Rep. Omar Declares That She Believes Biden Is A Rapist But Should Be The Next President

440px-Ilhan_Omar,_official_portrait,_116th_CongressWe have been discussing special dispensation granted to former Vice President Joe Biden by Democratic members and the media.  Yesterday, Rep. Iihan Omar, D-Minn., became the latest member to declare that she believes that Biden did rape a Senate aide and is continuing to lie about the crime in public statements.  However, Omar reaffirmed that she will do everything in her power to make him the next president of the United States.

Many Democratic politicians and commentators have struggled with the clearly hypocritical position of declaring Biden innocent while previously insisting that women “must be believed.” The problem is that, if you declare that no one has a right to be simply believed, it requires a full and fair investigation. However, Biden has refused to open up his records to look into any allegations of sexual harassment or sexual abuse by Reade or others.  Thus, you can either declare Biden to be innocent without such a review of this papers as has Speaker Nancy Pelosi or you have to call for his records to be reviewed.  The alternative is to just accept his guilt as a rapist (thus avoiding the need for an investigation in that and other claims) but say it really doesn’t change anything. Indeed, the Bush ethics lawyers chastised Omar for admitting that she believes Reade because it might undermine Biden’s election chances.

Omar told the British Sunday Times. ““I do believe Reade,  Justice can be delayed but should never be denied.”  She then however proceeded to deny any sense of justice beyond saying that Reade will be believed and then ignored.  Omar insisted that she would work to elect Biden even though she believes him to be a rapist.

Notably, Biden recently declared that a voter who believe Reade should not vote for him.

I fail to the moral high ground in this statement or how it is better than saying that you do not believe Reade.  The most principled position is to agree that Biden should open up all of his records, including those under lock and key at the University of Delaware, to a search for any sexual abuse allegations by anyone.  However, I have previously said that I believe that Biden has the stronger case thus far in the controversy.  Yet, politicians like Omar want to maintain that they believe all women but that it does not matter.  It does not matter if such women were raped or that Biden is the rapist under their logic. It is a position that risks moving from the role of a denier to that of an enabler. Omar is saying that she will campaign for a politician who not only, in her view, raped a staffer but is going around the country lying about the rape.  It is hard to imagine the parallel universe where that is a morally superior, or even a morally cognizable, position

114 thoughts on “Rep. Omar Declares That She Believes Biden Is A Rapist But Should Be The Next President”

  1. This is no surprise, in her country and religion rape is a way of life!!!

  2. Typo alere, missing “see”
    “I fail to the moral high ground” <<

    Good, clear exposition of the hypocrisy of Feminists who oppose Rep Kavanaugh based on no-evidence allegations, while supporting Biden despite some (weak?) evidence of some sexual harassment.

    Moral Superiority should be at stake, because the whole idea of Trump-hate is based on "moral superiority", but it is taken for granted, then used to justify supporting an alleged rapist.

    That's what is moral to Democrats today.

    1. Yes. All sorts of immigration crimes. She’s a democrat and a victim so nothing will be done. She probably teaches at Obama’s DACA pen parties on how to beat and game the system.

  3. I’m just curious, are these the kind of guys she normally dates?

  4. Imagine the American Founders taking advice, nay, considering, nay, paying any attention at all to this hysterical, incoherent, “foreign

    propensity,” “discordant intermixture” and “injurious tendency.” Turnout in the 1788 presidential election was 11.6%, precisely

    reflecting the restricted-vote nature of the republic established by the American Founders.

    Never was America intended to devolve into a communist dictatorship through one man, one vote democrazy.

    “the people are nothing but a great beast…

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to

    complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients

    is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  5. Chicago Black Pastor Courtney Lewis writes letter to US Attorney:

    May 24, 2020

    Dear US Attorney John Lausch,

    Mayor Lightfoot today sent armed police officers to our small church (45 attendees today) to shut our services down today. They came with 3 squad cars two unmarked Durango’s and a Mayor representative’s car. Like the Soviet styled KGB they knocked on our locked doors; the only thing she hasn’t done “yet” is beat the doors down and arrest our members.

    Thankfully our doors were locked as a normal safety precaution we take each service to protect our members from the escalating gun violence in Chicago.

    Mayor Lightfoot is defiant of the US Constitution and our freedom to worship.

    Mayor Lightfoot has a history of defying the law. NO. D-00-002/D-00-001

    She is one of few former US Prosecutors in the US to be censured by the 7th Circuit Judge Rovner and the entire 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for defying their order.

    Our church has gone out of its way to follow CDC Guidelines and we have cooperated fully having online services, outdoor services, and practicing all social distancing requirements. We are even taking members temperatures on the way in our church doors.

    We are not allowing our elderly to attend services.

    We are trying to follow the laws of man as much as reasonably possible but when the laws of man conflict with the laws of God I as a Pastor have a duty to follow the laws of God.

    We will not be intimidated by this overhanded government bully but we are requesting the assistance of our President and our justice department in correcting the grave miscarriage of the law.

    If it were not for a Chicago church practicing and reaching others I personally would be one of the people perpetuating the violence on the streets of Chicago as I grew up on the streets of Chicago until I was reached for Christ through a church meeting together not an online service.

    Please contact me as soon as you can at ###. Please help!


    Courtney Lewis

  6. Courtney Lewis, the pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Chicago, was in the middle of his sermon when he heard loud banging on front doors. It was the police and they were denied entry into the sanctuary according to Todd Starnes.

    Mayor Lori Lightfoot had dispatched three squad cards and two unmarked cars filled with armed officers. A representative from the mayor’s office was also present.

    (On a side note – I warned Americans in my new book that the left would try and shut down American churches. Click here to read “Culture Jihad: How to Stop the Left From Killing a Nation.”)

    Pastor Lewis said the intent was to shut down their Sunday services. It was “like the Soviet-style KGB,” he said.

    “The only thing she hasn’t done yet is beat the doors down and arrest our members,” the pastor said.

  7. Omar Clarrified Statement Today On ABC’s “Good Morning America”.

    Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said that while she will support 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden in his White House bid, she also thinks it is important to believe survivors of sexual assault, including a woman who has leveled allegations against the former vice president.

    Omar appeared on “Good Morning America” on Tuesday morning and responded to questions about a recently published interview with the Sunday Times of London in which she said she believed Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer for Biden who has accused him of sexual assault during her time in the office.

    Omar said that the interview quoted in the Sunday Times of London was several weeks old, and did not take a firm stance on whether she still believes all aspects of Reade’s allegations. Instead, she said it’s possible to support Biden in his presidential run while still creating a space for survivors to come forward.

    “There’s obviously parts of what she has said that have been corroborated and parts that haven’t, that is not my place to litigate her story,” Omar told “GMA” of Reade’s allegations against Biden. “I think it’s important when someone says they have been assaulted and they see themselves as survivors that we, as we have been saying, believe survivors.”

    Edited From: “Rep. Lohan Omar Will Support Biden, But Said It’s Important To Believe Survivors”

    ABC News, 5/26/20


      This story is fairly simple to grasp. Omar is a Bernie Bro who got excited when Tara Reade’s allegations first surfaced. Bernie Bros were hoping said allegations would cripple Biden and hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders. Every Bernie Bro on my Facebook feed was hoping for the same.

      But since Omar first made her statement to The London Times on May 6, Tara Reade has imploded as a credible witness as more has been written about her chaotic personal life. Consequently Bernie Bros like Omar are trying to walk back their initial embrace of Reade.

      The truth is this story is essentially a nothing burger. But rightwing media has played it up as an example of ‘leftwing hypocrisy’. Therefore Johnathan Turley is all too happy to let this echo in ‘his’ corner of the rightwing blogosphere.

      1. on the contrary, it was a plausible story, and newsworthy, even if one can give the edge to joe now that the whole story is out. i can give him the edge against reade’s tardy accusations

        but it was very suspect and biased that reade’s story was buried as long as it was

        you calling it a nothing burger shows that you still don’t get it but whatever

        1. Kurtz, ‘you’ were the one who first posted that Politico story questioning Read’s credibility.

          The truth is that Reade enjoyed 2 weeks of headlines ‘before’ the media really explored her background. And ‘I’ pointed out, at an early stage, that little had been written about Reade’s life story.

          When the media finally examined Reade’s personal story, it found her lacking as a woman of true credibility. The surprising part is that Reade flew under the radar for as long as she did.

          1. I was the first one who posted anything hereabout reade. i posted politico story as a follow on to that. it certainly was buried.

            but a lot of stories don’t get the attention. like the Communist party of China, darlings of the mass media, who for days now have had their security on the streets of Hong Kong tear gassing people, shooting rubber bullets, and so forth, who last week were literally locking up elected legislators who didn’t vote their way. they’re terminating the independence of HK and tossing “one nation, two systems” in the garbage and the American newspapers and CNN and the rest of the CCP quislings could care less. now you can run off and try and find a few backpage articles to “refute” me

            but now we know which side you guys are on. ever since Bill Clinton signalled which side you guys were supposed to prefer when he took money from a PLA colonel when he was in the white house raising money for various campaigns. the Democrat party has been falling all over itself for decades now taking hongbao from the Chicoms ever since. pathetic!


            where’s bob woodward today writing about chicoms bribing American politicians? oh he’s busy with orange man bad, if he can write at all anymore

            1. Nah. Orange man bad is lazy writing.

              He’s weak. Incompetent. Inept. Corrupt. A living example of how to ruin American infuence on world affairs.

              And also someone heavily financed in past affairs by Chinese $.

            2. Kurtz, I dont know what ‘your’ sources are, but ‘my’ sources have duly reported on China’s crackdown on Hong Kong. But I remember several months back you asserted one day that the NYT was ignoring Hong Kong. And at the moment you wrote that, Hong Kong was on The NYT’s front page. Book probably rembers that too. So your credibility on the China- Hong Kong issue isse is weak, to say the least.

              1. It was the timing that was under discussion. When the NYTimes doesn’t report certain things because they don’t want to they don’t report them. However, if too much is released by other sources they are forced to report. It is at those times that the NYtimes is late to the game.

            3. We’ve been there and done this before. Kurtz made the same bias reporting accusation about China and Honk Kong 5 or 6 months ago, specifically claiming the NYTs was ignoring it. I sent him links to their front page coverage as well as their main editorial attacking China for the actions. Kurtz refused to retract his stupid and false accusations. Hard to know why anyone would insist up is down, but no point arguing with him on it. I learned that.

              1. Well for starters I don’t whoreship the NYT and read their stupid rag every day, nor do i catch much tv time hardly ever, but I check in with that crud oncet a while to see what they have to say and here we are again months later and you can go look for yourself

                Just now i scanned the NYT online and there are three China stories and NOTHING about the CCP cracking down in HK over weekend

                one is a book review, the other is a jobs story, and the other is a covid app story

                I cant get behind the paywall and scrutinize these minor distractions from the big news but i get the picture. if you two still don’t get it, sure, it’s because of what i said, the Dem party machine are in cahoots with the CCP and you are cheerleaders, that’s why

                NOTHING today at NYT about this


                you two guys can pat yourselves on your fannies but you know where to look for china news and it’s where I told you before, the SCMP, not the wapoo or the “grey lady” who takes money from china PLA controlled advertisers like huawei and wants to keep them happy

                1. The last time this argument arose based on my reading the Times headlines in my email box they were late to the game. Los Dos Amigos ‘bent nail’ and ‘nail’ didn’t prove their case rather they lied about what others have said. The question arises with regard to China’s influence on the nytimes. The NYTimes at least in the past provided a supplement on China intended to make China look good. A quick review search leads to this. I’m sure there are other articles that go into much more depth but who has the time. We already know of Clinton’s dealings with China along with Biden’s. The left is selling America down the drain to its enemies.

                  “The New York Times
                  Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim owns 17.4 percent of The New York Times through the company’s Class A shares. As the largest shareholder, his investment allows him to vote for approximately one-third of the company’s board.

                  In 2009, Slim loaned $250 million to The New York Times Company, the parent company of the New York Times. That same year, Slim purchased 15.9 million Class A shares of the company.

                  Slim has regularly conducted business with Chinese companies with overt ties to the CCP. In 2017, Slim’s Giant Motors joined ventures with China’s JAC Motors and began manufacturing cars in Mexico to sell in the Latin America Market. According to Forbes, the goal of selling to Latin America was to circumvent the Trump administration’s trade policies aimed at protecting American jobs — a move that benefited the Beijing in the Chinese-American trade wars.

                  According to Bloomberg Law, Slim’s company America Movil is teaming up with CCP telecommunication giant Huawei Technologies to pitch a 5G pilot project to the Colombian government this year. Huawei is actively working to undermine American security interests by overturning legislation in the United States that bans the use of Huawei’s 5G network.

                  “Huawei seeks to overturn U.S. legislation that prohibits our federal government from using its equipment. This is a blatant attempt by an allegedly vital cog in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) intelligence apparatus to avail itself of rights China would never confer on U.S. corporations––let alone its own citizens––in a bid to thwart America’s national security interests,” writes The Federalist’s Ben Weingarten.

                  Slim is making all kinds of lucrative business deals with the Chinese government while influencing the buiness side of The New York Times. He may not sit in on editorial meetings, but all the paper’s leaders certainly know who is funding their salaries.”

                  1. Wall Street Journal does better than NYT or Wapoo mostly because it’s got readers with money in the markets who want to know the truth and not just BS

                    The truth is Hong Kong is done as a separate system. They are passing the new security law allowing mainland agencies to operate there and you know what that means. Whether the HK legislators like it or not. It’s done, finished. The fix is in.

                    China’s CCP is on the warpath. CCP Quislings, running dogs, and useful idiots need to figure out which side they’re on!

                    Hey guys, look, here’s China state run media saying people complaining is a “nothingburger!”

                    Isnt that the term Seth was using today? Hey Seth, there’s a little hongbao waiting for you from the Party! Your membership in the “Fifty Cents Army” is confirmed!

      2. The above imposter authors numerous copy/paste hit pieces from fake news sites. She also owns a nail salon in West Hollywood for gays and uses the color fuchsia

        1. May Flowers is Crazed Idiot who seethes with endless grievances. Lately he’s been using an East Indian alias. But Crazed Idiot will never stop in his quest to shut liberals up.

      3. Dude, there was far more evidence in Biden Tara then the Scotus/Ballsey charade. You investigate, have hearings, render a judgment, case closed. Anyway that is how we handled, bluff, bullting and BS when I was coming up.


    The ‘Liberal Leaning’ Media Has Passed Its Tipping Point

    A return to balance would be commercially unviable. The best solution may be an honest embrace of bias.

    By Van Gordon Sauter

    About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She was lamenting what she called the “liberal leaning” media. As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a “liberal tilt” and could be corrected.

    “You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”

    Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.

    News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.

    To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed. That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president. To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner. Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the “resistance,” dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.

    This poses significant problems not only for Mr. Trump but for the media’s own standing. If Mr. Trump prevails in November, what’s the next act, if any, for journalists and the resistance? They will likely find Mr. Trump more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first.

    More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests? Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public—one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful.

    On the other hand, how would the media respond to a Joe Biden victory (beyond exhilaration)? Will Mr. Biden be subjected to the rigor and skepticism imposed on Mr. Trump? Will he get a pass because he is a liberal and “not Trump”? The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered.

    The media seems uninterested in these issues of bias. But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers? Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience. The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it.

    There’s probably no way to seal the gap between the media and a large segment of the public. The media likes what it is doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There is no personal, professional or financial reason to change. If anything, the gap will expand. Ultimately, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.

    Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founder of the website Mediaite, has a novel but valuable idea for the media—candor. Speaking to the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, Mr. Abrams said “I think the first thing that would help . . . is to admit . . . that the people in the media are left of center.”

    It would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!

    Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable.

    Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care. And the other side can certainly enjoy throwing rotten tomatoes at distant targets.

    But America won’t reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it.

    Mr. Sauter was president of CBS News, 1982-83 and 1986.

    1. Kate, these ‘Leftwing Bias’ stories have a paint-by-number quality where paragraphs are interchangeable. Again and again these pieces portray Donald Trump as an ‘earnest businessman trying to lead the country but hamstrung by a hostile media’.

      Curiously the Donald Trump in these stories bears no resemblance to the ‘Real Donald Trump’ whose Twitter feed tends to read like the diary of a madman. Yet we, as Americans, are supposed to disregard the madness and see Donald Trump as a ‘victim’.

      This twisted view of Trump embodies a sociopathic culture where a narcissistic, immature bully is supposed to be Americas ‘best hope’.

    1. She’s an American citizen.
      She is not a fascist or a terrorist.
      Your bigotry is harms the country. Patriotic Americans work against bigotry instead of promoting it.

      1. Committ – the fact that Omar is an American citizen does not mean she cannot be either a terrorist or a fascist. The one does not belie the others. Your logic is faulty.

        1. You inferred something I didn’t imply, so don’t blame me for your logic problem.

          I didn’t claim that my first sentence implied the second. The two sentences are separate facts, both relevant, but neither implying the other.

          1. (Ought to be) Committed:
            Anybody who would defend that “some people did something” jihadi trash is the one with the “logic problem.”

          2. Committ – what proof do you have that she is neither a terrorist or a fascist? Proof will be necessary now. I cannot just take your word for it.

            1. I’ll go with this:

              “In the speech (“something happened”), Omar defended herself from criticism that she was too critical of some Islamic countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for their human rights records. “It doesn’t matter if that country is being run by my father, my brother, my sister,” she said. “I will still criticize that country because I know every country is capable of living up to its best.”

              She concluded: “I know as an American, as an American member of Congress, I have to make sure I am living up to the ideals of fighting for liberty and justice. Those are very much rooted in the reason why my family came here.”

            2. Have you thought about what would you accept as proof?

              If someone claimed you were one of those things, and you wanted to prove you weren’t, my guess is that you’d say something like “there’s no evidence of me being a fascist or terrorist.” It’s a form of “proof by exhaustion” (this is a math technique), where you search for the thing, and if the search is thorough and the thing doesn’t turn up, you can conclude it’s not there. (“Is there milk in the refrigerator?” you look and respond “No, I’ve looked everywhere in the refrigerator, and we’re all out.”)

              And are you going to ask Liberty2nd “what proof do you have that she is either a terrorist or a fascist? Proof will be necessary now. I cannot just take your word for it”?

              1. “Proof will be necessary now. I cannot just take your word for it”?”

                The main question at hand is does CTHD know what proof is? Obviously not for in his mind he convicted Flynn of lying without ever being able to provide proof. He is a wordy guy that twists and turns and would be better off displaying his ablities to dance around questions rather than one to provide answers.

                1. Obviously not for in his mind he convicted Flynn of lying without ever being able to provide proof

                  Gen Flynn was convicted because Flynn supplied the proof of his guilt. Without Flynn to supply the proof there is no proof.

                  The FBI said they had no proof that Flynn was guilty of any crime, but the FBI was not involved in the decision to prosecute Flynn.

                  The Trump DOJ created the phony prosecution of Flynn after the case was taken from the FBI and put under the direct control of the Trump DOJ

                  The DOJ created a phony statement that made these claims:

                  Flynn called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation

                  Flynn told FBI agents on Jan 24 that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia.

                  Flynn signed the statement and swore to the court that it was under penalty of perjury true and correct.

                  The only proof that Flynn was guilty came from Flynn and the Trump DOJ.
                  Even President Trump jumped in the day after Flynn was charged and asserted that Flynn had lied to the FBI even though the FBI had previously stated that they believed Flynn had been truthful and they would not pursue charges.


                  The story that Flynn lied to the FBI was fabricated by Trump and his minions. Now that they are retracting their support for the story the story falls apart because there was never any independent proof that Flynn lied to the FBI. The only proof was that Flynn swore to the court it was true.

                  1. This guy is a bit nutty, but I will agree there was no proof against Flynn and the DOJ along with the FBI and others that were holdovers from the Obama Administration created a lie and with coercion managed to get Flynn to plead guilty to something he didn’t do.

                    Now that the previously hidden records are being released it has become clear that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty and that the Obama holdovers were lying and changing data.

                    The only question is whether our government is willing to prosecute these liars and if the lies extended to Obama himself.

                    1. FBI and others that were holdovers from the Obama Administration created a lie
                      The FBI did not create any lies the FBI reported that Flynn did not lie

                      The False story that Flynn lied to the FBI was created after the FBI’s authority to investigate was removed by the Trump administration.
                      And that was exactly why the FBI’s authority was curtailed, so that the Trump administration could create a new version of the facts.

                      and with coercion managed to get Flynn to plead guilty to something he didn’t do.
                      There is no evidence to support that story. It is just another made up out of thin air story that is not supported by evidence.
                      But even if the story is true the coercion that supposedly caused Flynn to lie did not come from the FBI or Obama it came from DOJ officials appointed by Trump.

                      Peter Strzok was interviewed by the Mueller team in July 2017 and Strzok said that both FBI agents that conducted the interview believed Flynn was not lying and that Flynn seemed to believe he was not lying.

                      It is pretty damn hard to get a conviction for lying to the FBI when the two FBI agents who were there are saying on the record he did not lie. But there is one way that the Trump DOJ can get a conviction and that is if Flynn helps them verify the fabricated false story that DOJ invented about what Flynn said to the FBI.

                      The FBI 302 of the Flynn-FBI interview is not an issue. The 302 was not presented in support of the case against Flynn. The 302 was given to the defense under the Brady rule that says the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence. In other words, the 302s have always been evidence of Flynn’s innocence and were never used against Flynn. And Flynn was given that exculpatory evidence before he agreed to plead guilty.

                    2. “The FBI did not create any lies”

                      Like Natasha I read your rants only so far. Too much of what you say is so foolish even those on the left except your twin don’t bother with them. You don’t even believe what you write.

                      Read the FBI reports.

                    3. Read the FBI reports.

                      Obviously you have not read the FBI reports

                      The FBI reports say clearly that the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn believed he was not lying. The Mueller team also interviewed all the FBI agents involved and in those interviews they all said they did not believe Flynn had lied to the FBI.

                      The FBI reports were not used as evidence against Flynn in court.
                      What was presented to the court was a statement of offense that contained a fabricated story that was not supported by the FBI reports. Flynn swore to the court that the criminal information presented to the court, under penalty of perjury, was true and correct. Without Flynn’s help Mueller and the Trump DOJ would not have a viable case against Flynn.

                    4. You continue to be nutty and unable to put the facts together in a cogent form that tells what actually happened. I think that perhaps putting you in a cage with a parakeet might help you improve your dialogue.

                    5. You continue to be nutty and unable to put the facts together in a cogent form that tells what actually happened.

                      I put the facts together in the order that they occurred:

                      1)The FBI interviewed Flynn as part of the Russia collusion investigation

                      2) The FBI agents that conducted the interview believed Flynn did not lie and reported that to their superiors who did not disagree with that assessment.
                      The FBI made it known to the media that they would pursue no charges against Flynn.

                      3) The Trump administration appointed Mueller as Special Counsel and the FBI was removed from the Russia investigation and the Trump DOJ was put in full control. In accordance with the Special Counsel law, no one could be prosecuted without approval and assistance of the acting AG of the DOJ who Trump had appointed and had a close relationship with Trump.

                      4) 6 months later Flynn was prosecuted and found guilty based on a statement Flynn swore under oath was true and correct. None of the FBI evidence was presented to the court but it was turned over to the defense as exculpatory evidence under the Brady rule before Flynn pled guilty.

                      7) 2-1/2 years later the same two parties that created the Flynn lied to the FBI hoax in court are now requesting that the phony statement that Flynn swore was true and Flynn’s guilty plea both be dismissed with prejudice.

                    6. “I put the facts together in the order that they occurred:”

                      What you have done is put pieces of a puzzle together by cutting and pasting. You ended up with a typical rectangular finished puzzle that was a jumbled mass of nothing.

                    7. “I put the facts together in the order that they occurred:”

                      What you have done is put pieces of a puzzle together
                      Not much of a puzzle all the pieces have been reported in the press and confirmed by the DOJ and court documents:

                      The FBI investigated and created evidence record that cleared Flynn of any criminal activity.
                      Then the investigation was taken from the FBI and put under the control of the Trump DOJ. They created a new version of the facts which Flynn swore to the court was true and correct. There was no new evidence and the DOJ did not submit to the court the evidence from the FBI that cleared Flynn.

                      Now the same two parties that created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI are asking the court to sweep the whole mess under the rug and make it go away.

                    8. “Not much of a puzzle all the pieces have been reported in the press and confirmed by the DOJ and court documents:”

                      “All the pieces” reported in the press A lie
                      All the pieces “confirmed by the DOJ” A lie
                      All the pieces confirmed by “court documents” A lie

                      Why would anyone read further?

                    9. “Women know when they are being malicious and when they are honestly concerned.”

                      Prairie, would you say that some women change their mind after the fact? When testifying questions are asked and the woman’s answer sometimes is ‘I didnt realize what was happening at the time’. Would a woman saying that have been malicious if we go back in time and she made the call?

                      Frequently we act reflexively and if you read Malcolm Gladwell’s Book “Blink” you might see that the reflexive response might be more accurate than the considered one.

                      I believe your above statement is dead wrong and dangerous. That doesn’t mean that woman who intentionally falsely claim rape leading to a man spending years in prison or even being arrested shouldn’t lead to her conviction. Amy called the police. They are the professionals that determine whether a person should be arrested or not, not Amy. When you delve into the gray areas be careful about permitting the state to punish the individual. In this case any NYC prosecutor doing so is doing it for PC and political reasons rather than to preserve peace or the law.

        2. Committ – the fact that Omar is an American citizen does not mean she cannot be either a terrorist or a fascist.

          No, but it does demonstrate that the effective standards for granting settler status and citizenship are null.

      2. Omar is an idiot

        She married her kinsman. was it her brother, what? fake fraud

        she is not a fascist. quit insulting fascists by comparing them to the likes of Omar

        as for Tara Reade, her story is plausible, but if I were on a civil jury I think I might give the edge to joe and dismiss. but the statute of limitations has run on her stale claim anyhow so it would not go anyhow

        which is part of the reason why we have statutes of limitations in the first place. they wisely help vet out stale claims

      3. I guess CTHD only becomes concerned when those on the left are threatened with the truth. He doesn’t care if they hate America, lie or are racists. On the other hand CTHD is more than willing to string up any person across the aisle without evidence even after they have comitted their lives to serving America.

        I am waiting for CTHD to provide us the in context statement of Flynn that proved he was guity of the charges. To date CTHD has danced a lot, made all sorts of excuses but just like the recent discussions he has no proof that holds water.

        1. And if he did you wouldn’t recognize it, Allan. Then you’d realize he’s probably right. And you’d accuse him of not providing context. A highly disingenous position on your part because you’re just treading water trying to fight off lightning bolts of truth raining down on your one sided world…

          In other words, the dancing is done by you, Allan. Happens every single day on this blog. It’s quite entertaining.

          1. Hellvis, what a stupid reply. CTHD said there was proof in the FBI memoranda. It is a simple thing to copy such proof in context. You seem to believe asking for a statement in context is a strange request, but it is totally normal. You probably don’t know or understand what context is and why it is necessary.

            So now I wait while Hellvis produces the lie Flynn made. Make sure it is in context.

  9. These statements, if true, qualify Omar as the perfect politician. Het transparency is refreshing.

Comments are closed.