Deep State – Guess Who Aggressed in Some Cases, Protective in Others?

Posted by Tina

In 2008 the U.S government was forced to pay $4.6 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Steven Hatfill. The NYT headline was as follows:

Scientist Is Paid Millions by U.S. in Anthrax Suit”

Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat whose district was the site of a postal box believed to have been used in the attacks, said he would press Robert S. Mueller III, director of the F.B.I., for more answers about the status of the case. … Dr. Hatfill subpoenaed Washington journalists to try to learn which federal officials had spoken to the news media about the case against him in possible violation of federal privacy laws. … Toni Locy, a former legal affairs reporter for USA Today who wrote several articles about the case, was held in contempt of court, facing fines of up to $5,000 a day from Judge Reggie Walton over her refusal to name her sources…

The price tag to the tax payerfor the failed investigation was $100 million dollars and five years of wasted work. The FBI under Mueller pursued the case against Hatfill through ridiculous and aggressive methods according to Carl M. Cannon of RealClear Politics:

…what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

I can’t even imagine the hell Mr. Hatfill was put through. If a pattern is emerging, it’s not a mirage. Mueller (Comey and others) have been involved in several “bungled” cases…Ruby Ridge, Enron, and Republican Ted Stevens…Stevens narrowly lost his re-election bid as a result. His prosecutors repeatedly withheld exculpatory evidence. The conviction was voided by U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan, who called it the” worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he’d ever seen.” And then there’s Scooter Libby:

Comey named Patrick Fitzgerald, his close personal friend and godfather to one of his children, to the role of special counsel. Mueller, Comey, and Fitzgerald all knew the whole time that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker. Yet they set things up so Fitzgerald would aggressively investigate the Bush administration for three years, jailed a journalist for not giving up a source, and pursued both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. … (Libby) was rung up on a process charge in part thanks to prosecutorial abuse by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald encouraged a witness to give false testimony by not providing exonerating evidence to her and Libby’s attorneys.

Election meddling and politics is at the heart of these cases as it is in the Russia collusion probe. But other case played out much differently than the investigation into Mr. Hatfill, Scooter Libby, and others. Sandy Berger was caught red handed stealing secret documents from the historical archive during the 911 Commission. He destroyed evidence that should have been included in that investigation and then lied about it. We’re all pretty much up to date on the un-prosecuted crimes of HRC.

Politics and the same deep state players have been involved in these cases to one degree or another. The goal to discredit or destroy Republicans while protecting Democrats has become too egregious t ignore or dismiss as paranoia or conspiracy theory. It’s time for the truth to come out and it’s well past time for guilty players to be gone! Mr. Mueller should close up shop, turn off the lights, and retire.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Deep State – Guess Who Aggressed in Some Cases, Protective in Others?

  1. Libby says:

    Tina … the expression “deep state” … it is an expression of paranoia. As long as you insist on using it, you will be tagged.

    It’s fascinating how two people can read the same set of facts and react in completely different ways.

    “The goal to discredit or destroy Republicans while protecting Democrats has become too egregious t ignore or dismiss as paranoia or conspiracy theory.”

    Mr. Hatfill is a Republican? I don’t think it says that anywhere in the article. Our government certainly expended no small quantity of incompetence on the man … and the investigation … but how this is grounds for partisan paranoia … I do not get. Why can you not accept than an organization (the FBI) run by human beings is going to screw up a good deal of the time … and there is nothing politically partisan about this.

    That Mueller worked on the investigation of an event back in the 90’s does not make me crazy. He has been an employee of the FBI for quite some time. But apparently, any mention of the man’s name sends you into a tizzy.

    And you got to admit, if ever there was a more haplessly enticing person-of-interest than Mr. Hatfill … well … I can’t think of another. It’s not an excuse for the government’s conduct. But it is entirely understandable.

    • Tina says:

      The deep state exists as we have shown with article after article showing political bias where none should exist, in the FBI, DOJ, and IRS. Other agencies have been involved as well but those are the big ones.

