Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes I do. The Soviets spent 70 years infiltrating our edu, media, and governance throughout the 20th century with their Active Measures resulting in the culmination of today's American "progressive" left.
The Reality of Red Subversion
The Recent Confirmation of Soviet Espionage in America
Stephen J. Sniegoski • September 1, 2003
Editor's republishing notes: Today our entire Corporate Media is shrilly proclaiming—on the basis of absolutely no public evidence—that Christian Russia is on the verge of subverting and seizing control of the American government via the election of Donald Trump. It is therefore highly ironic that in the past all of these same media organs had viciously attacked and ridiculed those who presented the strong evidence that Communist Russia actually did come close to subverting and seizing control of the American government during the 1930s and 1940s, never fully acknowledging their grievous error.
The massive documentation behind this undeniable historical fact has been provided across numerous scholarly books, but much of it is helpfully summarized in this monograph by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski, which is therefore worth republishing. —Ed.
___________________________
Here is Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov to explain it for you from 1983
Because it was a case of avoiding the circus trump's team was attempting to put on by forcing all subpoenas to the courts. The first subpoena, for former White House counsel Don McGahn, was already in court at the time and he was ordered to appear in the House. But guess what? It is still in court on an appeal. Big surprise right? So there already was a case brought to the courts and they had their answer to how that would work. They very smartly avoided the bear trap.
Don McGahn case preceded the Impeachment Inquiry and could not be argued it was needed for the Impeachment. That's why it's still in the courts.
The Bolton and Kupperman cases where they never issued and withdrew were being fast tracked and would have been ruled quickly.
You know why they withdrew Kupperman ? Because if the Judge quickly ruled he did not have to comply it would have 100% killed their Obstruction argument. They could not risk the Judge ruling against them.
The McGahn case is irrelevant to the Impeachment. They are just trying to get the Mueller dirt for the election.
House Democrats say they’ve withdrawn a subpoena for testimony from the former deputy national security adviser as part of their impeachment inquiry.
The Democrats say in court papers filed Wednesday that they have no plans to try to compel the testimony of Charles Kupperman as the pace of the impeachment inquiry quickens, with public hearings scheduled to begin next week.
Kupperman may have listened in on the July telephone call between President Donald Trump and the Ukrainian president that sparked the impeachment inquiry.
Kupperman had asked a judge to decide whether he had to appear before Congress over the White House’s objections.
Democrats say U.S. District Richard Leon should now dismiss Kupperman’s case since he’s no longer facing a subpoena.
If you aren't going to read all the posts how can you make this statement?
There are plenty of posts saying that the House's job was to gather enough evidence to support impeachment. The House tried and were rebuffed by trump's refusal to cooperate in supplying witnesses and evidence. They tried the courts, google Don McGahn, saw that as a dead end or at least a bridge too far and went with what they had. Maybe they were naive in thinking the Senate would do their job and actually want more facts. But they did not CHOOSE to not do that, they were forced to under the circumstances.
Think about what you wrote.
The House issued subpoenas and withdrew them when potential witnesses went to court for judicial opinions. Now, after refusing to send the Articles to the Senate for 33 days, they want the Senate to subpoena the same people who went to court. Not exactly a good way to speed up the process.
With all due respect, comparing this impeachment to Clinton's is like comparing WWII to a bar fistfight. With Clinton the only thing at risk was staining of the antique furniture. trump's transgressions have much more critical consequences so please give 1999 a rest.
Nope, not even close. The danger of blackmail when a sitting president enters into an affair is very real. Proven by the fact that Clinton committed a felony by lying under oath to hide it. Proven being the key word here.
Compared that to the hearsay and third-hand testimony for the current trial. For a "crime" that never was committed.
Yes I do. The Soviets spent 70 years infiltrating our edu, media, and governance throughout the 20th century with their Active Measures resulting in the culmination of today's American "progressive" left.
The Reality of Red Subversion
The Recent Confirmation of Soviet Espionage in America
Stephen J. Sniegoski • September 1, 2003
Editor's republishing notes: Today our entire Corporate Media is shrilly proclaiming—on the basis of absolutely no public evidence—that Christian Russia is on the verge of subverting and seizing control of the American government via the election of Donald Trump. It is therefore highly ironic that in the past all of these same media organs had viciously attacked and ridiculed those who presented the strong evidence that Communist Russia actually did come close to subverting and seizing control of the American government during the 1930s and 1940s, never fully acknowledging their grievous error.
The massive documentation behind this undeniable historical fact has been provided across numerous scholarly books, but much of it is helpfully summarized in this monograph by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski, which is therefore worth republishing. —Ed.
___________________________
Here is Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov to explain it for you from 1983
Many people are becoming aware the Senate impeachment trial is an exercise in politics, nothing more. The votes are already decided; the trial is simply a pantomime.
To highlight the point, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, simply walked out during the trial when Adam Schiff was testifying; said “goodnight” and just went home.
Washington Post congressional reporter Paul Kane noted:
READ MY LIPS!!! I don't care about Clinton's sexual peccadilloes. Yes he lied about it. You would probably have done the same thing given the circumstances. And for what it's worth IMO this was a big part of why Hillary is so disliked and lost the election.
More evidence of the level of hate trump lovers have for all democrats. Us trump haters really only hate trump and for lots of good reasons.
He didn't just "lie about it". A sitting president committed a felony by committing perjury. A sitting president that was a lawyer and should have known better. I certainly would not have lied under the given circumstances. Because lying under oath is a felony.
For your information, Clinton's sexual escapades and lying under oath have nothing to do with why Hillary is so disliked and lost. She is disliked because she's a vile human being, and lost because she was the worst candidate.
He didn't just "lie about it". A sitting president committed a felony by committing perjury. A sitting president that was a lawyer and should have known better. I certainly would not have lied under the given circumstances. Because lying under oath is a felony.
For your information, Clinton's sexual escapades and lying under oath have nothing to do with why Hillary is so disliked and lost. She is disliked because she's a vile human being, and lost because she was the worst candidate.
Absolutely, Clinton perjured himself.
But think about it, would you admit to cheating with an intern on tape?
He was trapped.
As far as Hillary being disliked, it is part of the dislike of some women toward her.
She had that awful interview “ I am not some woman standing by my man “ and what did she do?
She stood by him.
She lost people there. Nobody likes weakness and self righteousness, imho.
Hillary had too much baggage.
Unfortunately as a woman candidate she had to be perfect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
