Obama’s Illegal Spying On Americans Labeled “Operation Hammer” Will Soon Be Exposed

[Shabibilicious]

19 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

It's a question of motives. Like do you even own dinar?

 

 

As posted in the Dinar-ify Me! section in 2014.  I actually read where people have had a hard time finding the 5K notes.....and that's the only denomination I own.   I own much more than the picture shows, but that's my business. 

 

I also post regularly in Adam's weekly chats....not every time, but often.  My latest addition to his chat was this nugget of good cheer.

 

 

GO RV, then BV 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[Jim1cor13]

Look out shabs, you know it is getting desperate when you are asked if you own dinar

 

Some just want to shut you up in any way they can, along with the usual questions about dinar.

 

You are accused almost daily of "hatred" and yet those that treat you with contempt apparently

are too blind to their own hatred. Someone always needs a target to pursue, to accuse, to do whatever it takes

to discredit someone who does not agree with the majority even if it means personal attacks.

 

When that happens, you are marked...wear the badge proudly and see it for what it is. Those are the type of friends that

simply want you to agree with them, and hear their opinion coming out of your mouth. If not, well, you know the rest.

 

Have a good weekend my friend. Keep thinking for yourself, be your own person, always. you never have to bow to the

political or religious hit squad. Your opinions are just as valid as theirs. Never allow politics or religion to be used to

intimidate you, that just shows how low some will go.

[Shabibilicious]

10 minutes ago, Jim1cor13 said:

Look out shabs, you know it is getting desperate when you are asked if you own dinar

 

Some just want to shut you up in any way they can, along with the usual questions about dinar.

 

You are accused almost daily of "hatred" and yet those that treat you with contempt apparently

are too blind to their own hatred. Someone always needs a target to pursue, to accuse, to do whatever it takes

to discredit someone who does not agree with the majority even if it means personal attacks.

 

When that happens, you are marked...wear the badge proudly and see it for what it is. Those are the type of friends that

simply want you to agree with them, and hear their opinion coming out of your mouth. If not, well, you know the rest.

 

Have a good weekend my friend. Keep thinking for yourself, be your own person, always. you never have to bow to the

political or religious hit squad. Your opinions are just as valid as theirs. Never allow politics or religion to be used to

intimidate you, that just shows how low some will go.

 

Much appreciated, Jim....Your calm, cool, collected thoughts and wisdom are a refreshing break from this bass-ackwards reality we find ourselves in, where contempt for others has been normalized at the highest level this country has ever seen.....mistreatment is celebrated and common ground is frowned upon.  All my respect to you, always.

 

GO RV, then BV 

[Shabibilicious]

So I provide the proof that I'm a dinar owner and get negged for it.  A perfect example of how misguided people attack the person, not the content.......very mature.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[umbertino]

24 minutes ago, Jim1cor13 said:

Look out shabs, you know it is getting desperate when you are asked if you own dinar

 

Some just want to shut you up in any way they can, along with the usual questions about dinar.

 

You are accused almost daily of "hatred" and yet those that treat you with contempt apparently

are too blind to their own hatred. Someone always needs a target to pursue, to accuse, to do whatever it takes

to discredit someone who does not agree with the majority even if it means personal attacks.

 

When that happens, you are marked...wear the badge proudly and see it for what it is. Those are the type of friends that

simply want you to agree with them, and hear their opinion coming out of your mouth. If not, well, you know the rest.

 

Have a good weekend my friend. Keep thinking for yourself, be your own person, always. you never have to bow to the

political or religious hit squad. Your opinions are just as valid as theirs. Never allow politics or religion to be used to

intimidate you, that just shows how low some will go.

 

 

Hello Jim...Always good to read you...Hope all is fine with you and yours...

 

 

Best

[learning all i can]

1 hour ago, Jim1cor13 said:

Look out shabs, you know it is getting desperate when you are asked if you own dinar

 

Some just want to shut you up in any way they can, along with the usual questions about dinar.

 

You are accused almost daily of "hatred" and yet those that treat you with contempt apparently

are too blind to their own hatred. Someone always needs a target to pursue, to accuse, to do whatever it takes

to discredit someone who does not agree with the majority even if it means personal attacks.

 

When that happens, you are marked...wear the badge proudly and see it for what it is. Those are the type of friends that

simply want you to agree with them, and hear their opinion coming out of your mouth. If not, well, you know the rest.

 

Have a good weekend my friend. Keep thinking for yourself, be your own person, always. you never have to bow to the

political or religious hit squad. Your opinions are just as valid as theirs. Never allow politics or religion to be used to

intimidate you, that just shows how low some will go.

I have to agree with ya Jim.  But I don't ever remember Adam trying to intimidate by putting one down because they don't belong to the elite " club".  Altho he has encouraged and even promotes good deals to be VIP he hasn't disparaged anyone for not.  You are right, just another swat from one that feels the right to bully and show control. This continues to be a very irritating force here and causes more conflict and aggravation between dvers than anyone else.  We seem to always be on tiptoes not knowing when it will strike again.  I'm  sure there are many here that become very irritable about my faith and my voice in the matter but I have learned not to push and ram down another's throat.  I've learned the hard way not to accuse.  If you read me that's fine, if you don't that's fine too.  But the intimidation and accusation around here truly needs to stop.  It's not funny, it's not cute and certainly doesn't bring about respect of others.  This really needs to stop.

Edited January 31, 2020 by learning all i can

[new york kevin]

On 1/29/2020 at 11:11 AM, Shabibilicious said:

 

Exactly right.....like the injustice of a trial without witnesses.

 

GO RV, then BV

Or a Grand Jury investigation in which only the prosecution is allowed to call witnesses, gather information, and where the accused is not allowed to have the right to counsel , to mount and present a defense. Where the prosecution is allowed to testify and read into the record false evidence and get off scott free. Schiff should loose his law license for that one alone. Well, that and his collusion with the whistleblower .

 

Remember Shabs, in a Grand Jury Investigation and trial, which is what an Impeachment process is, you investigate first and once you have gathered all the proof , or lack there of, you present it to the grand jury. Who then decides if there is enough to go on to a trial. The trial date is set. The case is presented to a Judge who then tries the case based soley on the evidence and testimony developed before the Grand Jury.  The only difference there is the Prosecution and Defense are in the same room at the same time. In front of the Grand Jury and then the Judge.  Each allowed the same tools, including cross examination et al.

Edited January 31, 2020 by new york kevin

[learning all i can]

19 minutes ago, new york kevin said:

Or a Grand Jury investigation in which only the prosecution is allowed to call witnesses, gather information, and where the accused is not allowed to have the right to counsel , to mount and present a defense. Where the prosecution is allowed to testify and read into the record false evidence and get off scott free. Schiff should loose his law license for that one alone. Well, that and his collusion with the whistleblower .

 

Remember Shabs, in a Grand Jury Investigation and trial, which is what an Impeachment process is, you investigate first and once you have gathered all the proof , or lack there of, you present it to the grand jury. Who then decides if there is enough to go on to a trial. The trial date is set. The case is presented to a Judge who then tries the case based soley on the evidence and testimony developed before the Grand Jury.  The only difference there is the Prosecution and Defense are in the same room at the same time. In front of the Grand Jury and then the Judge.  Each allowed the same tools, including cross examination et al.

This is how I understood this all so

 It should have never been permitted into the trial phase to begin with under law or the constitution.  The underground bunker never abided by law therefore in any normal trial would have been dismissed before it ever got started

  At least this is what I understood from Presdidents counsel/Patrick Philbin

[Theseus]

1 hour ago, learning all i can said:

This is how I understood this all so

 It should have never been permitted into the trial phase to begin with under law or the constitution.  The underground bunker never abided by law therefore in any normal trial would have been dismissed before it ever got started

  At least this is what I understood from Presdidents counsel/Patrick Philbin

And you have done what the demonrats wanted everyone to do. You have conflated a regular (criminal or civil) trial with an Impeachment Trial. Mind you both have to abide by the US Constitution but in an Impeachment Trial the jurors (Senators) get to ask questions of both the Prosecutors and Defense teams. In a regular trial, the Jurors are sequestered from the Prosecutors and Defense teams and any questions are asked of the Judge. In a regular trial the Judge answers the Jurors and not the Prosecutors and Defense teams. In an Impeachment Trial the Jurors/Senators are not escorted from the room when a contentious issue arises. The Jurors/Senators hear everything that takes place in the Trial. These are just some of the differences between a regular trial and an Impeachment Trial. Neither is above the Constitution although the demonrats think they are as they seek to destroy the rule of Due Process in this Impeachment and previous confirmation hearings. In short while they have some commonalities, an Impeachment Trial is a different type of trial under the Constitution of the United States. In an Impeachment, the House of Representatives are given sole authority for discovery and to draft the Articles of Impeachment which are then sent to the upper chamber, the Senate. The Senate's job is not to discover evidence from the articles but to hear the case as discovered in relation to Articles and confined to the Articles of Impeachment. The demonrats have tried to trash the Constitution with this proceeding and look for another to happen around July as new Articles of Impeachment will be drafted and sent to the Senate. If the trial was fair, it would have been fair from the discovery phase which it was not. Justice will be served when the President will be acquitted from this sham. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Theseus

[learning all i can]

54 minutes ago, Theseus said:

And you have done what the demonrats wanted everyone to do. You have conflated a regular (criminal or civil) trial with an Impeachment Trial. Mind you both have to abide by the US Constitution but in an Impeachment Trial the jurors (Senators) get to ask questions of both the Prosecutors and Defense teams. In a regular trial, the Jurors are sequestered from the Prosecutors and Defense teams and any questions are asked of the Judge. In a regular trial the Judge answers the Jurors and not the Prosecutors and Defense teams. In an Impeachment Trial the Jurors/Senators are not escorted from the room when a contentious issue arises. The Jurors/Senators hear everything that takes place in the Trial. These are just some of the differences between a regular trial and an Impeachment Trial. Neither is above the Constitution although the demonrats think they are as they seek to destroy the rule of Due Process in this Impeachment and previous confirmation hearings. In short while they have some commonalities, an Impeachment Trial is a different type of trial under the Constitution of the United States. In an Impeachment, the House of Representatives are given sole authority for discovery and to draft the Articles of Impeachment which are then sent to the upper chamber, the Senate. The Senate's job is not to discover evidence from the articles but to hear the case as discovered in relation to Articles and confined to the Articles of Impeachment. The demonrats have tried to trash the Constitution with this proceeding and look for another to happen around July as new Articles of Impeachment will be drafted and sent to the Senate. If the trial was fair, it would have been fair from the discovery phase which it was not. Justice will be served when the President will be acquitted from this sham. 

Thank you for a better explanation.  It was my understanding that the house 1st of all broke law by not allowing the Pres and his counsels presence.  They did not secure subpoena power because the whole house never voted.  It was only appointed by Pelosi to a special limited group.  The Pres council advised them of their failures and therefore would resign themselves to answer questions or supply witnesses and was therefore under no obligation to answer to subpoenas.  The house was sent letters to correct their missed steps but proceed forth without correction.  Therefore the Pes counsel was under no obligation  to comply. The process was a shammed failure from the beginning.  I'm  not sure what cha mean by I have done what the Dems wanted me to.  In my understanding the Dems should have never brought a case to trial because of failure to follow the laws required to bring to trial/hearing.  If this had been brought to court in a regular trial it would not have been permissible.  In fact this is what the Presidents counsel stressed this over and over again.  I agree the house wanted the Senate to do their job for them and bring more witnesses that they should have already interviewed to make their case.  Not the Senates job.  In fact I think I indicated that it should have never entered into the trial phase to begin with according to the law and the constitution.  What am I missing here?  Do I atleast have the jest of it and just not saying it right?  I appreciate your explanation so if I don't  have it right, please dont hesitate to let me know.  I have carefully listened everyday and it's been a lot to take in considering law, courts,trials and impeachments have never been my forte.  I've learned a lot but perhaps I still dont have it down pat.  Thanks

[Theseus]

4 hours ago, learning all i can said:

  What am I missing here?  Do I atleast have the jest of it and just not saying it right? 

4 hours ago, learning all i can said:

You have conflated a regular (criminal or civil) trial with an Impeachment Trial.

 

This is what the demonrats count on people to do. They expect people to think an Impeachment trial should have the same processes and regulations as a regular trial. It is not although they both have commonalities between them, they differ greatly. 

 

Here is something to think about: According to the House Managers, there has never been an an impeachment of the President of the United States (to which there have only been three to date) that has not had witnesses in the Senate. This is completely 100% wrong and a lie to those uninformed. The very first impeachment trial of an American President had absolutely no witnesses when it came to the Senate. Why? Because the Articles of Impeachment were dismissed immediately and the sitting President was acquitted and not removed from office..

Edited February 1, 2020 by Theseus

[Theseus]

The first President of the United States that was impeached by the House was Andrew Johnson in 1868 during the Reconstruction period of the Civil War. Johnson was a populist President much like Trump is. He too clashed with members of Congress. In a nutshell, those opposing Johnson set up a trap to trigger the impeachment button. At the time Johnson did not like his current Secretary of War, a Lincoln appointment, and sought to remove him from his position. Opposing members, Union Democrats and Republicans, of of the House of Rep's drafted a resolution, Tenure of Office Act, that made it illegal for the President to fire the Secretary. Johnson removed the Secretary of War, Stanton, replaced him with Grant and 11 Articles of Impeachment were drafted by the House and passed. These were then passed to the upper chamber where it was  dismissed, by one vote from a two-thirds majority, as the Senate found that a President should not be convicted and removed from office for violating the Tenure of Office Act. The House of Representatives did call 13 witnesses before drafting the Articles of Impeachment; however, during the Impeachment Trial in the Senate, no witnesses were called. Thus the first Impeachment of a sitting President of the United States, and his subsequent acquittal, had no witnesses called during the Impeachment Trial.

 

An interesting outcome to this Impeachment is that after Johnson's Presidency he ran to become a Senator and won the election. He served three months as a Senator before his death.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Theseus

[learning all i can]

53 minutes ago, Theseus said:

The first President of the United States that was impeached by the House was Andrew Johnson in 1868 during the Reconstruction period of the Civil War. Johnson was a populist President much like Trump is. He too clashed with members of Congress. In a nutshell, those opposing Johnson set up a trap to trigger the impeachment button. At the time Johnson did not like his current Secretary of War, a Lincoln appointment, and sought to remove him from his position. Opposing members, Union Democrats and Republicans, of of the House of Rep's drafted a resolution, Tenure of Office Act, that made it illegal for the President to fire the Secretary. Johnson removed the Secretary of War, Stanton, replaced him with Grant and 11 Articles of Impeachment were drafted by the House and passed. These were then passed to the upper chamber where it was  dismissed, by one vote from a two-thirds majority, as the Senate found that a President should not be convicted and removed from office for violating the Tenure of Office Act. The House of Representatives did call 13 witnesses before drafting the Articles of Impeachment; however, during the Impeachment Trial in the Senate, no witnesses were called. Thus the first Impeachment of a sitting President of the United States, and his subsequent acquittal, had no witnesses called during the Impeachment Trial.

 

An interesting outcome to this Impeachment is that after Johnson's Presidency he ran to become a Senator and won the election. He served three months as a Senator before his death.

ok ok, I think I got it.  It's all about the witnesses.  The Dems claim to witnesses in the senate or not a fair trial.  If acquitted the Pres would not be exonerated because it wasn't  fair because of no witnesses.  Is this what you are saying that I fell for?  I must admit this whole process has been overwhelming but with a good ending.  I guess you can tell I failed history in school, ha I dont even remember studying Andrew Johnson but I remember something about a "Jackson".  I'm  just playing now. I appreciate your explanation.  The Dems are not only sly, they just downright lie to your face.  Their twist and turns were designed to keep the ordinary man confused so it's easier for then to keep control.  As you have noted, I fell for one of their preplanned twist. Theseus, thank you.

[Theseus]

1 hour ago, learning all i can said:

ok ok, I think I got it.  It's all about the witnesses.  The Dems claim to witnesses in the senate or not a fair trial.  If acquitted the Pres would not be exonerated because it wasn't  fair because of no witnesses.  Is this what you are saying that I fell for?  I must admit this whole process has been overwhelming but with a good ending.  I guess you can tell I failed history in school, ha I dont even remember studying Andrew Johnson but I remember something about a "Jackson".  I'm  just playing now. I appreciate your explanation.  The Dems are not only sly, they just downright lie to your face.  Their twist and turns were designed to keep the ordinary man confused so it's easier for then to keep control.  As you have noted, I fell for one of their preplanned twist. Theseus, thank you.

Next!

[new york kevin]

17 hours ago, learning all i can said:

This is how I understood this all so

 It should have never been permitted into the trial phase to begin with under law or the constitution.  The underground bunker never abided by law therefore in any normal trial would have been dismissed before it ever got started

  At least this is what I understood from Presdidents counsel/Patrick Philbin

You and I are on the same page here. I agree with you 110% .