      “Mr. Hatfill is a Republican? ”

      I didn’t say he was a Republican. He WAS a citizen targeted by zealots and “aggressively” pursued while the real culprit went free. The agents botched the investigation. Once they decided he was it they didn’t pursue any other possibilities. Would you not be upset if you were violated and publicly smeared over five years and then “oops”? Immediately following
      911 when this happened Democrats were eager to show their patriotic defense capabilities. That would explain their zealotry. It was the same with Ruby Ridge. Dems had the reputation of being wimpy on national security…still do.

      This is part of a pattern that is inexcusable. Talk about Nazi tactics! ursuing Mr. Hatfill was as over the top as the IRS in the Catherine Englebrecht case. They denied her application for tax free status during an election period, along with about 300 other conservative organizations. Her family “endured 15 different instances of audit or inquiry into their affairs.” Their business and personal tax returns were audited. BATF, and OSHA showed up at their business, found no violations but fined them about 20K anyway. She was being harassed and bullied by our government for political reasons! Is that the kind of government you want? Of course you do when republicans are the target.

      “… Why can you not accept than an organization (the FBI) run by human beings is going to screw up a good deal of the time …”

      I cannot accept it because the emerging pattern does not include trouble for Democrats, in fact, it only shows Democrats being protected by the exact same group of players!

      Why can’t YOU show a tiny bit of curiosity and interest? Why can;t YOU consider that maybe these actors are indeed corrupt and have been violating their oaths of office, and quite possible the law, for many years…all in favor of Democrats?

      “…if ever there was a more haplessly enticing person-of-interest than Mr. Hatfill”

      The FBI doesn’t act on “enticing appearances” Libby. They need some evidence before they storm your doors in the dead of night. If appearances alone could convict a person we’d all be in jail for something.

  2. Libby says:

    Thought for the day:

    “If you get into a tickle contest with a skunk, you’re gonna get tinkle all over you.”

    • Tina says:

      But she’s as civil as civil can be. No complaints about her gross demeanor or approach, nosiree!

      She’s a wonder that girl…filled with respect and good manners.

      She also mocked Trumps manhood.

      Yep she’s quite the hypocritical, “lady.”

      You all are…phony as hell. And unserious about solving problems. Just strictly political.

      • Libby says:

        You just don’t know what’s funny, … and it has to be the most succinct summation of the situation offered to date.

        I mean, be real, The Donald is a bald-faced liar. He is a skunk, and he lost all claims to respect way, way, way back there.

        And how about the latest? If Cohen gets three years on a plea, for the campaign finance fraud, etc., what do you suppose “Individual No. 1” will get after a trial? Hee. Hee.

        • Tina says:

          “You just don’t know what’s funny”

          Playing to a bunch of man-hating radical women, yeah I see how you’d think it’s funny.

          I think it says a lot about Nancy Pelosi…it takes a skunk to know one.

          “what do you suppose “Individual No. 1” will get after a trial? Hee. Hee.”

          It’s never going to happen. If it does it will just be further proof of the pattern!

          The Justice Department has dropped its prosecution of former Sen. John Edwards over nearly $1 million in payments his backers made to support his pregnant mistress during the 2008 presidential campaign.

          The formal dismissal of charges was filed in federal court in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday. The decision came less than two weeks after Edwards’s trial on the campaign finance-related charges ended when a jury deadlocked on five felony counts and voted to acquit him on one charge. …

          … A grand jury indicted the Democrat and two-time presidential candidate last year on charges that he illegally received campaign donations from his 2008 finance chairman Fred Baron and wealthy heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon. The funds, spent on private jet travel, luxury hotels and housing for Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, never passed through campaign accounts. However, prosecutors said they amounted to donations to Edwards’s campaign because they were intended to prevent damage to his presidential bid by hiding the extramarital affair from the media.

          Bunny, Stormy, it’s all the same.

  3. Tina says:

    More “civility” from the Trump haters:

    MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski had to apologize for what some perceived to be a homophobic joke on Morning Joe Wednesday. Brzezinski called {said} Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was “wannabe dictator’s butt-boy.”

    Hypocrisy…can she spell it?

    And notice for her “some perceived” it as, what? An insult, a slam, a bigoted hateful remark? No it was just a “joke.”

  4. Tina says:

    DC Whispers Staff on Pelosi/Schummer meeting with Trump…it’s the best: “When Senator Chuck Schumer said shutting the government down over border security would be unpopular President Trump immediately said he didn’t care about what is popular or not and that it was going to get done one way or the other because that is what is best for the American people. That’s a leader – not a politician. That’s a man – not a whimpering, head down and eyes shut, child.”

  5. Chris says:

    “The goal to discredit or destroy Republicans while protecting Democrats”

    Robert Mueller is a Republican. So was James Comey. The FBI publicly investigated Hillary while privately investigating Trump, a fact that did not leak until after the election.

    This conspiracy theory doesn’t hold up under even the slightest scrutiny.

    • Tina says:

      I said long ago that I’m a Republican (with libertarian leanings) only because the ideals and policy positions are more in line with mine than other parties AND only the two main parties have power in Congress. All human beings are flawed, so the fact that Comey and Mueller are or have been Republicans means nothing. If there is a pattern of corruption, and that certainly seems to be the case, I say they all should be exposed and pay the legal and personal price.

      “The FBI publicly investigated Hillary while privately investigating Trump”

      You call covert surveillance of a political opponent and leaking, exposing, and disseminating personal information a “private” investigation? Interesting. Most would find it grossly illegal.

      What’s also true about the so-called investigation into Hillary is that it was a very public investigation run without the usual standards and practices of investigation…a sham:

      NSA Analyst: We now have incontrovertible proof the Bureau never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton

      when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. “Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,” I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics. … the FBI completely ignored the appearance of highly classified signals intelligence in Hillary’s email, including information lifted verbatim from above-Top Secret NSA reports back in 2011. This crime, representing the worst compromise of classified information in EmailGate – that the public knows of, at least – was somehow deemed so uninteresting that nobody at the FBI bothered to ask anybody on Team Clinton about it. … This stunning omission appears highly curious to anybody versed in counterintelligence matters, not least since during Obama’s presidency, the FBI has prosecuted Americans for compromising information far less classified than what Clinton and her staff exposed on Hillary “unclassified” email server…

      Continue reading and you will see how key people were handed immunity, including Cheryl Mills, who was allowed to sit in on Hillary’s interview after she was given immunity. How does that square…a witness gets to acct as legal advisor. Hillary was not sworn in for the interview either according to reports I’ve read. The script to exonerate her was written before she was informally interviewed. Then it was altered so the language would not match the legal language…stinks to high heaven.

      • Chris says:

        I said long ago that I’m a Republican (with libertarian leanings)

        *snort* This is one of the funniest things you’ve ever written. You have no “libertarian leanings.” You vociferously oppose gay marriage, legalized drugs, and loosening immigration restrictions. I have not seen you ever depart from the standard Republican position on any issue, ever, to join the libertarians when the two have a disagreement. You are for a small government for yourself and your tribe, and a government that interferes in private decisions and restricts freedom for those outside your tribe.

        All human beings are flawed, so the fact that Comey and Mueller are or have been Republicans means nothing.

        It means that they have no incentive to “destroy Republicans while protecting Democrats,” which was your ludicrous claim.

        You call covert surveillance of a political opponent and leaking, exposing, and disseminating personal information a “private” investigation? Interesting. Most would find it grossly illegal.

        “Most,” in this case, does not include four Republican judges who all approved the FISA warrant based on the available evidence. Page was not a “political opponent” of the investigators. Nothing was leaked.

        And you missed the point entirely. If the goal was to destroy Republicans and protect Democrats, the investigators would have leaked that Trump was under investigation. The biggest advantage Trump had over Hillary was the investigation into her–had the FBI revealed that he, too, was under investigation, that would have absolutely hurt him and helped her. But they didn’t do that.

        Your legal theories make no sense.

        • Tina says:

          *snort* This is one of the funniest things you’ve ever written. You have no “libertarian leanings.”

          I agree with all of the following.

          Some of it is subject to personal interpretation and that’s where disagreements within the party begin…just like every other party.

          Libertarian, Platform 2018

          PREAMBLE

          As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

          We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

          Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

          In the following pages we set forth our basic principles and enumerate various policy stands derived from those principles.

          These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

          So Chris, once again you’ve shown you know nothing about me. You are simply arrogant and rude.

          “It means that they have no incentive to ‘destroy Republicans while protecting Democrats,’”

          And you know this how?

          “…does not include four Republican judges who all approved the FISA warrant based on the available evidence.

          “available evidence”

          I have no idea what was in the minds of the judges… whether they are corrupt or not, whether they were fool enough to assume the prosecutors were acting with honor according to their oaths of office, or not and neither do you.

          What we do know is there is one hell of a lot of evidence that shows bad actors acting politically together to harm Trump before and after the election.

          James Comey, in testimony given under oath in June 2017, said the Steele dossier was “salacious and unverified.” Yet Comey signed off on at least one, if not four, FISA warrant applications based on the “salacious and unverified” dossier. Either he was lying to Congress or he was lying to the FISA Court judge.

          According to Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) McCabe testified in House hearings that if it weren’t for material from Steele’s fraudulent dossier, there would have been no FISA requests and no surveillance of Trump’s team.

          You might want to read a little more before deciding such important things.

          Daily Signal, “What the Carter Page FISA Warrant Reveals About the Trump-Russia Investigation”

          The Hill, “Silence of ‘the lambs’: The deafening quietude of the FISA court and John Roberts”

          the primary evidence was a dossier created by British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, but the court wasn’t told his work was directly paid for by Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party.

          Instead, the FBI used this footnote in its warrant application to describe who hired Steele: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit” the Trump campaign. That’s hardly complete or forthcoming.

          We also know that when the Steele dossier was submitted, it had not been fully vetted for accuracy, despite a requirement that all FISA evidence be verified. Some of the dossier’s claims later were found to be inaccurate.

          We’ve painfully learned of blatant bias inside the investigation. Steele told senior Department of Justice (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr he was desperate to keep Trump from being elected president. Two of the FBI’s leads on the case, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were having an affair and texting each other about finding “an insurance policy” designed to “stop” Trump.

          The FBI lovebirds even communicated they were applying “hurry the F up” pressure to try to rush the FISA warrant through the court before Election Day.

          We recently learned that the FBI’s initial justification for opening the Trump-Russia collusion case — the belief that another campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, might have colluded with Moscow — quickly fell apart when Papadopoulos told an FBI informant he didn’t collude and would consider such activity treasonous.

          Finally, the House intelligence committee dug up evidence that Steele and the FBI engaged in leaks with the news media about the Russia investigation, then used some of those articles to support its FISA application. That is a practice known as circular intelligence, where single-source reporting is made to look multi-sourced.

          There are more exculpatory pieces of evidence I could detail but these alone make a compelling case that the initial FBI and DOJ representations to the court were, at best, flawed and, at worst, desperately biased and driven by an election clock.

          And that begs the question: What do the FISC judges and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, the ultimate judicial disciplinarian, think about what happened?

          Why don’t you care?

          • Chris says:

            Again, Tina: on what issues of disagreement between the Republican Party and libertarians do you side with the libertarians?

            If the answer is “none,” then saying you are a Republican with libertarian leanings is meaningless. It is something you are saying to make yourself seem less partisan than you really are.

            James Comey, in testimony given under oath in June 2017, said the Steele dossier was “salacious and unverified.” Yet Comey signed off on at least one, if not four, FISA warrant applications based on the “salacious and unverified” dossier. Either he was lying to Congress or he was lying to the FISA Court judge.

            You literally lied twice in this one paragraph, and you know it, because I’ve pointed out these lies to you before. Comey said “parts” of the dossier were salacious and unverified, not the whole thing. And the FISA warrants were not entirely based on the dossier. You know these things. You are lying.

            According to Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) McCabe testified in House hearings that if it weren’t for material from Steele’s fraudulent dossier, there would have been no FISA requests and no surveillance of Trump’s team.

            And according to McCabe himself, this is yet another lie; he says he was misquoted.

            The highly controversial memo from Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” for a Trump campaign aide without a disputed opposition-research dossier on Trump and Russia. Not so says McCabe — the former No. 2 official at the FBI who signed one of the applications to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
            Ex-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe fired
            Ex-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe fired
            “We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information,” McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. “Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not.”

            https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/16/politics/mccabe-republicans-trump-dossier/index.html

            I have already explained to you why it would make no sense for the FBI to admit that the dossier was funded by someone trying to discredit Trump, but not admit that it was funded by Hillary, if they had known that. Therefore, it stands to reason that they did not know that, unless evidence to the contrary comes to light. Either you are willing to accept basic logic on this point or you are not.

            We also know that when the Steele dossier was submitted, it had not been fully vetted for accuracy, despite a requirement that all FISA evidence be verified.

            There is no such requirement. (Well, there is–you just don’t know what “verified” means in this context):

            But national security experts and former FBI officials say that verification of each and every fact mentioned in FISA applications is not necessarily required.

            “Evidence presented to the court does not have to be rigorously proved or corroborated. But it does have to be plausible and credible — not just rumor or hearsay,” Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

            The FBI can cite information that the bureau has not fully verified or corroborated as long as the source for the information is made clear and an assessment of the reliability of the information is included in the application. (RELATED: Internal FBI Documents Raise Questions About Use Of Unverified Steele Dossier)

            It is up to one of the judges sitting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to decide if the evidence meets the standard of probable cause that a surveillance target is acting as an agent of a foreign power…

            …One former FBI special agent says that the relevant fact that had to be verified was that Steele was a source of the information, not that his allegations were fully accurate.

            “If you are including source reporting, you must accurately state that it is source reporting and characterize what the source said,” Asha Rangappa, the former agent, said in a recent Twitter exchange with TheDCNF.

            “You would typically have a separate source file against which it would be checked. The ‘fact’ is that it is information reported by a source,” she said.

            https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/04/fbi-dossier-verified/

            Some of the dossier’s claims later were found to be inaccurate.

            None of the dossier’s claims have been confirmed to be inaccurate.

            We’ve painfully learned of blatant bias inside the investigation. Steele told senior Department of Justice (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr he was desperate to keep Trump from being elected president. Two of the FBI’s leads on the case, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were having an affair and texting each other about finding “an insurance policy” designed to “stop” Trump.

            The FBI lovebirds even communicated they were applying “hurry the F up” pressure to try to rush the FISA warrant through the court before Election Day.

            Investigators talk shit about suspects. This has always been the case. I have never once heard you complain of cops doing this until they targeted someone you like.

            While the texts were inappropriate, there is zero evidence that they did anything illegal or nefarious in the course of investigating Trump.

            We recently learned that the FBI’s initial justification for opening the Trump-Russia collusion case — the belief that another campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, might have colluded with Moscow — quickly fell apart when Papadopoulos told an FBI informant he didn’t collude and would consider such activity treasonous.

            It is absolutely hilarious that you think Papadopoulous’ denial is enough to cause the claims against him to “fall apart.”

            Finally, the House intelligence committee dug up evidence that Steele and the FBI engaged in leaks with the news media about the Russia investigation, then used some of those articles to support its FISA application. That is a practice known as circular intelligence, where single-source reporting is made to look multi-sourced.

            This is false.

            n reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page’s activities in Russia. Isikoff cited a “congressional source familiar with the briefings” to report that “some of those briefed were ‘taken aback’ when they learned about Page’s contacts in Moscow, viewing them as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut U.S. foreign policy.”

            Isikoff quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. law enforcement official,” who confirmed that Page’s Russian contacts were “on our radar screen” and “being looked at.”

            Isikoff also quoted a “U.S. official who served in Russia at the time” when Page, a few years earlier, first attracted attention for being “a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did.”

            Steele does not match the descriptions of these sources. He does match the description of a “well-placed Western intelligence source” cited in the last two paragraphs of the article, whose claims about meetings involving Page also appeared in the dossier.

            It is wrong to say that this “Western intelligence source,” presumably Steele, formed the foundation of an article in which at least three other sources featured more prominently.

            And it is hard to see how the article could have been a big factor in obtaining a warrant because it contained little, if any, information that the FBI did not already possess or which was not in the public domain. Beyond the Page-focused intelligence briefings with members of Congress, Isikoff reported on a follow-up letter that Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate’s minority leader at the time, sent to the FBI’s then-director, James B. Comey.

            That was a good scoop, but the FBI obviously did not need to reference a Yahoo article to inform a FISA court of Comey’s participation in briefings or receipt of a letter. The FBI did not need a Yahoo article to inform a FISA court that Page was on the “radar screen” of federal law enforcement. The FBI did not need a Yahoo article to inform a FISA court of Page’s publicly known work for Merrill Lynch in Moscow or his publicly known (and previously covered) speech at a Moscow school in July 2016, all of which Isikoff mentioned.

            Without seeing the warrant application, it is impossible to know for sure whether the article was “cited extensively,” as the memo claims. But the assertion warrants skepticism, as does the suggestion that the article played a significant role in persuading a FISA court to improperly issue a warrant.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/02/the-memos-description-of-a-supposedly-key-news-report-is-wrong/?utm_term=.a9e53539f349

            Why don’t you care?

            Maybe because nearly every fact you’ve trotted out to support your case here is a lie.

  6. Tina says:

    “On the other hand … are you nuts? Our Objectifier-in-Chief has spent this ENTIRE LIFE treating women like commodities to be traded for his personal gratification.”

    My Turn…you ARE nuts!

    The women you’re talking about were all consenting adults who were not abused. Some were smirked at (before politics) as “gold diggers.” Others are, shall we say, in the business of enticing men…he wasn’t dating an intern he had authority over! Nor was he intimidating them, calling them trailer trash, or sicking his nasty, “bimbo eruptions handler” wife on them. He wasn’t a studio head using the promise of a job for favors, nor was he as cavalier as any of the others who just happen to be left wingers have been.

    Trump can handle your disdain. Your opinion is representative of the most criminal and corrupt party this nation has ever seen and the most partisan hypocritical media.

    Here’s a kicker. American Thinker sources USA Today:

    Literally a year ago – as the #MeToo era was erupting – the nation was waking up to news that a secret congressional “hush fund” had been used by Members of Congress to pay off accusers of sexual misconduct. Taxpayer money – yours and mine – was used to pay off these alleged victims[.] …

    Nobody knows how many congressmen and Senators are involved, and if [Pelosi] is a willing participant to keep all of this a secret she will forfeit credibility on every other issue[.] …

    What we know already is devastating. We know congressmen John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Blake Fahrentold (R-Tex.) used this “hush fund” to settle with alleged victims. Both men have already left Congress.

    Read the article. It further explains, through three experts, why the payments Trump made are not criminal.

    The Washington Post reported that over 20 years the Congressional hush fund paid out $17.2 million!

    Conservative Treehouse has a chart listing the payout per year.

    Politico reveals how the $17 million figure doesn’t even cover all of it:

    some lawmakers cut their own side deals with accusers.

    A settlement negotiated on behalf of a woman who accused Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), her former boss, of sexual misconduct is just the latest example: The money came out of Conyers’ office budget, meaning it wasn’t even included in the $17 million total.

    What’s more, because the multimillion-dollar settlement figure covers disputes aside from sexual harassment, including those over pay and workplace safety, it is impossible to know how much money taxpayers are actually doling out to sexual misconduct victims. The once-obscure Office of Compliance, which pays out the settlements, does not release information in which the cases are broken down by category. And it says “a large portion of cases” it resolves stem from Hill employers other than the House and Senate, such as the Capitol Police and Architect of the Capitol.

    Here are some of the other big questions surrounding Congress’ notoriously opaque sexual harassment system, which lawmakers in both parties are now pushing to reform:

    Who knows when a lawmaker or aide settles a harassment claim?

    The identities of lawmakers or their aides who reach misconduct settlements aren’t disclosed, effectively meaning there’s no warning system for other potential victims.
    Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a longtime proponent of reforming Capitol Hill’s harassment policy, is winning GOP supporters for legislation that would make members of Congress personally liable for harassment settlements against them.

    Your party is up to it’s ears in corruption, including sexual harassment and deviant behaviors. The rabid harassment of Trump and some of those under him is both hypocritical and unseemly. DC needs to be cleaned up…Nancy and Chuck are not on board with that…they ARE a big part of the problem.

    • Libby says:

      Well, he did manage to keep his head up thorough most of it … but the look on his face ?!? … not a happy camper.

    • Chris says:

      “Well, I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. You know, I’m inspecting, I want to make sure that everything is good.

      You know, the dresses. ‘Is everyone okay?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I’ve been very good.”

      –Donald Trump

      • Tina says:

        Ever been back stage at a pageant Chris? Or a play?

        People walk around without clothes but that doesn’t mean they are naked. Ypu’re making mountains out of mole hills.

        The man appreciates the beauty of the female form…most men do.

  7. Libby says:

    “The women you’re talking about were all consenting adults who were not abused.”

    Tina, this double standard you habitually employ is beyond creepy.

    1) You assert that it’s OK for men to treat women like sub-human beings as long as they consent to it.

    2) Women who DO NOT consent to it are man-haters?

    • Tina says:

      Excuse me, consenting sex is NOT abuse of any kind. Saying it is is tantamount to saying women are infants in the transaction. Women who think this way are definitely man-haters who see men as predators, and themselves as helpless victims. Disgusting!

      Contracts, duly executed by adult women, are likewise not abusive. In fact, the women who agree to such contract agreements know full well what they have agreed to and are generously compensated!

      Wealthy men of all ages are often exploited by the women they date which is why men often turn to professionals in the business of enticement and in some cases, satisfaction…no emotional attachments and no promises of love and commitment need be involved.

      The more recent giggling over older female “cougars” suggests that there are women who have chosen to play the “playboy game,” just to prove they were equal or because they actually live the open free sex lifestyle.

      You guys on the left are the ones that have pushed for lowering standards…you should be pleased with all the extra curricular activity.

      • Chris says:

        Tina,

        The fact is that the president paid off a woman to hide an affair from the public on the eve of the election.

        When this came to light, he told a series of differing lies and continued to try and hide information from the public.

        This was found to be a campaign finance violation.

        If this were a Democrat, your opinion on this subject would be 180 degrees away from what it is now.

  8. Chris says:

    Yes, I’ve been backstage at plays, including situations where women had to get dressed quickly. You learn to be less modest in those situations.

    You know what I didn’t do? I didn’t stare at them, and I didn’t brag about getting away with “inspecting” them unclothed, because I am not a freaking creep like the president you’re defending.

    I really hope your children don’t know you think this is acceptable or even normal. It has nothing to do with “appreciating the female form,” it has to do with not acting like a perv. But that’s apparently yet another standard you have gleefully abandoned in your choice to champion one of the grossest people on earth as the leader of the free world.

Leave a Reply to J. Soden Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *