Recommended Posts

I don't know how the following link will work for Parler.

I just followed Roger Stone over there and, man, is he feisty.

In the "Parley" below, he gives his opinion on Chris Christy's disapproval of his commutation, video, cigar and all.


btw - I logged out of Parler and tested this to see. A Parler post does appear like a pop-up, but I think you can only get the video if you have a Parler account.

I think it's worth signing up. Lot's of famous people have become members and new ones are joining every day. The new people who appeared since I was last there are Tom Fitton, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly (I didn't follow her 🙂 ), and many more.

Here's what Roger just posted tagging Dan Scavino (who is a member).

I'm quoting the text because I like it so much.


Hey @DanScavino45 Tell the President to join Parler. Twitter has become nothing but a cesspool of left wing hate



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 548
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lo and behold, just days after Berman's being taken out, SDNY's case against Jeffrey Epstein's child victim procurer Ghislaine Maxwell finally proceeds after having been sat on for years. https:/

Jon, Just for the reader, here is a bolded headline to that link and some excerpts: Epstein Confidante Maxwell Arrested In New Hampshire [Updated]   Here is the indictment if anyone

My God! President Trump simply walked right around a huge chunk of the military part of the swamp, took them out of the game and sent them to the locker rooms. What an exciting

Posted Images

On 7/12/2020 at 3:50 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Lincoln Project (a group of never Trump Republicans who now support Biden--they are led by Kellyanne Conway's boneheaded husband, George Conway and others, see here)

Rick Wilson is one of them.

In order to further bash President Trump, this bonehead went to Stephen Colbert, of all people. He had no doubt they would help him blast Trump. I don't think he realized they would change the text of the cartoons this much AFTER he recorded his part to different questions (and, of course, assurances, they would not fuck with the text 🙂 ).

Man, does he deserve this.

Colbert's an asshole, but, when he is on, his satire chops are exceptionarily sockdollager.

As he makes clear, mass murderers deserve nothing less...




Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2020 at 8:35 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The reason Berman he thought he could get away with that is because he had been an interim appointment by Jeff Sessions...

I get no pleasure from the following announcement of the outcome of an act of leadership, but it had to be done.

I'm fond of Jeff Sessions for helping President Trump get elected, but there were just too many mistakes by him...

A true leader understands it doesn't matter if you're killed due to malice or due to ineptness. You're just as dead either way.

If you want to keep leading, get away from people who cause destruction or refuse to try to prevent it when they can prevent it

It's a reality thing.


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I saw this.

Then I went there and saw this (at the Daily Mail):

Prosecutor John Durham reveals the report into 'spying' on Trump's campaign will be released by the end of summer and says: 'The American people deserve to hear this story'

I found it odd that this article mentioned Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Justice Department, but did not say where or when she made the announcement.

So I dug a little deeper and saw the following (at the Washington Examiner). The article below contains a video of Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Justice Department, making the announcement during an interview on Fox. No guarantees (after all, this is a criminal investigation and new evidence could delay it), but an expectation.

End of summer.

Woo hoo! 🙂 

Justice Department gives update on when to expect 'pivotal' report from John Durham

This will be one of the things that helps motivate a huge pro-Trump turnout. And flip undecideds to vote for Trump. Even turn folks from the Dem side.

I don't see it influencing anything in the opposite direction.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first headline especially is so deceptive. Starts out saying Durham says before end of summer. Then becomes Kerri says Durham says before end of summer. Turns out to be only Kerri strongly hopeful. Barr did express a "hopeful expectation" weeks ago.

But that headline makes it sound like Durham himself now says before end of summer, yet it appears he has himself said nothing about when we can expect, neither with his own mouth nor through Kerri.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

The first headline especially is so deceptive. Starts out saying Durham says before end of summer. Then becomes Kerri says Durham says before end of summer. Turns out to be only Kerri strongly hopeful.


It is clickbaity (and that is awful), but I'm not so sure about deceptive in terms of being wrong. Kerri speaks officially in the name of Durham and Barr, etc., so technically Durham did not say this on Fox, but he did say to Kerri to say it. Otherwise, in her job, she would not have. 

McFarland is in like Flynn with the DoJ and she tweeted out this news, so I imagine she has an insider's view, meaning end of summer is exactly what Durham is planning. It would be suicide (worst possible practice) to announce as 100% fact that a criminal investigation report will be issued to the public within a month and a half while the investigation was still ongoing.

The only way to announce it is the way Kerri did. But the news companies didn't have to be so weaselly about the way they reported it.

In my view, I give Durham's report about 99% chance of happening before or by the end of summer.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am at 50/50.

I think maybe they know for certain it will not be released before the election and are allowing the enemy to worry that it really may so that they are forced to deal even with the contingencies they're not actually exposed to during the final months of election.

I am operating from the knowledge that Trump will win in November and needs nothing, not arrests, not indictments, not reports, to achieve that inevitable outcome.

Also operating from the expectation that the enemy will immediately launch another huge hoax (Russia last time,) and this will be the time when another major Dept of Justice report showing who the criminals really are will be most useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder.

This is the stud the Deep State tried to float as a viable alternative to President Trump.

And, boy, did he get mainstream news coverage.


But now there's this:

Michael Avenatti is broke, can’t afford legal fees, lawyer claims
Avenatti faces three-dozen counts of fraud, tax evasion and other alleged crimes

Don't forget. This is the public face the Deep State wanted for itself.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/29/2019 at 1:25 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Roe vs. Wade is a legal abomination where the Supreme Court legislated from the bench.

A right to privacy is not enumerated in the Constitution.

That's why the pro-abortion folks are constantly afraid it will be overturned by the Supreme Court itself if too many conservative Justices get appointed..

Here is one of the cracks coming that the liberals are so afraid of.

Senator Hawley will only approve SCOTUS nominees with record of opposing Roe v. Wade
“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided,” Hawley said

This is how the Supreme Court gets reined in.

It's a slow agonizing process, but given the volatile nature of human passions that cause enormous crowds to surge quickly, that's a good thing.

Hawley's argument is not an argument against abortion (although he is probably against it), but instead for restoration of a correct process that was breached.

Abortion needs to be decided by Congress and signed into law--a law affecting the constitution--by the President. The main dissonance is the definition of a person. In one definition that gets used, there are two people involved (the conceived and the mother). In another definition, there is only one (the mother).

Legally, I predict that Roe v. Wade will eventually go the way of the decisions on one of these two lists.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

List of abrogated United States Supreme Court decisions

The liberals are deathly afraid of the first (overruled). What the Supreme Court Justices giveth, the Supreme Court Justices can taketh away.

I don't think they are too concerned about the second (abrogated), meaning a constitutional law like an amendment that makes the former Supreme Court decision void. (In my "sovereignty over body" idea for women, meaning the individual mother has sovereignty over her body rather than the state, which gives her the power and authority to kill what or who is inside her body, this is where the argument would have to land for permanent constitutional validity.)


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unenumerated rights can be protected by the SCOTUS with correct legal/human rights reasoning. Roe v. Wade doesn't qualify. A right to privacy? Take that and run with it in today's context. Back then it was a euphemism for the right to have an abortion.


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


For all intents and purposes, it still is.


The justices couldn't come with the reasoning for abortion so they pushed the subject under the rug.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

It's finally dawning on some of the Deep State insiders (like Andrew Weissmann below) that shit is getting real.

Top Mueller prosecutor urges DOJ officials to resist Barr investigations


One of former special counsel Robert Mueller's top prosecutors urged Justice Department officials to consider refusing to cooperate with two investigations overseen by Attorney General William Barr.

Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department official who was known as Mueller's "pit bull" during the Russia investigation, struck a sense of urgency in a New York Times op-ed on Wednesday, noting that there are 90 days until an election contest that will pit President Trump against former Vice President Joe Biden.

He wrote, along with former Defense Department special counsel Ryan Goodman, that U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation and U.S. Attorney John Bash's investigation into "unmasking" requests by Obama administration officials targeting Trump associates show Barr is poised to "trample" written policy that no action be influenced by politics and an unwritten norm urging officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.

Blah blah blah...

This nasty piece of work has had his prosecutions overturned by high courts many times, but not before he has seriously damaged his targets with the fallout. This guy is trash.

Now it's his turn.

To use one of the Deep State's favorite banalities in the press, "The walls are closing in."

Weissmann obviously doesn't want to go to jail, which is why he is now telling Justice Department personnel to refuse to cooperate with their boss.

But he is so arrogant that he doesn't realize that his call for the special people who hear his dog-whistle does two things.

1. It places an even bigger target than before on his back for the Barr and Durham investigations.

2. All Barr and Durham (and their staff) have to do is look at who stops cooperating and they will know who the downline players in the coup are. I am sure they already know most of them, but Weissmann's call might cause some who are well-hidden inadvertently expose themselves by their actions. 

It will be great to see Weissmann in jail. If that happens (and I think it will), maybe they can get Michael Cohen for him as cellmate.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a video where Hugh Hewlitt ripped Ron Johnson a new one in an interview.

He kept asking when Comey, Brennan, etc., were going to be subpoenaed by the Senate to testify under oath.

All Johnson did in return was change the subject and mealy-mouth the issue. It got ugly and, at one point, Johnson essentially said other Republican Senators were blocking this. He didn't use those words, but that was the message.

I didn't realize how much Ron Johnson could sound like a sack of absolute nothing, but he's damn good at it while trying to sound hard-hitting.

Not really... He sounds like a friggin' beginner.

What a fraud...

And now we know why he was so mealy-mouthed.

Senior GOP Senate Source: Romney Blocking Sen. Ron Johnson From Subpoenaing Comey, Brennan


A Senior Republican Senate source has confirmed to Gateway Pundit that Senator Mitt Romney is leading an effort to block Senator Ron Johnson from subpoenaing James Comey and John Brennan.

Johnson, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair, said during a radio appearance on Wednesday that fellow Republicans were blocking him from subpoenaing the former FBI Director and former CIA Director, among other figures involved in the scandal.

“We had a number of my committee members that were highly concerned about how this looks politically,” Johnson told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who pressed the Senator to name the Republicans blocking him.

Johnson declined to name names.

. . .

However, shortly after Johnson made his claims, a senate source reached out to Gateway Pundit and confirmed that Romney is leading the obstruction.

“Romney was for impeachment. He has been against Trump every step of the way. Now he is obstructing going after the leakers and liars who went after Trump,” the senior senate source said.

Mitt Romney is an asshole.

Has anyone noticed what skunks failed GOP candidates for president have been? McCain blew up the ObamaCare repeal out of nothing but spite and roasted Sarah Palin because she helped President Trump emerge. Romney voted for impeachment and now he is covering for the dirty cops who ran a coup against Trump.

It seems like both were in on the Deep State.


That was a hell of an ingenious way to say it...

The mealy-mouthed shit is rubbing off on me.

Of course, both failed GOP presidential candidates were part of the Deep State.

But, man, did they have to be so goddam petty along with their treason?

McCain was. Romney still is.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Millie Weaver from Infowars was just arrested this morning for burglary.

In the livestreamed video below, she doesn't know what the cops are talking about as they arrest her.

But, the cops claim it is due to a grand jury indictment.

One little detail.

Millie Weaver just completed a documentary on the Deep State called Shadowgate and it is being released today all over the Internet.

It looks like the Deep State is not amused.

More coming on this, including info about Shadowgate.

If the Deep State is that scared of her documentary, I want to see it. Lots of people are saying this, too.

Who are the geniuses in the Deep State who think this was a good idea for censoring her information?

They are getting the exact opposite result.

Talk about the Streisand effect on steroids.

And there's this. Man, is Alex Jones going to milk it dry.




EDIT: In case the Twitter video later goes down, you will be able to see everything at the Infowars link below. Alex now owns his own YouTube-like video platform called Banned Video.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did she comply?

He was out and staying out on the porch.

So close and lock the door and say out a window, "Show me the documents or get the fuck off my porch."

Never comply with "you are coming with me, I'll show you the orders when you are behind bars."

InfoWars saying she was "hauled off." She was not. She was told she would come with him and then she did that, all on her own.

He or maybe both of them are acting. If it was a real arrest on court orders following an indictment then he would have arrived in force and cuffed her the moment she opened the front door. Also, she would have tilted her phone just once when he looked away and we'd have his face.

I call fake.

Link to post
Share on other sites


If this was a publicity stunt, it was a damn good and effective one.

As to police arresting procedures, I don't know enough to comment.

I know the police needs a warrant for searching a home.

I'm not so sure about what paperwork is needed for them to arrest someone at home.

Regardless of real arrest or publicity stunt, I'm still going to see the documentary.




Link to post
Share on other sites

They do not need a warrant to search your home.

All they need is for their victim to acquiesce. They are allowed to lie and tell their victim that they do not need a warrant in this rare instance. They are allowed to intimidate (and lie more) by saying that all this criminal stuff gets much worse for you if you continue resisting. Then, most people acquiesce.

They only need a warrant to search your house if you respond, "fuck you, go to hell, come through the door and you die." Only then do they need to go ask a judge for a warrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

They only need a warrant to search your house...


In other words, without your permission, legally, they need a warrant.

And police sometimes lie.

So what?

A robber doesn't need to use a gun on you if you acquiesce to him taking your shit. And robbers sometimes lie. There. We have two contexts for permission and lying while taking someone's shit. Does anybody disagree with this? What's the point of discussing it as if it were controversial?

More importantly, what does this have to do with legally arresting you in your home?

I never see police presenting papers to people they pick up in the street like, say, from a bench warrant.

They just arrest the person and work out the paperwork at the police station, often in front of lawyers then a judge if need be.

Sometimes, the police even use discretion and allow the person to turn himself or herself in down at the station.

Imagine that. Police sometimes lie and they sometimes are lenient.

Big deal.

This has nothing to do with the law.

(btw - I just reread that and it sounds more aggressive than I feel. No hostility intended. I'm in "correct identification before judging" mode--identifying the law. 🙂 )


Link to post
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