The Daily Nooze

"All the news we deem fit to print"

  • Home
  • politics
  • satire
  • breaking news
  • Archives
  • Show Your Support
  • Opinion
You are here: Home / Archives for John DeProspo

After Bombshell Bolton Book Leak, Publisher Wants Full Return Of Advance

January 26, 2020 By John DeProspo 3 Comments

Reprint from moronmajority.com

According to an unpublished manuscript of John Bolton’s upcoming book obtained by the New York Times, the former National Security Advisor claims Donald Trump directly told him he would withhold military aid to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Zelensky agreed to deliver politically motivated investigations into the Bidens.

This may be good news for Democrats seeking to compel Bolton’s testimony in Trump’s impeachment trial but it is very bad news for Bolton.

It has been reported that Bolton’s multi-million dollar book deal with Simon & Schuster carried a whopping $2 million advance. The publisher now wants the money returned.

A spokesperson for Simon & Schuster says the value of the book was based on Bolton’s explanation of the “drug deal” he purportedly told Fiona Hill about, of which he wanted no part. Many assumed the comment related to the scheme Gordon Sondland and Mick Mulvaney were cooking up to pressure Zelensky into announcing investigations into the Bidens, Burisma. 

“The cat’s out of the bag,” said the spokesperson. “Who would want to read the book now?”

A close friend of the former Trump advisor has revealed Bolton doesn’t have the money, having spent it all on a high-tech security system for his Bethesda, Maryland home and on 24-hour bodyguards.

Photo | france24.com/abcnews.go.com

Warning – this could be “fake” nooze!

Filed Under: featured, satire Tagged With: Bidens, bombshell, book, Burma, John Bolton, leak, New York Times, satire, trump, unpublished manuscript

Graham On Calling Witnesses: “I Really Don’t Want To Turn The Trial Into A Circus”

January 25, 2020 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

Now that Trump’s lawyers have begun offering up their arguments against impeachment, many Democrats are saying they just made a great case for calling witnesses.

Trump’s defense team began this morning’s Senate session arguing that no one has testified they heard Trump directly demand a political quid pro quo from Ukraine or say he explicitly held up foreign aid to benefit himself.

So, wouldn’t calling witnesses with direct knowledge of the issues potentially solve the problem?

Not for Lindsey Graham. He stated, after this morning’s “brief” presentation by Trump’s lawyers, “I am more intent on ending this thing now with my vote. I really don’t want to turn the trial into a circus.”

Any person with even the slightest knowledge of trial procedure would tell you Graham has it completely backwards. A trial without witnesses IS a circus; nothing but a sham trial.

Yes, Senate Republicans have heard enough after three grueling days of arguments by the Democrats. They want to move on to other things … lunches with lobbyists and fundraising for the next election.

Having witnesses, like Bolton or Mulvaney, testify would only complicate things and make it more difficult for Senate Republicans to acquit Trump without looking like the unpatriotic, partisan hacks that they are.

Welcome to our brave new, dystopian, world of Orwellian doublespeak!

Photo | cnbc.com

Filed Under: featured, politics Tagged With: backwards, circus, Donald Trump, doublespeak, impeachment, Lindsey Graham, Orwellian, trial, witnesses

Please, Let’s Stop Calling What’s Taking Place In The Senate A Trial

January 23, 2020 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

As we are all transfixed on the spectacle taking place in the Senate, let us not dignify it by calling it a trial.

The Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try a case of impeachment. In other words, to hold a trial.

A trial by its very definition is a formal examination of evidence before a judge; an exercise in seeking the truth. The basic structure normally follows this pattern:

  1. Opening statements
  2. Witness testimony and cross examination
  3. Closing arguments
  4. Jury deliberation and verdict

What’s taking place in the Senate is not a trial but a partisan, and some might add, unconstitutional, impeachment process. Senate Republicans voted down every effort by the Democrats to call witnesses (and produce documents, for that matter). 

As many have observed, a trial without witnesses is a sham; a coverup.

Oh yes, but aren’t they just following the Clinton impeachment model you ask?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the Clinton impeachment there was unanimous agreement among senators to vote on the need for witnesses after the trial concluded. But key witnesses had already given sworn testimony before the trial. The idea of not calling live witnesses during Clinton’s trial was mainly due to the salacious nature of the facts which gave rise to Clinton’s perjury.

But in Trump’s case, there is nothing indecent about any potential witness testimony … just plain old-fashioned abuse of power and obstruction.

House manager Adam Schiff put the difference between Trump and Clinton this way:

“If we’re really serious about modeling this proceeding after the Clinton trial, the Clinton precedent is one where all the documents had been provided, up front, where all the witnesses had testified, up front, prior to the trial. That is not being replicated by the McConnell resolution — not in any way, not in any shape, not in any form, far from it.

What the Senate is doing is flipping the meaning of “trial” on its head… conclude the presentation and then vote on whether witnesses and documents are necessary!

Look for Republican senators to vote down the need for witnesses at the end of the trial and for either a motion to dismiss or a quick vote leading to acquittal.

So, let’s just call what’s happening in the Senate what it is … a “presentation” by a group of Democrats seeking to uphold the Constitution and a group of Republicans willing to undermine our constitutional democracy. 

Photo | nypost.com

Filed Under: featured, Opinion Tagged With: Constitution, coverup, documents, impeachment, Republicans, Senate, sham, trial, trump, witnesses

Mitch McConnell Ditches John Roberts In Favor Of New Presiding Judge

January 19, 2020 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

Reprint from moronmajority.com

In a last-minute move that surprised no one, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has relieved Chief Justice John Roberts of his role as presiding judge at the Trump impeachment trial in favor of Captain Kangaroo.

McConnell’s desperate maneuver has confirmed what many had feared … he has turned the solemn Congressional responsibility of conducting a fair impeachment trial into a Kangaroo court.

But in a totally unexpected turn that has stunned McConnell, Judge Kangaroo has stated that “a trial without witnesses or documents is a sham trial … a fake trial. My court will not countenance such a clear disregard of its legal and ethical obligations.”

So now, look for the Democrats to get their wish list of potential witnesses … John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Lev Parnas, Stormy Daniels, the two Michaels … Cohen and Moore and Chrissy Teigen.

Photo | cbs.com

Filed Under: featured, satire Tagged With: Captain Kangaroo, Donald Trump, impeachment, kangaroo court, Mitch McConnell, satire, witnesses

Whether Bolton Testifies Or Not Really Doesn’t Matter

January 17, 2020 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

The Senate impeachment trial of Donald John Trump is scheduled to start next Tuesday under a cloud of uncertainty … will it be a real trial or a sham? Will there be witnesses? Will documents be produced?

Much is being made about the possibe testimony of John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor. Will he or won’t he testify? If he does, will he testify truthfully?

While it is still possible that NO witnesses will be called at Trump’s trial, a few Republican senators have expressed an interest in hearing from Bolton. Most notable among the reasonably-sounding senators is Utah’s Mitt Romney.

After Romney stated that he would be open to hearing from witnesses, in general, he was asked specifically if that included Bolton.

“Including John Bolton, yes,” said Romney. “He’s someone who I would like to hear from, and presumably I get the chance to vote for that.”

This intrigue over Bolton’s testimony is grossly puffed up, however.

It won’t matter one way or another!

Even if Bolton testifies he knew about Trump’s attempted shakedown of Ukrainian President Zelensky and tried to warn him against it, it will not sway enough Republican senators (67) to break ranks and vote to oust Trump.

Even if Bolton testifies he knew it was an illegal act, one that threatened our national security, Trump will be acquitted.

The “trial” is fixed and the outcome certain. Remember, Trump is the guy who boasted he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose support. It turns out he wasn’t just talking about voters but also Republican politicians. Trump has made it abundantly clear over the past three years he is less of a president and more of a cult leader.

Oh yes, there may be a few Republicans who put country ahead of party but not enough to remove Trump from office.

The best Democrats can hope for is that Trump will be weakened and thrown out of office by the voters in November … and that all those vulnerable, spineless Republican senators up for reelection are similarly shown the door.

Photo | france24.com

Filed Under: featured, Opinion Tagged With: Donald Trump, impeachment, John Bolton, Mitt Romney, no difference, testimony, trial, witnesses

As Senate Trial Nears, Trump Set To Call Three Character Witnesses

January 14, 2020 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

Reprint from moronmajority.com

We learned today from Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, that Trump’s impeachment trial may start as early as next Tuesday.

Word has it Donald Trump’s legal team is scrambling to prepare his defense. At the suggestion of Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, three character witnesses will be called by Trump’s legal team to vouch for his good reputation and moral character: Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and Recep Erdogan.

Putin, it is being reported, is prepared to say Trump is the model of honesty and probity. In the past, Putin has called Trump, “Greatest U.S.A. president.”

Trump’s love affair with the Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, is well documented. It is expected Kim will repeat his description of Trump as “a most wonderful, handsome and loving dear leader.”

Turkey president Erdogan is also a big fan of Donald Trump. He called Trump, “Allah’s gift to Turkey” after the impulsive commander-in-chief abandoned our allies, the Kurds, in Syria.

Yet some are already questioning the Giuliani-inspired tactic. They point out the three men are obviously beholden to Trump for various favors afforded them in the past. And, oh yes, they are all despots!

Nonetheless, the three strongmen are held in such high esteem by nearly all the Republican senators who will act as jurors at Trump’s impeachment trial that it seems well worth the effort, according to one of Trump’s most trusted advisors, son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Photo | salon.com

Warning – this could be “fake” nooze

Filed Under: featured, satire Tagged With: character witnesses, Donald Trump, Erdogan, impeachment, Kim Jong-un, Putin, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani, satire, Senate, trial

Did Pompeo Get Stumped On A Simple Word Definition?

January 12, 2020 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is regarded as a very smart man. His academic accomplishments have been well documented: graduated first in his class at West Point; a Harvard Law School graduate who served as editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review.

Yet there he was at a press conference on Friday, “unable” to define a relatively simple word.

Pompeo has insisted that the killing of top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was necessary because he was planning “imminent attacks” against the U.S.

During remarks made on Fox News Thursday night, Pompeo told host Laura Ingraham that Soleimani was plotting a “series of imminent attacks,” but added, “We don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.”

Pressed during Friday morning’s White House briefing about how he could know the Soleimani threat was “imminent” if he did not know when or where the Iranian general planned to attack, Pompeo insisted that his two sets of statements represented “completely consistent thoughts.”

In an effort to somewhat walk back his “we don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where” Fox comment, Pompeo said, “I don’t know exactly which minute. We don’t know exactly which day it would have been executed, but it was very clear: Qassem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests, and those attacks were imminent,” Pompeo said.

When asked by a reporter to give his definition of “imminent,” Pompeo demurred, replying that administration officials “would have been culpably negligent had we not recommended to the president that he take this action” against Soleimani.

For the record, a generally accepted definition of “imminent” is: “likely to occur at any moment.” (Dictionary.com)

So, it is reasonable to conclude that either Pompeo is not the brilliant mind he is purported to be … or he is just another Trump fabulist.

You know which one I’m going with!

Photo | gannett/usatoday.com

Filed Under: featured, politics Tagged With: definition, imminent, liar, Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, smart

Trump Asks Supreme Court To Rule Constitution Unconstitutional

January 11, 2020 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

Reprint from moronmajority.com

Donald Trump is a very bright man. He has a prestigious Ivy League degree and is constantly reminding everyone how much of a stable genius he is.

So, it didn’t take all that long for Trump to solve one of his most vexing problems.

“It seems like everyone is always telling me I can’t do this or that because of the Constitution,” said Trump at a recent impromptu press gathering. “This goes totally against my powers as president of the United States.”

“Today I am asking the Supreme Court to declare the Constitution unconstitutional. This is all on good advice from my personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,” Trump went on to say.

Trump’s request may not be so farfetched. Giuliani has recently written a piece in the Daily Caller arguing that the Supreme Court should rule Trump’s impeachment unconstitutional. So why not go one step further?

Trump’s logic is simple: The Supreme Court has the power to declare anything unconstitutional. The Constitution prevents me from carrying out my agenda. The Constitution therefore needs to be declared unconstitutional.

Trump believes there is a good chance the Court will toss out the revered founding document now that he has added two new allies, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, to the bench.

“In this country,“ opined Trump, “the Supreme Court has the final say as to what’s constitutional and what’s not. I’m confident Neil and Brett, along with the other conservative justices, will rule in may favor.”

Said daughter Ivanka, “My dad is a great businessman but he would have also made an excellent lawyer. His analytical thinking is so amazing!”

Trump’s Republican supporters in both the House and Senate are refusing comment on this latest development. 

Photo | gannet/usatoday.com

Warning – this could be “fake” nooze

Filed Under: featured, satire Tagged With: Constitution, Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, satire, Supreme Court, unconstitutional

Trump Wonders Why He Can’t “Eliminate” His Enemies With Impunity … Like His Pals

January 10, 2020 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

Reprint from moronmajority.com

Donald Trump has been getting an incredible amount of blowback over the killing of Iran’s top military general, Qasem Soleimani.  It’s not only his political opponents that have questioned Trump’s provocative action. Even members of his own party, namely Matt Gaetz and Mike Lee, have criticized Trump’s decision to potentially risk the start of another Middle East war.

“Why am I being treated like this,” Trump asked at a recent White House meeting. “It’s not fair. I eliminated a very bad man. I should be praised for doing this.”

A White House source said that Trump is baffled as to why he is not being respected like other strongmen who act decisively to take out their enemies. According to the source, Trump said, “At least I don’t target my political enemies, or family members, for that matter!”

The White House tipster revealed that when an administration official reminded Trump he is not a dictator, Trump angrily replied, “I’m the president of the United States and the Constitution lets me do whatever I want.”

Regrettably, but understandably, no one at the meeting had the temerity to disabuse Trump of that notion.

It is being reported that Trump has received some much welcomed support for his bold action against Iran from four of this favorite autocrats, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Mohammed bin Salman. But instead of sending a letter, like Vladimir, Mohammed and Recep, Kim sent a beautiful card.

Photo | slate.com

Warning – this could be “fake” nooze

Filed Under: featured, satire Tagged With: autocrats, dictators, Donald Trump, Erdogan, Iran, Jong-un, killing, Middle East, Mohammed bin Salam, Putin, Qasem Soleimani, satire

Trump Reportedly Upset Over Low Iranian Bounty Offer

January 6, 2020 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

Reprint from moronmajority.com

Following the killing of Iranian military General Qassem Soleimani, Iran has issued an $80 million bounty on Donald Trump’s head.

According to White House sources, Trump is infuriated with this latest move out of Iran. No, not that a bounty was placed on him, but because of the low dollar amount.

“I’m the most powerful man on the face of the Earth and this is all I’m worth?” Trump supposedly said. “They should be talking billions, not millions.”

When Iran’s Supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, heard of Trump’s remarks, he made the “leader of the free world” a new offer. “Show us your tax returns and we will reconsider the bounty offer.”

Unfortunately for Trump, he will not be able to comply with the Ayatollah’s demand as his returns are currently under audit.

Photo | abcnews.go.com

Warning – this could be “fake” nooze

Filed Under: featured, satire Tagged With: $80 million, bounty, Donald Trump, Iran, satire, too low

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • …
  • 93
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

What If Trump Had Not Accepted Biden’s Offer For An Early Debate?

Many political analysts love to talk about the two pivotal moments in the 2024 … [Read More...]

  • Republicans Sound The Alarm: Harris Administration Could Threaten to Pass Laws Most Americans Actually Want
  • Some Republicans Worried Country Not Ready to Elect First Convicted Felon as President
  • The GOP Is Stuck With Two Losers

Follow us online

  • Facebook

Advertisements

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Show Your Support
  • Guest Posts
  • Great Links
  • Contact

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Copyright © 2025 The Daily Nooze.com. All Rights Reserved. "All the news we deem fit to print"™