and likely to be an example of a bad case making bad law for the House.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) laid out the case for contempt. He raised three often repeated complaints against Barr in that he failed to release an unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller, allegedly lied twice to Congress, and refused to appear before the committee. Yet, notably, the only claim the committee seeks to put before a federal court is the redaction of the report. That seems rather curious since, if Barr lied or refused a subpoena as House leaders claim, it normally would be an easy case of contempt. The reason for this move is that House Democrats know both claims would not withstand even a cursory judicial review.

... Barr promised to release as much of the report as possible, and he has delivered. Indeed, he is not expressly given the authority to release the confidential report. Yet, he not only released it but declared executive privilege waived on its content. The key obstruction portion of the report is virtually unredacted. Just 8 percent of the public report was redacted, largely to remove material that could undermine ongoing investigations. The sealed version of the report given to Congress only had 2 percent redacted. Democrats are therefore seeking a contempt sanction on a report that is 98 percent disclosed and only lacks grand jury material.

Barr restricted access to the 98 percent disclosed report, as opposed to the 92 percent public report, due to the inclusion of evidence impacting ongoing prosecutions. He has offered to expand the number of members and staff to review that material but insists on it remaining protected. But this has nothing to do with the redactions. It is the 2 percent solution to a major political dilemma of the left. Faced with a report that rejected the collusion theories of their running narrative, Democrats want to focus on those 2 percent of redactions rather than over 400 pages of findings.

So Congress now will ask a court to find civil contempt for Barr refusing to release grand jury information. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a district court claim to have the “inherent supervisory authority” to disclose grand jury matters because of great public interest. To make matters worse, the Justice Department has now said the president has invoked executive privilege over the entire report, making this contempt claim even less likely to prevail over the long run."
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...rr-in-contempt

[Unregistered]

^^^^^^^

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/...0509084520.jpg

[Unregistered]

An Preview of what Democrats have in store for the rest of America




The City of Oakland is in such dire financial straits that it is planning to use $2.9 million from state gas tax revenues to keep the city’s lights on, rather than using the money to fix pothole-riddled roads, for which the funding was intended.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday that the city is facing severe financial shortfalls, despite a booming economy that has seen wealthier households relocate from San Francisco across the bay to gentrifying neighborhoods.

The problem is that the city’s costs are rising faster than its growing revenues, thanks partly to pension obligations — an increasingly common challenge for large, Democrat-run cities that made ambitious promises to public sector unions.

As Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf — famous for tipping off illegal aliens to an impending federal law enforcement sweep, in an effort to defend her “sanctuary city” — noted in her recent budget statement to the city council last week:

Though cranes are rising across the skyline and Oakland’s revenues are growing at a steady rate due to the strong real estate market, the City’s expenses continue to rise faster than revenues. Personnel-related expenses, particularly the cost of medical benefits and pensions – as well as insurance, utilities, and fuel costs – are growing at 2-3 times the rate of inflation and revenue growth.

The deficit for this year will be $25 million. As a result, the Chronicle notes, Oakland — which is generously extending benefits to illegal aliens — can barely keep its street lights on.

To deal with the crisis, the city is shifting money from pothole repair to street lighting, even though the money raised by the 2017 gas tax must be used for transportation.

The Chronicle notes that Oakland’s believes that street lighting qualifies:

Enter the state gas tax.

The mayor is proposing to use the $2.9 million to pay for the street-lighting portion of the shortfall, then use the savings to keep the parks open.

According to Article 19 of the state Constitution, gas tax money is to be used for the “research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for nonmotorized traffic).”

Oakland officials feel that gives them the cover to use the tax money to light the streets as well.

The city will still apparently have other funds, both from the gas tax and its own revenues, to use for pothole repair — though less than it would otherwise have had.

Republicans attempted to repeal the gas tax hike in a 2018 ballot initiative, but the state government gave the measure a misleading title. As a result, the measure failed, though polls showed a majority of Californians opposed the hike.

The budget notes that the city will spend $150,000 per year on a legal fund to assist illegal aliens facing deportation.

San Francisco Will Spend More Than $70 Million This Year Just To Clean Up Poop

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46713...aign=mattwalsh

[Unregistered]

DJT Junior gets a subpoena to testify to both the House and GOP controlled Senate. Lying to Congress isn't a good look. Trump is fuming over the New York times tax piece (his fragile ego can't take it when anything calls his wealth or supposed business prowess into doubt) and the state of new York approved hading his state tax returns to Congress. Mueller will most likely testify in front of Congress. Trump trying and failing to prohibit his current and former lackeys from testifying and handing over documents (=obstruction). Steven Mnuchin probably will be held in contempt of Congress for not handing over Trump's returns.

In other words, yet another ****e week for team Trump and it's only Thursday morning. Business as usual.

In a statement to The Daily Wire, a source close to Donald Trump Jr. slammed the subpoena as an "obvious PR stunt," noting that he has already given 8-9 hours of testimony in front of the Senate Intel committee and over two dozen hours total in front of various committees.

"Don is a private citizen, who has already been cleared by Mueller after a two year investigation. He has done 8-9 hours of testimony in front of Senate Intel already and 27 hours of testimony in front of various committees in total," the source told The Daily Wire Wednesday. "When he originally agreed to testify in front of the Senate Intel Committee in 2017, there was an agreement between Don and the Committee that he would only have to come in and testify a single time as long as he was willing to stay for as long as they’d like, which Don did. Don continues to cooperate by producing documents and is willing to answer written questions, but no lawyer would ever agree to allow their client to participate in what is an obvious PR stunt from a so-called 'Republican' senator too cowardly to stand up to his boss Mark Warner and the rest of the resistance Democrats on the committee."

[Unregistered]

Tell me

How would GOP have responded if Obama claimed executive privilege on Benghazi info and wouldn’t make anyone available to answer Trey Brnghazi’s Questions in front of his oversight committee?

😊

You mean like Obama/Holder did over Fast and Furious?

Let's see what you have to say on that subject.