Visit Counter

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Justice Ginsburg: I Will Not Retire from the Supreme Court Anytime Soon



She's staying on for two reasons.

1. To screw Trump over on any legislation he tries to pass.

2. Want's to stop Trump from replacing her with a conservative judge.

So they'll have to carry her attired in her robe out on a gurney. 
The big question is when?





“My answer is as long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it,” Ginsburg told supporters at an Equal Justice Works event.

“I used to have an answer; it worked for a lot of years. It was Justice [Louis] Brandeis when he was appointed. He was the same age as I was, 60. And he stayed for 23 years, so I expect to stay at least as long. Well, now I’ve passed Brandeis, I’ve passed [Justice Felix] Frankfurter,” she added.

Ginsburg, also known as the “Notorious R.B.G” among her supporters, has served on the court for 24 years since former President Bill Clinton appointed her in 1993.

The justice’s liberal supporters hope she will stay on the court throughout the Trump administration.

Despite observers concerns that she does not have the energy to continue in her position, Ginsburg shows no signs of slowing down.

The 84-year-old justice has hit the interview circuit in recent months, sitting down with CBS’s Charlie Rose in September to claim “sexism” played a role in the 2016 election.

She added that there was “no doubt” it led to former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s loss.

Ginsburg also bashed President Trump as a “faker” when he was a candidate in the 2016 election and criticized him for not releasing his tax returns. She later apologized for the remarks.

Ginsburg has been pretty adamant about not retiring from the Supreme Court despite her age. The reliably liberal justice declined to announce her retirement at the end of the last Supreme Court term in June.





Share/Bookmark

Monday, October 30, 2017

Not the movie












Share/Bookmark

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Pope Biden...someone you can trust






Biden & Gaga public service announcement on sexual harassment 


Video 376



Joe in real life


Video 377











Share/Bookmark

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Jane Fonda: Weinstein accusers get media attention because they're 'famous and white'



Probably the reason Hanoi Jane wasn’t charged with treason is that she is ‘famous and white’. She’s trying to interject her 'liberal racist beliefs' into the mix and it’s a major fail. The pretense is black women are victimized more than whites. Not if it's O.J. or Cosby. If Weinstein assaulted black women and none came forward who’s fault is that? Weinstein aka Jabba the Hutt would bonk anything on two legs…maybe four.

-----------------------------------


Fox News



Jane Fonda said she believes people are paying attention to Harvey Weinstein's accusers because they are "famous and white." (AP)


Actress Jane Fonda said she believes people were tuning in to hear Harvey Weinstein accusers' stories because they are “famous and white and everybody knows them.”

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Wednesday, Fonda and her friend, longtime activist Gloria Steinem, were asked about the Weinstein scandal that has rocked Hollywood, Variety reported. 



The correlation here is staggering. She knew about the Vietnam War and was driven enough to fly to Vietnam to commit treason but didn't have the stomach to report Jabba?

“It feels like something has shifted,” Fonda told Hayes. “It’s too bad that it’s probably because so many of the women that were assaulted by Harvey Weinstein are famous and white and everybody knows them. This has been going on a long time to black women and other women of color and it doesn’t get out quite the same.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times released an exposé stating Weinstein paid off women who accused him of sexual misconduct for decades. The New Yorkerreleased its own investigative report of women coming forward to accuse the disgraced Hollywood producer of sexual assault and rape.

The fallout caused Weinstein to be fired from the company he co-founded with his brother Bob and kicked out of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.


You're kidding.

Many A-list stars, including Angelina Jolie and Lupita Nyong’o, have detailed their uncomfortable encounters with the Hollywood mogul. Other famous actresses have come forward with their stories of sexual misconduct in the film industry.

Earlier this month, Fonda came under fire for admitting to the BBC that she knew of the allegations against Weinstein a year ago but kept silent.

Fonda explained she believed women did not speak out before due to Weinstein’s power. Fonda confirmed she was not one of Weinstein’s victims.

“I didn’t want to expose and I will admit that I should have been braver. And I think from now on I will be when I hear such stories,” Fonda said.






Share/Bookmark

Friday, October 27, 2017

Fusion GPS scandal: Clinton, DNC broke campaign finance law with dossier funding, complaint says




Of course, Clinton claims she knew nothing about the dossier.

Hillary Claims She Didn’t Know About The Dossier

The cliché "Clinton's only lie when their lips are moving" does not even begin to approach the multitude of whoppers they have told through the years. In fact, they are in a league all their own. So much so a new word had to be coined to explain the trail of never-ending lies.

Clintonesque:

Using language as a tool of deceit, clever obfuscation, using language to avoid candor and truthfulness, intending to confuse by clouding an issue. In matters of speech, to parse the English language so painfully at a direct question as to avoid responsibility for your own actions. In matters of conduct, to be more interested in #1, instead of the greater good.

Usage: His answer was so Clintonesque that it was laughable.

That about sums up the Clinton's entire lifespan!







Two of their "classics".


Funny when you think about. Here we have a dossier with connections to Russian intermediaries not to mention the Uranium One deal... and who's being investigated for Russian Collusion?


-------------------------------------------------------------







President Trump says new reports prove the dossier is fake and politically motivated.

The revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund a salacious anti-Trump dossier last year is raising new legal questions for the Clinton team — with a watchdog group filing a formal complaint alleging they hid the payments from public view.

The Campaign Legal Center filed the complaint Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission, accusing the DNC and Clinton’s campaign committee of breaking campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose the money spent on the Trump-Russia dossier.

“Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide,” Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center said in a statement to Fox News.

The Washington Post reported this week — and Fox News confirmed — that the political consulting firm Fusion GPS was retained last year by Marc E. Elias, an attorney representing the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The firm then hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to write the now-infamous dossier.


According to the Post, that money was routed from the Clinton campaign and the DNC through the law firm Perkins Coie and described on FEC reports as legal services. The Clinton campaign reportedly paid the law firm nearly $6 million from June 2015 to December 2016, while the DNC paid $3.6 million, though it’s unclear how much money went to Fusion GPS. 

Responding to the revelations, Clinton’s former campaign spokesman Brian Fallon compared the project to the kind of “oppo research” that “happens on every campaign.”

But the Campaign Legal Center described the FEC reporting as “misleading.”

“Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed,” Fischer said. “But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”

The controversial dossier contained unverified and lurid allegations about dirt the Russians had on Trump and his campaign’s possible connections to Moscow. 

Critics argued the latest revelation makes it harder for Democrats to accuse the Trump campaign of collusion.

“Kremlin gave info to Christopher Steele,” tweeted Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary to President George W. Bush. “His oppo-research was paid for by the Clinton campaign. If that’s not collusion, what is?”

“Given Democrats’ argument that Russia’s interference on Trump’s behalf was beyond the pale, the Clinton camp and the DNC paying a Brit for information would seem somewhat problematic,” wrote Aaron Blake of the Washington Post.

Responding to the controversy, a DNC official stressed that current Chairman “Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization.”

A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who led the DNC at the time, told Fox News on Wednesday that, “She did not have any knowledge of this arrangement.” 

It’s unclear what Hillary Clinton may have known about the research, though Fallon said he didn’t know at the time.

“I personally wasn’t aware of this during the campaign,” Fallon said in a statement, adding: “The first I learned of Christopher Steele or saw any dossier was after the election. But if I had gotten handed it last fall, I would have had no problem passing it along and urging reporters to look into it.”

RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Wednesday slammed Democrats for not being more concerned about Russia’s role in the dossier.

“It really tests the validity of how much the Democrats want to get to the bottom of Russia’s interference in this election,” McDaniel said on Fox News’ “The Daily Briefing.” “Because when it comes to them, when it comes to the DNC, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, they don’t seem to have that same appetite as when it comes to this witch-hunt against President Trump.”






Share/Bookmark