Connect with us

Latest

Video

News

Watch Trey Gowdy UNLOAD on Clinton-shill Adam Schiff (VIDEO)

Representive Gowdy refuses to tolerate Democrat offensive against the justification for his own investigation into political gaming in the FBI

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

2,484 Views

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), unloaded on his Democrat counterpart California Representative Adam Schiff on Thursday. He essentially called the Democrat congressman a liar and a fraud, stating multiple scenarios in which this appears to be the case.

Representative Gowdy blasting session was on Fox News’ “Hannity”, a special edition program that was not actually hosted by the program’s namesake. Instead, the fill-in host Jason Chaffetz pointed out that FBI Agent Peter Strzok might not comply with a subpoena to testify before a public round of questioning before the House Judiciary Committee early next week. In a link to a CNN-hosted interview with Mr. Strzok’s attorney Aitan Goelman, Mr. Goelman maintained that to testify before this committee would be to testify before “a chance for Republican members of the House to preen and posture before their most radical conspiracy-minded constituents.”

This was the setup for the question that Mr. Chaffetz asked, noting that further, Democrat Representative Schiff referred to Rep. Gowdy as “one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse”, in reference to the Hillary Clinton / FBI email / collusion / bias scandal. In an exchange with CNN host Wolf Blitzer, Mr. Schiff had this to say:

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA).: Sadly here, we have all too many members of Congress willing to prostrate themselves before the executive and give him anything he wants.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN Host: You want to name names which members of Congress are in this cult-like group that you — that you’re suggesting?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, the four horsemen of this apocalypse have been Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. They have been leading the charge basically to require the Justice Department to give them materials that can be leaked or fed or misrepresented like the infamous Nunes memorandum in the service of the President.

This and other similar interviews on CNN have been used by Mr. Schiff to paint a picture of President Trump as an extremely viable suspect in some nefarious wrongdoing, with the greatest emphasis being on RussiaGate, but the overall feel being that President Trump is an absolute crook and criminal.

To give credit to the consistency of this attack, it is presented in a very calm, “reasonable” sounding way, and it is certainly by no accident that a great number of Americans believe this narrative enough to be easily stirred up by activist forces on that side of the debate, as we have seen in recent events such as the immigration protests and riots.

However, Mr. Gowdy was having none of it:

Gowdy said under the leadership of Adam Schiff you would never know anything about Peter Strzok, the people who funded the infamous Trump dossier, Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi disaster, and more.

“Let me tell you this about Adam,” Gowdy began. “Adam’s had a terrible last couple of years. He wanted to be the attorney general under Hillary Clinton and no one in the country worked harder to protect her than Adam Schiff.”

“He wanted to be the head of the CIA. He wanted to run for California and the run for Senate and the People’s Republic of California, but he couldn’t win either of those seats. So, now, now, he wants to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Speaking of the apocalypse, Adam Schiff wants to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,” he said.

“If you ever have — I don’t know — a couple of three months with nothing else to do, I want you to go back, Jason, and think of all the things you would not know if you had taken Adam Schiff’s advice. You wouldn’t know the whole — the spontaneous reaction to a video was a hoax in Libya. You would never have read the first Chris Stevens email. You wouldn’t know that Hillary Clinton had this unique email arrangement with herself because Adam Schiff did everything in his power to keep you from finding out,” Gowdy continued.

“You wouldn’t know about the dossier. You wouldn’t know who funded it. You wouldn’t know it was used in a court proceeding. You wouldn’t know about Strzok and Page. In fact, you wouldn’t even be having the show tonight. You wouldn’t be having the show about Strzok and Page if Adam Schiff had had his way.

So, look, if they secede from the Union and President Maxine Waters wants to make him the attorney general in California, more power to him. Otherwise, I don’t think anybody on my side of the aisle gives much of a damn what Adam Schiff thinks,” Gowdy finished.

But he actually was not finished. Representative Gowdy spoke further, noting that Special Agent Peter Strzok, an ardent anti-Trump person whose bias has now been revealed through the investigation headed by Devon Nunes, was involved in three of the most politically critical investigations in recent times. The FBI, said Rep. Gowdy, has tried to portray itself with an “above the political fray” image, however the recent House investigation revealed a radically different truth.

“He was on the Clinton probe, and then in July, not only was he on the Russia probe pre-Mueller. He was the lead agent on the Russia probe pre-Mueller. So, in July of 2016, we just got through Jim Comey with that unprecedented press conference and three weeks later, he’s working on Donald Trump’s campaign in the Russia probe. I think that group was then transposed over on to the Russia probe, and then many of them were transposed to the Mueller probe. I would give Mueller credit for this. The moment he found out about these texts, he got rid of Peter Strzok,” Gowdy explained the timeline.

“So he never should have been on any of these three probes,” the chairman said. “If the animus was enough to kick him up when you found it, the animus should have been enough to kick him off when he said it, which was early in 2016. Completely the wrong person. The FBI’s reputation. Look, there are lots and lots of fantastic FBI agents, 99.9 percent of them. But to pick this person, and not just him, Lisa Page, and other people heretofore not identified FBI agents. Do you remember when Jim Comey, I think you were in the committee when Jim Comey said the FBI didn’t give a hoot about politics.”

“Go read these texts. They gave a lot more than a hoot about who is going to be the Democrat nominee and whether Donald Trump would win,” Gowdy concluded.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
5 Comments

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
TTLooking-GlassBrenda Nregolo gellini Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
TTLooking-Glass
Guest
TTLooking-Glass

comment image

TTLooking-Glass
Guest
TTLooking-Glass

comment image

TTLooking-Glass
Guest
TTLooking-Glass

comment image

Brenda N
Guest
Brenda N

Why is Trey Gowdy leaving Congress? Does anyone know?

regolo gellini
Guest
regolo gellini

Trey is the man for the nation, next round up !

Latest

Every dirty Democrat trick shows in bid to oust Kavanaugh

American democracy truly is mob rule now, and the mob is stupid, with no one taking a moment to truly consider the situation.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The most amazing thing about what is ostensibly the last minute “Hail Mary” smear campaign by the left against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is how utterly transparently partisan it is. Let’s look at the list of tactics used thus far in this very dirty escapade:

  • Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein sat on this allegation for three months, until after the confirmation hearings were over (and after no other barnstorming tactic during the confirmation hearings worked against the nominee).
  • The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat, and a feminist. RT notes that she appears to have a strong interest in politics.
  • Reports of “death threats” against Dr. Ford have been reported. This is a common feature of any anti-Trump attack, to relate him to some sort of “right-wing” radicalism. This radicalism does not exist among conservatives, but the media is determined to say otherwise.
  • Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, naturally, believes Ford’s story.
  • Every Democrat senator is in agreement that this matter should table the confirmation vote. Some Republicans were at first but appear to be backing away.
  • A woman Democrat senator,  Mazie Hirono, went on record telling men to “shut up and step up.” It seems abundantly clear that this assumes that there can only be one “step” that the men are expected to do. A second lady senator , Patty Murray of Washington, gave all men a warning against stepping off the plantation by saying “Women are watching.”
  • The Senate Republicans offered a chance for Dr Ford to testify on Monday. She refused, but now she is offering to come “next Thursday” – this is ten days later, past the October 1 start date of the US Supreme Court, and closer to the November Midterm elections.

We interrupt this list to make this point. The issues at hand are threefold.

First, the Democrats and other left-wing activists are terrified that they will lose the “Warren Court”, which is the name of the Supreme Court Justice who was a major left-wing judicial activist that enabled the Court to “legislate from the bench” along liberal policy lines since 1969. If Kavanaugh comes in, even if President Trump is somehow magically removed from office, his mark will remain on the Court for at least a generation. Of course, the removal of President Trump is predicated on the Democrats regaining control of the House, which actually looks somewhat likely if polling data is to be believed, and of course a Democrat Senate. (The actual tiny caveat that the President has done absolutely nothing which warrants impeachment will not be taken into consideration. He is to be eliminated. That is Democrat point number one, and make no mistake.)

