Recommended Posts

On the Gamestop showdown: Bold claims, below. (How bold? I dunno; ask a financial expert; I'm just an observer at that game.) As the meme goes, "That's a bold strategy, Cotton; let's see how this plays out..."

"Gamestop is MUCH MUCH BIGGER than most people understand. If the vigilantes keep buying and refuse to sell their shares it could take down

ALL OF IT…the entire financial system.

This is a MUST read…this is not some little game. These kids might have the big banks by the balls and they know it"

https://gab.com/markzilla/posts/105636468399920887

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

From Gateway Pundit - link:

Attorney Lin Wood Tells Georgia Bar to Pound Sand – Says He Will Not Undergo Psychiatric Evaluation


Ellen

"The defense calls Dr. Thomas Szasz to the stand..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

"The defense calls Dr. Thomas Szasz to the stand..."

LOL.  Unfortunately, the defense can only call Szasz's spirit to the stand, since Szasz in the flesh hasn’t been with us since September 8, 2012.  (He was 92 when he died.)

Now you mention Szasz, I wonder...if he'd lived to 2016 or later, would he have been a Trump fan?  My bet is yes.

Ellen

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

LOL.  Unfortunately, the defense can only call Szasz's spirit to the stand, since Szasz in the flesh hasn’t been with us since September 8, 2012.  (He was 92 when he died.)

Now you mention Szasz, I wonder...if he'd lived to 2016 or later, would he have been a Trump fan?  My bet is yes.

Ellen

Exactly, his "spirit". While he may have "shuffled off this mortal coil", his warnings live on...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

From Gateway Pundit - link:

Attorney Lin Wood Tells Georgia Bar to Pound Sand – Says He Will Not Undergo Psychiatric Evaluation


Ellen


Further development:

Lin is changing his state of legal residence from Georgia to South Carolina.

See this Telegram post:

Quote
Good afternoon. Busy morning pouring water on the false fires. Your words of support, love, and faith help inspire me to be a formidable firefighter. I find my strength in the Lord.

BREAKING NEWS! I have changed my legal residence from the State of Georgia to the State of South Carolina!

I have lived in Georgia since I was 3 years old (65 years). I still love the Peach State but Georgia has deteriorated over the years to become one of the most corrupt states in the country, if not the most corrupt. 

Every state has problems. Like individuals, states are imperfect. But Georgia has spun out of control and is heavily influenced by the CCP through corrupt state officials. 

I love the land in the Lowcountry of South Carolina and the people here are simply wonderful. South Carolina has welcomed me. Georgia has falsely accused me and shunned me. 

I am thrilled about my change of residency.

I started my life in North Carolina in 1952 and plan to live in South Carolina until the Lord calls me back north to my eternal home in Heaven. 

Sometimes in context, going from the North to the South is a really good thing. 

Now I can vote against Lindsey Graham! 

God bless each of you. - Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸
16.5Kviews16:

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the impeachment front:

“The Senate is Utterly Without Jurisdiction to Try Donald Trump” – Former Independent Counsel Ken Starr Explains Why Democrats Can’t Try Trump (VIDEO)

Quote

No where in the Constitution or any other documents written by our framers does it mention anything about impeaching and convicting a former president.

Former US Solicitor General and Independent Counsel Ken Starr said the senate is without jurisdiction to try private citizen Donald Trump.

The House of Representatives impeached President Trump with a 232-197 vote on January 13 for ‘inciting an insurrection’ at the Capitol.

Speaker Pelosi held onto the articles of impeachment and didn’t deliver articles to the senate until after Trump left office.

Chief Justice Roberts isn’t even presiding over the senate trial – Senate Pro Temp Leahy (D-VT) is instead, which is another violation of the law.

Furthermore, 45 senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional so the trial in DOA.

Judge Starr outlined in detail why “the Senate is utterly without jurisdiction to try Donald Trump” during an appearance with “Life, Liberty & Levin” Sunday evening.


Also:

WOW! Liberal Law Professor Alan Dershowitz BLASTS Fake News CNN, PBS and MSNBC for their Dishonest Editing of President Trump’s Words

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Ellen! These are not quotes but my remembering what was just said by Ken Starr and the Fox analyst. As Ellen mentioned, Judge Ken Starr was on Fox and he did not think President Trump can be impeached since he is out of office. And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must preside and that probably won’t happen. So this whole re-impeachment process is a sham, a disgusting misuse of taxpayer funds, and a very deliberate attempt by Pelosi, Schumer, and others to go after a political opponent. Peter

Notes. Kenneth Winston Starr (born July 21, 1946) is an American lawyer who served as a United States circuit judge and 39th solicitor general of the United States. He is best known for heading an investigation of members of the Clinton administration, known as the Whitewater controversy.

From Wikipedia. Constitutional provisions[edit] Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution provides: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 2 provides: [The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 provides: The PresidentVice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, TreasonBribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.[2]

Impeachable offenses[edit] The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors",[3] but does not itself define "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Types of conduct[edit] Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment "do not all fit neatly and logically into categories" because the remedy of impeachment is intended to "reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office".[1][4] Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:

improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;

behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and

misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.[1][4]

High crimes and misdemeanors[edit] Main article: High crimes and misdemeanors

"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons.[5] Toward the end of the 18th century, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor...was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.[6]

The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt, but meant the opposite. The crimes are called "high crimes" because they are carried out by a person in a position of public authority, or by misusing the position of public authority they have been given. It does not mean that the crimes themselves are unusual or "higher" types of crime. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. In 1974 the Senate's Judiciary Committee's stated that "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' [7]

Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high Crime or Misdemeanor", especially since the Supreme Court decided in Nixon v. United States that it did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[8] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[9]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now let's see if the pussification of the US military command will be complete.

If Biden sends the US military to Myanmar to interfere, I, myself, am going to have a fit. I already don't respect the US executive, the US congress and the US justice system.

The US military was all that was left. And if it goes along with invading another country to preserve election fraud, I want out.

I don't want to be part of that system.

My big hope is that Biden is pussified much more than the command of the US military.

Michael

That's very "interdasting", as the kids say...Very similar to what Q was saying would happen here re our rigged election. Does this vindicate/confirm Q? Well, I can't say that...but, given the fact that it DID happen somewhere else...Well, then. To quote DR. STRANGELOVE, "I'd hate to judge before all the facts are in, but it's beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the President of the World.

Only President Trump could play chess so beautifully that when the Senate trial begins, he will put evidence in on election fraud.

Everytime I think that President Trump is so brilliant, he even does something more brilliant! 

I love you, my President, President Trump.

God bless President Trump, and God bless The World! 

Pelosi, Biden and the whole group v President Trump.

It's not even fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

#nogroundgame

#cantbeatRubio

#cantbeatHillary

#ShawshankRedemption

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marc said:

love the President of the World.

Only President Trump could play chess so beautifully that when the Senate trial begins, he will put evidence in on election fraud.

Someone may have already posted what’s at the bottom, because I seem to remember it, but I get a kick out of it and yet it worries me. If there is a split between Trump supporters and The Republican Party, it is quite possible that a so-so O’Biden Administration or even a failed admin could win in 2024. And here is some good news / bad news too. Some economists think even if O’Biden / Harris don’t do too well with personal freedoms and regulations, the economy will flourish after Covid is taken care of. Peter

Exclusive: Dozens of former Bush officials leave Republican Party, calling it 'Trump cult' Updated Mon, February 1, 2021, 9:27 AM By Tim Reid. (Reuters) - Dozens of Republicans in former President George W. Bush's administration are leaving the party, dismayed by a failure of many elected Republicans to disown Donald Trump after his false claims of election fraud sparked a deadly storming of the U.S. Capitol last month. These officials, some who served in the highest echelons of the Bush administration, said they had hoped that a Trump defeat would lead party leaders to move on from the former president and denounce his baseless claims that the November presidential election was stolen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter said:

...

Notes. Kenneth Winston Starr (born July 21, 1946) is an American lawyer who served as a United States circuit judge and 39th solicitor general of the United States. He is best known for heading an investigation of members of the Clinton administration, known as the Whitewater controversy.

...

Better called a cover-up instead of an investigation. Over Starr’s strenuous objections the three-judge panel overseeing his work ordered Starr to add a 20 page evidentiary file by the lawyer for Patrick Knowlton as an appendix to his report that described the shenanigans he happened to witness at Fort Marcy Park.

David Martin has written about the cover-up:
America’s Dreyfus Affair
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mark said:

Better called a cover-up instead of an investigation. Over Starr’s strenuous objections the three-judge panel overseeing his work ordered Starr to add a 20 page evidentiary file by the lawyer for Patrick Knowlton as an appendix to his report that described the shenanigans he happened to witness at Fort Marcy Park.

David Martin has written about the cover-up:
America’s Dreyfus Affair
 

 

Mark,

That article is dauntingly long.  Are you referencing it as something positive about Ken Starr?  Or negative about Ken Starr?

I figure you agree with Starr about the illegitimacy of a Senate trial on an impeachment charge against someone who isn’t in office.  Yes?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

That's very "interdasting", as the kids say...Very similar to what Q was saying would happen here re our rigged election. Does this vindicate/confirm Q? Well, I can't say that...but, given the fact that it DID happen somewhere else...Well, then. To quote DR. STRANGELOVE, "I'd hate to judge before all the facts are in, but it's beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority."

Doctor Strangelove, huh? Peter

 From: "Andy Dufresne" To: solarwind47 Subject: offlist: ATL: Strangelove Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:04:50 +0000 offlist: "No one thinks of themselves as Pro-War, Debbie, except perhaps the fictional Colonel Batt Guano in the movie, “Doctor Strangelove.”"

 Peter, if you're going to make allusions to movies, you should get the right.  It was General Jack D. Ripper who was insanely pro-war.  Bat Guano was just a soldier... he was about as dense as that guard Dagney shot in AS, but he wasn't the pro-war one. Gerard

 Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel . . . that Coca-Cola machine. I want you to shoot the lock off it. There may be some change in there.

 Colonel "Bat" Guano: That's private property.

 Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your frame, outlook, way of life, and everything, when they learn that you have obstructed a telephone call to the President of the United States? Can you imagine?! Shoot it off! Shoot! With a gun! That's what the bullets are for, you twit!!

 Colonel "Bat" Guano: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?

 Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: What?!

 Colonel "Bat" Guano: You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Yes, Ken Starr is right (well, I’m no legal scholar but it sounds reasonable and I want it to be right) I’d just rather hear what he’s saying from someone else.  David Martin’s article shows that he's dishonest.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mark said:

Yes, Ken Starr is right

Thanks to Ellen. For me the best idea from Starr and others is that Supreme Court Justice Roberts is familiar with the law and the constitution and will not  . . .  nay, he cannot  . . .  "legally" preside over a dishonorable Senate Impeachment trial concerning a President who has left office. Peter    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 


Who the fuck is actually calling the shots - since it sure as hell isn’t Biden?  He’s just signing what he’s told to sign and saying what he’s told to say.

Ellen

Obama, and his minions, is still President.

--Brant

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going by inches, but it's going.

Guv Wolf of Pennsylvania is in damage control mode.

And it absolutely has nothing to do with the election fraud. And if you believe that, har-dee-har-har... 

BREAKING: Democrat Pennsylvania Secretary of State at Center of Trump Election Concerns Resigns After Botching Requirement for Constitutional Amendment

But the doofus stepped out of the pan and went straight into the fire. 

Kathy Boockvar was let go because she did not follow state election law over a sexual abuse amendment.

When this one explodes, since there will obviously be a suit demanding equal treatment for the changes to the 2020 election laws, there will be a ton load of gossip in the news along with the election fraud. This is the kind of shit that brings down the high and mighty.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Obama, and his minions, is still President.

--Brant

Brant is responding to my asking who's actually calling the shots.

On 2/1/2021 at 11:33 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

 


Who the fuck is actually calling the shots - since it sure as hell isn’t Biden?  He’s just signing what he’s told to sign and saying what he’s told to say.

Ellen

I suspect that the command chain goes deeper than "Obama, and his minions."  Obama wasn’t Chief Dog himself.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmm, wonder how many CEOs have stepped down since Schmidt from Google when President Trump signed that EO way back when.

Sure are lots of coincidences happening.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly what selling out looks like. Newsmax started out as a good alternative to the fake news media. Now it is pure Mockingbird (the CIA infiltrate-the-news-media propaganda project).

Bob Sellers even has selling out in his name.

WATCH: Newsmax Host Has Mike Lindell on to Talk About Tech Censorship — Ends Up Censoring Him As Well — Then Storms Out of Studio

Here's the video in the article from an authoritarian liar and idiot:

I wonder how much Chinese money Newsmax gets or who is blackmailable over there. They are toadies to authoritarians. Butt lickers.

Mike Lindell is a hero. He certainly is one of my heroes.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is exactly what selling out looks like. Newsmax started out as a good alternative to the fake news media. Now it is pure Mockingbird (the CIA infiltrate-the-news-media propaganda project).

Bob Sellers even has selling out in his name.

WATCH: Newsmax Host Has Mike Lindell on to Talk About Tech Censorship — Ends Up Censoring Him As Well — Then Storms Out of Studio

Here's the video in the article from an authoritarian liar and idiot:

I wonder how much Chinese money Newsmax gets or who is blackmailable over there. They are toadies to authoritarians. Butt lickers.

Mike Lindell is a hero. He certainly is one of my heroes.

Michael

That was horrifying to watch, and I had that feeling in the pit of my stomach, and still do, while watching it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now