C’mon Do Some Memes

[poor-in-spirit]

 

[Wingman68]

Yahoo……..nothing changes…….

WOW!! Apparently Yahoo will NOT allow you to comment “Trump 2024”

If you do, it says “Some members of the community may find your comment inappropriate. Try Again?”

But guess what… “Biden 2024” is completely acceptable!!!

Watch & Share!!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~








Shadow of Ezra
@ShadowofEzra


Forensic analysis indicates that up to three weapons were fired at the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday. This suggests that there was more than one shooter. - First three shots came by weapon A - The next five came by weapon B - The final shot was by weapon C Shot one and two line up perfectly with each other. Shot three does not line up. Shot four and five line up perfectly. Shot six does not line up.

3:27 PM · Jul 19, 2024
·


Who is this? With this seat should be easy to find out.

 

[Wingman68]

x.com

This is what the FBI did involving the ‘Whitmer kidnapping’. This is one of the people they set up. Whitmer still pretending she was terrified in her new book. Shameless leftists.

 

[JonC]

When it started….View attachment 9597


How it’s going…….

View attachment 9598


They never change…….

View attachment 9599


They just cash in……..

View attachment 9600


Sometimes justice gets delayed but prevails…….

View attachment 9601

You do know that Zeifman didn't fire Hillary....right?

 

[Wingman68]

You do know that Zeifman didn't fire Hillary....right?

Actually, he did. Or are we at one of those you/or I are lying moments. It’s one of my favorite things about you, btw.

35 Years of Experience: Years 1 + 2

Apr 1, 2008 | News, The New Nixon

Reverend Jeremiah Wright has at least temporarily retired the phrase “chickens coming home to roost” but that’s the phrase that comes to mind reading Dan Calabrese’s column about Hillary Clinton’s performance as a staff attorney on the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry in 1973-4.
Mr. Calabrese’s is the most recent retread of the basic charges made by Jerome Zeifman, the Harvard-trained attorney who was the Committee’s staff director. Hired by and beholden to Chairman Peter Rodino, Mr. Zeifman was then (as he apparently still is) a liberal Democrat. In 1995 he published a book based on the extensive diaries he had kept during the impeachment period: Without Honor: The Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon.

Those contemporaneous diaries set out his concerns about the efforts (successful efforts as things turned out) of a group within his staff —primarily consisting of John Doar, Bernard Nussbaum, and Ms. Rodham— to prevent the accused President from being represented by counsel. A Nixon defense might be expected to uncover abuses by prior administrations (read: JFK) and thereby cause problems for Teddy Kennedy’s prospective 1976 presidential bid. Ms. Rodham also successfully deep-sixed the academic study of prior administrations’ offenses that she had been charged with supervising.

Mr. Zeifman was no friend of Nixon, whom he thought should be impeached. But he was greatly perturbed by the partisan corners he saw being cut by this cabal in order to achieve the end they sought. As Mr. Calabrese puts it:

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

These days the colorful Mr. Zeifman shows no signs of letting his eighty-three years slow him down. And he has come to share at least one thing with his former employee Ms. Rodham — they both channel Eleanor Roosevelt (although at least Mr. Zeifman actually knew Mrs. R. and worked with her to get Adlai Stevenson his third Democratic presidential nomination in 1960).

 

[Wingman68]

If this man & the other two men who still fight for their lives had been dems, black lives matter, lgbtq, ‘mostly peaceful’ antifa, etc., you would be hearing about them & their families 24/7. Say their names! Build them a memorial or something, but instead the entire thing is being swept under the rug. We get NO updates because they weren’t planning on this outcome. Caught them flat footed I’d say.

 

[JonC]

Actually, he did. Or are we at one of those you/or I are lying moments. It’s one of my favorite things about you, btw.

35 Years of Experience: Years 1 + 2

Apr 1, 2008 | News, The New Nixon

Reverend Jeremiah Wright has at least temporarily retired the phrase “chickens coming home to roost” but that’s the phrase that comes to mind reading Dan Calabrese’s column about Hillary Clinton’s performance as a staff attorney on the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry in 1973-4.
Mr. Calabrese’s is the most recent retread of the basic charges made by Jerome Zeifman, the Harvard-trained attorney who was the Committee’s staff director. Hired by and beholden to Chairman Peter Rodino, Mr. Zeifman was then (as he apparently still is) a liberal Democrat. In 1995 he published a book based on the extensive diaries he had kept during the impeachment period: Without Honor: The Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon.

Those contemporaneous diaries set out his concerns about the efforts (successful efforts as things turned out) of a group within his staff —primarily consisting of John Doar, Bernard Nussbaum, and Ms. Rodham— to prevent the accused President from being represented by counsel. A Nixon defense might be expected to uncover abuses by prior administrations (read: JFK) and thereby cause problems for Teddy Kennedy’s prospective 1976 presidential bid. Ms. Rodham also successfully deep-sixed the academic study of prior administrations’ offenses that she had been charged with supervising.

Mr. Zeifman was no friend of Nixon, whom he thought should be impeached. But he was greatly perturbed by the partisan corners he saw being cut by this cabal in order to achieve the end they sought. As Mr. Calabrese puts it:

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

These days the colorful Mr. Zeifman shows no signs of letting his eighty-three years slow him down. And he has come to share at least one thing with his former employee Ms. Rodham — they both channel Eleanor Roosevelt (although at least Mr. Zeifman actually knew Mrs. R. and worked with her to get Adlai Stevenson his third Democratic presidential nomination in 1960).

How did Zeifman fire her when she actually worked for John Doar and Zeifman was on general counsel and not the inquiry staff?

Why do you believe Zeifman lied in 1999 when he said that he would have fired her because she was unethical and dishonest if he could have?

You have history all jumbled up. Zeifman was general counsel, NOT her boss.



Zeifman spoke very poorly of Hillary. He did say he fired her, but later he corrected himself and said that he would have fired her if he could have. But he did not have the authority to fire her.

Zeifman was not her boss. John Doar was and had the power to fire her.

But she wasn't fired. She was still on the payroll after Nixon resigned, until the inquiry was closed and case settled.

Zeifman did not even work directly on the inquiry staff (he was general counsel on committee staff).

The misinformation came from Zeifman's claim, a claim he corrected in 1999 when he admitted it was not in his power to fire her.

But he did say she was unethical and dishonest.


You read fake news, bought it hook line and sinker. And you didn't even bother to check out the facts.

Why? Because it is what you wanted to hear.

I can't stand the Clintons. But the reasons I dislike Hillary is legitimate, not some false claim that Zeifman later corrected but continues to circulate.

What I can't stand more than Hillary is people circulating misinformation to support a view. The readon is that fake news undermines legitimate issues.

 

[Wingman68]

How did Zeifman fire her when she actually worked for John Doar and Zeifman was on general counsel and not the inquiry staff?

Why do you believe Zeifman lied in 1999 when he said that he would have fired her because she was unethical and dishonest if he could have?

You have history all jumbled up. Zeifman was general counsel, NOT her boss.



Zeifman spoke very poorly of Hillary. He did say he fired her, but later he said that he would have fired her if he could have. But he did not have the authority to fire her.

Zeifman was not her boss. John Doar was and had the power to fire her.

But she wasn't fired. She was still on the payroll after Nixon resigned, until the inquiry was closed and case settled.

Zeifman did not even work directly on the inquiry staff (he was general counsel on committee staff).

The misinformation came from Zeifman's claim, a claim he corrected in 1999 when he admitted it was not in his power to fire her.

But he did say she was unethical and dishonest.


You read fake news. And you didn't even bother to check out the facts.

So mine is fake news, which is linked. Your info is not linked. I guess you were there. My link says Zeifman reiterated this quote after 2008 when this article was written.

There are many sources for you to find Snopes, Media Matters, & on & on who have been religious in covering for & defending their leftists like Hillary.

Why you even bother to make an issue of this is predictable. You defend the left far more than the right at each & every opportunity. Just a coincidence? I doubt it. You call for truth as long as it’s your truth, also a leftist trait.

 

[JonC]

So mine is fake news, which is linked. Your info is not linked. I guess you were there. My link says Zeifman reiterated this quote after 2008 when this article was written.

There are many sources for you to find Snopes, Media Matters, & on & on who have been religious in covering for & defending their leftists like Hillary.

Why you even bother to make an issue of this is predictable. You defend the left far more than the right at each & every opportunity. Just a coincidence? I doubt it. You call for truth as long as it’s your truth, also a leftist trait.

Yes, your post is fake news.


The facts are:

1. Dan Calabrese did write that Zeifman fired her, but in 1999 Zeifman corrected the error and said he would have fired her had it been in his power.

2. She did not work for Zeifman. She worked with him when their tasks overlapped (he was general counsel, she worked for John Dorn on the inquiry committee).

3. She was not fired, but was paid throughout the inquiry.


You fell for fake news. You shouldn't rely on Facebook for your news. Your "news" sources make you look very sheeple....ish.



Research Guides: Richard Nixon’s Political Scandal: Researching Watergate in the Manuscript Collections at the Library of Congress: Members of Congress and Staff

 

[Wingman68]

Yes, your post is fake news.....not that Zeifman wrote those words (he did) but you ignore that Zeifman corrected that years later.

My information isn't from Snopes but from the actual records (online) of the staff and general counsel. I arrived there to check out who was right - you or the several newspapers correcting the propaganda.

You lost.


The facts are:

1. Zeifman did write that he fired her, but in 1999 corrected the error and said he would have fired her had it been in his power.

2. She did not work for Zeifman. She worked with him when their tasks overlapped (he was general counsel, she worked for John Dorn on the inquiry committee).

3. She was not fired, but was paid throughout the inquiry.


My question - Why did you post what Zeifman wrote but ignore his correction when it was apparent she didn't work for him?

You ‘quote’ that he corrected in 1999. I quoted that he reiterated his original claim post 2008. Looks like no one here can be proven correct on this oh so important waste of time & space.

 

[JonC]

You ‘quote’ that he corrected in 1999. I quoted that he reiterated his original claim post 2008. Looks like no one here can be proven correct on this oh so important waste of time & space.

Bottom line......he said he fired her and he admitted he would have fired her if he had the authority.

But she worked for John Dorn, NOT Zeifman (who was general counsel).

You clinging to fake news even when the actual staff info (and more) are publicly avaliable from original sources Majesty you look very foolishness.

It would have been better had you simply let the correction go. But you fight on. Pride is an unmerciful master, huh.


Facts:

1. Hillary worked for John Dorn, NOT Zeifman

2. Hillary was not fired but remained employed throughout the investigation

3. Zeifman called her dishonest, unethical, and a liar....but admitted he was powerless to fire her because she did not work for her.

4. Zeifman was on general counsel.

5. You are wrong. You believed a lie because it was what you wanted to hear.

6. Facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[JonC]

 

[JonC]

 

[JonC]

 

[Wingman68]

 

[JonC]

View attachment 9717


View attachment 9718



View attachment 9719

What is 8645?

 

[Wingman68]

Sheri™
@FFT1776


Had Trump been assassinated, Rothschild, BlackRock, VanGuard, Bush’s and Cheney’s stood to gain $696 billion up to 1 $ TRILLION in profits. 1/4 of this entire portfolio shorted DJT stock the day before the assassination attempt. Listen & Repost

6:09 AM · Jul 21, 2024
·
1.7M
Views









The old days. If your car was upscale it even had a lighter in the ashtray. Probably caused a few finger burns to the kiddos, but they learned quickly.




Car seats…..for those who were too lazy to throw their arm up to keep the standing kid from exiting the car via the windshield. I remember.

 

[JonC]

Sheri™
@FFT1776


Had Trump been assassinated, Rothschild, BlackRock, VanGuard, Bush’s and Cheney’s stood to gain $696 billion up to 1 $ TRILLION in profits. 1/4 of this entire portfolio shorted DJT stock the day before the assassination attempt. Listen & Repost

6:09 AM · Jul 21, 2024
·
1.7M
Views




View attachment 9720




The old days. If your car was upscale it even had a lighter in the ashtray. Probably caused a few finger burns to the kiddos, but they learned quickly.

View attachment 9724


Car seats…..for those who were too lazy to throw their arm up to keep the standing kid from exiting the car via the windshield. I remember.

View attachment 9725

Lol.....I had forgotten about the back seat ash trays.

 

[Wingman68]

Mel Gibson News
@MelGibsonNew


The rumor about Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigning on Monday is just a rumor for now. What is not a rumor is how she colluded with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to have Donald Trump assassinated last Saturday, with the cooperation of FBI Director Christopher Wray. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle denied extra security for Trump. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas replaced Secret Service agents with untrained and incompetent personnel to make Trump an easier target. FBI Director Christopher Wray is handling the cover-up and clean-up operations. The CIA outsourced assassins for the job. BlackRock provided the money in collusion with the Khazarian Mafia. Donald Trump is still standing. Arrests must be made.




7:33 AM · Jul 21, 2024
·
388.3K
Views


I have one comment on this……..this is not 1963.

Alas, the bipartisan questioning of Cheatle immediately diverted from the raison d’etre to an AR15 partisan rant. Who could have predicted that?! All rifles, including ar’s account for a minute percentage of deaths by homicide so their reasoning is nothing more than the camel’s nose under the tent. Let them go there? No……..shall not be infringed, period.

 

[KenH]

I am not a Trump nor a Biden supporter, but as a huge Godzilla fan, I think this is funny.