Second, if the Judge is confirmed, it will look great on the President’s achievement list and energize his voter base even more than it already is. The result could be that the Senate expands its Republican majority, and gains Trumpian conservatives in its ranks, which would likely help the President continue his really great agenda. A defeat in the House that holds or expands GOP, again with Trumpian conservatives, would solidify this, and make it more difficult to stop Trump’s re-election and further solidification of reforms in 2020.

Third, and probably even more important, is that the possibility of a third seat getting vacated on the Court in the time period between now and 2024 is relatively high. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest Justice on the Court, and she is a raving liberal. If she retires (which she promises not to do), or if she is retired by the processes of old age, Trump can score a three-peat and get a third constitutionalist justice into the Court and that will signal the closure of one of the biggest avenues of liberal activism.

To return to the list, some of the further characteristics that make this situation patently obvious are these:

  • As reported in The Duran, the smear job is looking a bit ragged around the edges as time goes by. President Trump called Dr Ford’s bluff by saying he is interested in having her come to testify and that it would be “unfortunate” if she didn’t do so. Ford’s response was as shown above, to try and delay this testimony.
  • The Hollywood “sisterhood” is on record defending Dr Ford. For them, she’s right. She said Kavanaugh did this, so she is right. And why? Because she is a woman, a feminist and a Democrat. She is one of them. It would very interesting to know if the sisterhood would stand behind a conservative woman raising such a concern against a Democrat, but we have President Clinton to show how well that all went.

This by no means concludes the list of characteristics, but as noted earlier here, anyone that does even just a little critical thinking about this can see that this issue is no moral outrage, it is strictly partisan hackery, making use of the greatest weapon against conservative men put in use over the last fifty years – the sexual allegation from a woman, who must always be believed, because the woman is always right. 

The unfortunate truth is that this tactic works. It works because most men are actually gentlemen. We honor women, and we are taught to defer to them in America, because that is what a gentleman does. Feminism takes this characteristic of men, especially in modern times who really want to make sure they treat the ladies right, and it throws it back in their face in contempt. It is so bad it even has a physiological effect on men, who are now marrying less, and having fewer kids. There are even physiological changes that result from this abuse.

Further, there is an appalling lack of critical thinking in our society. The British news site, The Independent offers a poll with questions about the Kavanaugh case. The astonishing lack of critical thinking is clearly evident as the reader votes his or her thought and then sees the results for that question. Going through the questions and observing their responses can be very illuminating.

Dr Ford is demanding an FBI investigation, but she has no date, time or location attached to the incident she accuses now-Judge Kavanaugh of perpetrating. Rush Limbaugh did a great job at showing just how absurd this demand actually is, given these glaring areas of non-knowledge and we include some of that transcript below:

What would happen, let’s say — I don’t know — in the last 10 years up to last week if any woman had walked into any FBI office in the country and said the following: “Hi. I’m here to report that I was abused 35 years ago. I was — I was — I was at a party. Uh, I was 15, a little bit to drink, and a 17-year-old guy pushed me down on top of a table and laid on top of me. And then — and then and then I think — I think — a friend came in and did something and anyway they left and I was left locked in the room. And I want to you to investigate.”

Do you think if somebody shows up at an FBI office with that story, if they show up in person with that story, that the FBI is gonna give it any time whatsoever? The agents are gonna look at each other with kind of wary eyes and they’re gonna crack silent jokes to one another. I’m not kidding. You take this out of the realm of a letter to a crazed, partisan United States senator, Dianne Feinstein, and just move this into the victim walking into an FBI office, “It was 35 years, 34 years. I’m not sure where. But I know that when I was 15, I was at a party, and some guy jumped on top of me.”

So let’s say the FBI agent decides to actually take this further and in a very respectful way says, “Well, Miss, were you raped or injured?”

“Uh, no, not really.”

“Did you report this or tell anyone at the time, 36, 35 years ago?”

“Uh, no.”

“What year was this, again, that this happened?”

“Uhhh, I’m not — I’m not sure. I think it was 1982.”

“Where did this happen?”

“I don’t know! I don’t know. I was so traumatized; I don’t remember any of it. I just remember some guy jumping on me and I was drunk and — and I don’t know. But I want you to investigate it.”

“Okay. Ma’am, were there any witnesses?”

“Just the one friend of his that pushed him off, and then they left before he could do anything.”

What would the FBI do with this, if that scenario happened in one of their field offices? I will tell you what they would do: Zip, zero, nada. And the reason for bringing it up this way is to try to shine some kind of a different light on this and try to put this kind of allegation in some kind of context. The president is handling this in a quite fascinating way. He’s saying, “I hope she shows up. I want to hear what she has to say. I really hope she shows up. I’m very interested in what she has to say. We all are. And if she shows up and if she’s credible, why, then we’re gonna have to do something about that.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russian Hierarch explains Ukrainian issue in detail (VIDEO)

A Russian Orthodox Hierarch explores the incursion of earthly politics into the life, pastoral activity and needs of the Orthodox Church.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

RT’s “Worlds Apart” interview program recently interviewed Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), a hierarch who heads the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Duran has covered the crisis in Ukraine surrounding the activity of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, of Constantinople, intended to create a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This effort falls completely outside the normal and authorized operating procedures of the Orthodox Church, but to the lay listener it is difficult to understand what the fuss really is all about.

Metropolitan Hilarion and Oksana Boyko do an excellent job with both the answers, but more importantly, the questions, since Ms. Boyko asks the questions that someone who knows nothing about the Church might ask. This situation is completely about politics and not about the true work of the Church, and Met. Hilarion answers these questions very completely and thoroughly.

One of the really interesting points that Met. Hilarion makes is the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch seeks to bring about the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church from these four groups:

  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which is canonical and which has not requested self-rule, called autocephaly
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church “Kyiv Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko, which is a completely schismatic group. This group, and Filaret, are leading the charge.
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church – another schismatic group that is not in communion with Filaret’s church
  • The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine – and this is truly interesting, because this group is not even Orthodox, but is an Eastern Rite group under the Pope of Rome, and is in fact Roman Catholic.

The notion of bringing together such a disparity of groups is stunning to the Metropolitan, and yet he understands the motives of the men driving this idea, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew, and Filaret Denisenko.

While the United States is not mentioned in this interview in any prominent sense, it should be noted that this move also does have strong US support as the American political leadership has been advocating for the Poroshenko government in an effort to continue to surround and isolate Russia. As we have noted elsewhere, this series of moves may well create more problems for Russia, by design.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

James Woods Suspended From Twitter Over Satirical Meme That Could “Impact An Election”

James Woods crushes Jack Dorsey: “You are a coward, @Jack.”

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor’s tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.

The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with “nu-male smiles” and text that reads “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” Above it, Woods writes “Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible.”

According to screenshots provided by an associate of Woods’, Twitter directed the actor to delete the post on the grounds that it contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.

In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote. 

In a statement released through associate Sara Miller, Woods said “You are a coward, @Jack,” referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.

Earlier this month, Woods opined on the mass-platform ban of Alex Jones, tweeting: ““I’ve never read Alex Jones nor watched any of his video presence on the internet. A friend told me he was an extremist. Believe me that I know nothing about him. That said, I think banning him from the internet is a slippery slope. This is the beginning of real fascism. Trust me.”

Nu-males everywhere non-threateningly smirk at Woods’ bad fortune…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending