Oops he did it again
29 responses | 0 likes
Started by gfn - Sept. 30, 2019, 6:10 p.m.

Seems trump pressured Australia  to help him investigate origins of Mueller probe.

By metmike - Sept. 30, 2019, 6:47 p.m.
Like Reply

Trump asked the Australian prime minister to help investigate Mueller probe origins


"I’m old enough to remember when Democrats actually wanted to find out what happened in the 2016 election," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley said in a statement. "The Democrats clearly don't want the truth to come out anymore as it might hurt them politically, but this call relates to a DOJ inquiry publicly announced months ago to uncover exactly what happened. The DOJ simply requested that the President provide introductions to facilitate that ongoing inquiry, and he did so, that's all."

metmike: So a 2.5 year, 35,000,000 investigation trying to frame Trump, spying on him, using unverified/false information paid for by his opponent and using numerous foreign countries and pressuring numerous people to try to get them to testify about things that he did not do(while violating rights of US citizens)....is OK(and he was found innocent of)

However, if President Trump asks a foreign country for its cooperation in an investigation of the investigators(that clearly acted inappropriately on several levels and absolutely need to be investigated) then it's evidence of Trumps corruption?

What was the bribe that he was offering to Australia?

I guess this can be twisted to show that he was trying to influence the 2020 election..........by exposing legit corruption and making him look good, thus getting more votes next year.

If Barr does not investigate the origins of this situation with regards to their actions during the Mueller probe than who does?

Answer: Nobody.

In other words, they should all be above the law and can violate peoples rights with impunity and for whatever political reason they want and we should just accept whatever they do, pretending that they are saints with no political affiliation.

By mcfarm - Sept. 30, 2019, 7:02 p.m.
Like Reply

what in the heck is wrong with you people. We have just uncovered the largest and most prolific attempt to over throw an election in the US with Obama and co using foreign countries to circumvent our laws against abusing private citizens and this what you what to gripe about...somebody actually trying to get to the origins of something that makes watergate look like kids play

By gfn - Sept. 30, 2019, 11:58 p.m.
Like Reply

By all accounts from Australia Trump pressured them vs asked them.  Not sure McFarm comprehends  the difference but I think most do .  For those that don't  I will lay it out for you.  You ask people to help you find the truth,  You pressure them to give you the answers you need for your agenda.  

By metmike - Oct. 1, 2019, 12:46 a.m.
Like Reply

"You ask people to help you find the truth,  You pressure them to give you the answers you need for your agenda."

Right. So when the defense attorney or prosecutor in court is cross examining a witness that is  under oath to tell the truth and they pressure them, you say that what they really want is answers they need for an agenda vs seeking the truth.

What foreign leaders are going to want to talk to Trump without concerns  that  spies and leakers on the US side are going to capture the conversation,  twist the meaning of words/conversations and might cast them as a dialolitcal character in their plot to destroy Trump?

With regards to pressuring vs asking, I guess that you haven't read the transcript yet and are just going with the MSM version/interpretation of the conversation, which also includes not believing the president of Ukraine who insists the he wasn't pressured.

'Nobody Pushed Me.' Ukrainian President Denies Trump Pressured Him to Investigate Biden's Son



We certainly wouldn't want to believe the person that was supposedly pressured that says that he wasn't pushed/pressured.   That would mess up the narrative using that powerful word "pressured" which is a key vs what the 2 who actually had the conversation are telling everybody and the transcript shows........... that he "asked".

By metmike - Oct. 1, 2019, 1:37 a.m.
Like Reply

An impeachment hearing is about as serious as any that have every taken place in the history of our country. When Adam Schiff opened it up with a fake parody account of what happened to support the get Trump, false narrative and convince viewers who didn't read the transcript that his version happened but were actually lies because we have the transcript and  he even pretended to be reading it from a transcript.......wow, one of the most blatant ethics violations during a hearing that I can remember.

And only  Fox news calls him out on it???

WOW, the MSM is determined to get, even if they have to ignore Schiff's ethical violations, Biden's corruption and Mueller/intelligence  community blatant violations and corruption.

Gowdy goes after Schiff for 'making stuff up' at DNI hearing


Rep. Biggs introduces motion to censure Schiff for parody transcript


By TimNew - Oct. 1, 2019, 5:20 a.m.
Like Reply

I've asked  a few times,and I'll ask one more time.

I keep hearing that Trump's actions involving his discussions with  Ukraine somehow violated the constitution and/or US law.  Please cite the portion of the constitution and/or statute to support this claim.

I haven't gotten an answer. And I won't, because there is none.

I think more and more people are coming to this realization and and it may prove very costly for the Dems who's only real accomplishment is that they are making Trump look pretty good in comparison.

What many are hearing from the dems is "How dare you question one of us on what apears to be blatant corruption" in spite of all the efforts of the dem and MSM to portray it as something else.

By GunterK - Oct. 1, 2019, 8:43 a.m.
Like Reply
By cliff-e - Oct. 1, 2019, 9:23 a.m.
Like Reply
By mcfarm - Oct. 1, 2019, 10:52 a.m.
Like Reply

look gfn don't be throwing rationalizations my way. We just nearly had a Presidential election stolen by a whisker and you think I give a care if some bureaucrat somewhere has to be asked or pressured? I could give a rats axx as long as we finally get the origins of the fiasco. We need to look no further than the shanighans pulled by clapper, brennan, comey, mcabe etc.

By metmike - Oct. 1, 2019, 11:08 a.m.
Like Reply
View Poll Results: In USA elections, is it legal or illegal to ask for assistance from a foreign entity?
 With regard to election law in the USA asking for assistance from a foreign entity is generally legal.   310.71%
 With regard to election law in the USA asking for assistance from a foreign entity is always illegal.   2589.29%

This is the question that the dems want you to ask based on their narrative which, their partners, the MSM are saturating all realms with. However, based on the realities and legalities of the transcript and facts which would be used if this were a court case or if this were being used objectively to apply the Constitution , this is the actual question:

With regards to the the Constitution(or common sense), can the president of the United States ask for assistance from a foreign entity for an investigation into corruption that occurred involving US citizens and their country?

By metmike - Oct. 1, 2019, 11:12 a.m.
Like Reply

Or, to phase the question in a biased way, as might be seen from a pro Trump view:

Can President Trump fulfill another one of his campaign promises by "Draining the Swamp?"

By metmike - Oct. 1, 2019, 9:52 p.m.
Like Reply

So is Adam Schiff the right man to be conducting a hearing by the intelligence committe that is supposedly trying to establish the objective truth?  As shown above, he lied about the details of the phone conversation, completely making up a false version that he wanted the American people to hear(in order to poison their minds against Trump)  who were tuned into the hearing, as he pretended to be reading it from a manuscipt below him. 


This too:

Adam Schiff Received the Whistleblower Complaint a Month Ago and Didn't Report It Until Now, Why?

So this is suddenly a national emergency that needs immediate attention but over a month ago..........it wasn't?

Something was going on by Schiff and his colleages during that month related to their scheming that caused them to hold back.

I actually watched much of the hearing. Schiff continually hammered Maguire over the time delay that it took for the whistle blower report to get passed on, which they finally had after all that time, suggesting that this was because of an attempted cover up by him and others at the orders of the president............but Schiff was notified a month earlier of the whistle blower complaint, August 12th than what he was indicating during the hearing!

Did he wait that long intentionally so that he could manufacture the delay narrative?

Or did he wait for some other reason..........maybe, thinking that by ignoring it and not confronting the president right away, the president would continue on that course and he could bust him with more stuff related to this before he came forward with the national emergency?

I speculate that its the last objective. Wait longer to catch Trump in another call or saying/doing something else besides making a phone call. Maybe  Gulliani will do something if he waits a month..........or maybe Trump  withholding the aid package that went to Ukraine..................yes, thats what he was hoping for. 

There was a delay in the military aid to the Ukraine and he was waiting as long as possible for the delay to stretch out. He was hoping that Trump would authorize the money to be sent in tandem with news from Ukraine that they had found Biden corruption..............and use that to prove the connection/corruption......but then, Trump authorized the military aid with nothing given him from the Ukraine, so he forwarded the complaint then......after the delay because he speculated incorrectly about what was going to happen. 

By joj - Oct. 2, 2019, 12:46 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Oct. 2, 2019, 1:40 p.m.
Like Reply


You just provided support for my speculative post for why Schiff waited, so thanks. To try to catch Trump withholding funds until the Ukraine dug up dirt on Biden.

When trump sent the money without the dirt, it destroyed that tactic.

By mcfarm - Oct. 2, 2019, 3:56 p.m.
Like Reply

digging up dirt on Biden???? wtf? hey joj how about his own words? Is that good enough? How about 2 clicks on the computer?  How hard was that?


By metmike - Oct. 2, 2019, 5:37 p.m.
Like Reply


It's clear that Trump's motivation to investigate this situation is to dig up dirt on Biden. If it had been somebody other than Biden, he would likely not have acted this way.

He is a person from  a US political party. Of course his actions will be political.

However, the more relevant, non political question that should be asked is whether this/Biden should be investigated or not?

Since the answer seems crystal clear that, at the very least, the circumstances cannot be explained as making sense unless Joe Biden used his political influence.

Not just to effect the politics of a foreign country(which he bragged about), as well as assisting in getting his son a job his son was not qualified for.  We have another corruption problem for Biden in China. 

So the real question is this. Is it fair for Trump to investigate corrupt actions of people from his country/US in cahoots with a country that has a history of corruption, that he wants an assurance from, that they are no long corrupt?

Of course it's fair.

Unless, of course the intelligence community was already investigating this and he was interfering in their investigation.

But they weren't and as we know, the intelligence community has acted as an arm of the democratic party...........clearly so, with their actions on H.Clinton and the get Trump Russian investigation and everything that Clapper, Brennan and Comey have stated shows their blatant bias.

So who will investigate Bidens corruption if not Trump?

An investigation is justified.

Biden sidesteps questions about his son's foreign business dealings but promises ethics pledge

From ABC news investigation Jun 20, 2019, 


Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?

From: The New Yorker


July 1, 2019

Joe Biden’s son is under scrutiny for his business dealings and tumultuous personal life.


Since the Bidens are immune from being investigated by US legal entities because they are democrats and almost all the MSM are giving him a free pass, how do we get to the bottom of explaining what looks like obvious corruption by the Bidens?

I have read this silly explanation over a dozen times in the MSM about why there was no corruption by the Bidens  "I never talked to my son about his business dealings"

OK, thanks Joe. We know that you couldn't tell a lie, no need to question that. The Bidens are innocent.

By TimNew - Oct. 3, 2019, 7:27 a.m.
Like Reply

1st, we must accept the narrative that Trump specifically asked the president of Ukraine for "Help with the election".  Once we accept that with no question,  there is no question that Trump violated all sorts of laws.

But what he asked for was help with an investigation.  An investigation, unlike the one against Trump, that was based on highly suspicious activity.   Had the US launched an investigation on foreign soil,  I'm certain that too would have had everyone on the left up in arms, and I believe it would have violated international law in general and a treaty we have with Ukraine  specifically.

Now, a good argument could be made that this is politically motivated,  much like the 85 or so investigations launched against Trump over the last 3+ years, some using foreign resources,  but........ if it's actually impeachable, there goes the entire dem congress.

By metmike - Oct. 4, 2019, 11:58 p.m.
Like Reply

Adam Schiff needs to step down!!!

Sam Stein: Adam Schiff "Expressed Regret" For Lying About Having No Prior Contact With Whistleblower


"We talked for a couple of minutes last night and he expressed regret for not having been more clear in his wording," Stein said Wednesday. "He said at the time, obviously, we now know the whistleblower had approached his staff, but there wasn't 100% certainty if the whistleblower that had approached his staff was the same one who was behind the complaint. There was a suspicion it was, but it wasn't 100% certainty."

Are you kidding me? Only a naive nimrod would believe this!

He's been busted blatantly lying now several times for the sole purpose of trying to frame and impeach the president of the United States.

The man needs to go ASAP!

By metmike - Oct. 5, 2019, 12:03 a.m.
Like Reply

Washington Post awards Adam Schiff ‘Four Pinocchios’ for false comments about whistleblower


"The very next day, Schiff appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he seemingly graduated from dodging to lying, the Post says.

“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” Schiff said on MSNBC.

Kessler noted that this is “flat-out false” given information that has since become available."

“Unlike the quick two-step dance he performed with Anderson Cooper, Schiff simply says the committee had not spoken to the whistleblower. Now we know that’s not true,” the Post’s fact-checker wrote."

On Sept. 19, Schiff was at it again, according to the Post, when speaking with reporters at the Capitol.

“In the absence of the actions, and I want to thank the inspector general, in the absence of his actions in coming to our committee, we might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint alleging an urgent concern,” Schiff said.

The Post’s fact-checker called this “misleading” comment “more dissembling” and noted that “his committee knew that something explosive was going to be filed with the IG.”

Kessler wrote there “are right ways and wrong ways to answer reporters’ questions if a politician wants to maintain his or her credibility” and there is “nothing wrong with dodging a question, as long as you don’t try to mislead.”

But Schiff “clearly made a statement that was false” on MSNBC and “compounded his falsehood” when speaking with reporters at the Capitol, Kessler wrote.

“The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity,” Kessler wrote. “Schiff earns Four Pinocchios.”

The Post’s Fact Checker team considered Four Pinocchios to be “whoppers” and most egregious offense outside of the rare “Bottomless Pinocchio.”

By metmike - Oct. 5, 2019, 12:17 a.m.
Like Reply

Pelosi defends Schiff after being pressed about his 'parody' of Trump's Ukraine call: 'He did not make it up'


After Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was criticized for reading a "parody" of President Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended his actions Thursday and claimed he did not embellish any of the facts.

Schiff, who read the dramatization of Trump's call during acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire's hearing, improvised parts of the transcript for effect, and later tried to frame it as satire.

"I want the American people to know what that phone call was about. I want them to hear, it. So yeah [the parody's] fair," Pelosi told "Good Morning America" on Thursday. "It’s sad, but it's using the president’s own words."

"Those weren't the president's words, it was an interpretation of the president's words. They're saying he made this up," ABC News' George Stephanopoulos countered.

"He did not make it up," she replied.

"Look, I want to tell you something -- when I took the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution as my colleagues have done as well, I did not say, I will do this as long as the Republicans can understand the Constitution.

"So the fact that their loyalty is to Trump and not the Constitution is not going to slow down or impair our ability to keep the Republic."

Now Pelosi is lying and we have it all recorded.

Listen to the tape of Schiff at the hearing pretending to be reading from the transcript above, making things up(parody as he would call it but the reality is he was trying to fool Americans tuned into the hearing, who didn't read the actual transcript into believing Trump did and said what he was making up) and compare it to the transcript of the phone call.....he was lying his ars off.

By metmike - Oct. 5, 2019, 12:29 a.m.
Like Reply

Let's make it easy for you:

Copy of the transcript:



Below link: Adam Schiff, the democratic chairman of the house intelligence committee lying about what was on  the transcript and about what Trump actually said to Ukrainian President Zelensky  during this critical hearing that he was leading/in charge of:

Gowdy goes after Schiff for 'making stuff up' at DNI hearing


By TimNew - Oct. 5, 2019, 8:03 a.m.
Like Reply

"Look, I want to tell you something -- when I took the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution"

I hear Pelosi say this and I think of the of the many times the exact opposite has been true. Particularly on the eve of the passage of "Obamacare".  A reporter asked her what part of the constitution authorized the bill.  She replied, "Are you serious, is that a serious question?"   The honest answer is there is no suport in the constitution for government interference in how we obtain medical care. The 10th amendment makes it pretty clear that it should be relegated to the states or the individual.

 In effect, to me at least, she was saying..  What does the constitution have to do with the well being and care of the American people?

So much for her "Oath"...

By metmike - Oct. 5, 2019, 12:32 p.m.
Like Reply

We've also been covering Schiff's lies since Monday Night.

'Apology not necessary': CNN guest gloats after he is proven right about whistleblower contacting Adam Schiff staff


"Cuomo had cast doubt on Fleitz's analysis on Monday, discounting Fleitz's experience and suggesting his analysis was tainted by partisan leanings. Cuomo cited the inspector general’s assessment of the witness as “credible” and the complaint being of “urgent concern.”


"Who do you think had more information about who this whistleblower is and what backed up their complaint? You, a staffer of the Republican variety, or the IG?" Cuomo said at one point in the segment.


Fleitz’s analysis was based his familiarity with whistleblower complaints, noting that the one in question was unusual in the way it was written and appeared to have been crafted by lawyers. Fleitz also noted that Schiff had been tweeting out accusations that appeared in the complaint in August before the complaint had been filed."

metmike: Schiff  had this complaint for  a month and was just using that time to perfect the scheme, including the complete lies in the hearing he was in charge of, that included him accusing the other side of trying to obstruct him from getting the complaint in timely fashion as he pretended to have not received it. 



By metmike - Oct. 5, 2019, 12:45 p.m.
Like Reply

AOC accuses Trump of ‘anti-Semitism’ for Twitter attacks on Adam Schiff


“Understand that Trump is engaged in deliberate, atrocious, targeted anti-Semitism,” the freshman Democrat posted Saturday with a retweet of a Friday opinion piece that likened Trump’s rhetoric to neo-Nazi tactics.

“His bigotry is reflective of the white supremacist base he relies on for political gain,” she added in another post."

metmike: The only person that hurts themselves more than Trump when they tweet, is AOC. But there is a huge difference when it comes to their actions. Trump does everything to build up America, she does everything to tear it down. 

By metmike - Oct. 8, 2019, 10:07 p.m.
Like Reply

Pelosi tells South Carolina Democrats Trump impeachment probe 'a very sad time for our country'


"Not any of us came to Congress to impeach a president," Pelosi said. "This is a very sad time for our country. This is a very somber time for our country."

metmike: Not true, they have been trying to impeach Trump from just after he was elected, note their first vote on impeachment in 2017!:


"Pelosi talked about how news of Trump's phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky came on the anniversary the U.S. Constitution was signed. 

"September 17 of this year, that very day, was the day that this explosion occurred and we found out about the telephone conversation, which is completely in defiance of the Constitution of the United States," she said."

metmike: This  is a lie! They knew about it a month earlier, see below but were obviously hiding it while they hatched the scheme. They were going to show that Trump was holding back aid to the Ukraine until he got dirt on Biden.............then they were foiled on September 11th when Trump released the aid to the Ukraine, BEFORE he got dirt on Biden. Then, they lied about knowing about it for the previous month...............blowing up part of the original plan. See facts below. 

Adam Schiff Received the Whistleblower Complaint a Month Ago and Didn't Report It Until Now, Why?

Washington Post awards Adam Schiff ‘Four Pinocchios’ for false comments about whistleblower


This was after he just made stuff up about the phone call:


By metmike - Oct. 8, 2019, 10:18 p.m.
Like Reply

Am I defending Trump?

No, I'm showing the lies and corruption of Schiff and Pelosi to get Trump.......with verified facts, dates and documents. 

By metmike - Oct. 9, 2019, 1:19 a.m.
Like Reply

As usual,  a Libertarian and Constitutional authority speaks the objective truth. 

Alan Dershowitz Says Dems are Misusing Impeachment Power


By metmike - Oct. 13, 2019, 1:15 p.m.
Like Reply

Rand Paul: Democrats Need to be Investigated Over Ukraine


“If you condemn Trump, you need to condemn the Democratic senators,” the Kentucky senator added. “Everybody is going after President Trump. Someone needs to actually, in an objective way, evaluate a letter from four Democrats that said to Ukraine, if you don’t keep investigating Trump, we will reconsider our bipartisan support for aid. That’s a threat and that’s the same kind of stuff they’re accusing Trump of.”

The letter Paul is referencing—sent by three Democratic senators in May 2018—requested information on four existing investigations into former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort, asking Ukraine prosecutors if the Trump administration had asked them to not cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller."

By metmike - Oct. 16, 2019, 1:14 a.m.
Like Reply

135 House Republicans co-sponsor resolution to censure Schiff over 'parody' reading of Trump-Zelensky call


"A motion to censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for his “parody” reading of President Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky during a hearing last month is gaining steam with House Republicans, as Fox News has learned 135 lawmakers have now signed on as co-sponsors."