Schumer and Pelosi: Political Reruns from 8,9 and 10 Years ago.

Some days, it's like I'm still living between the years 2005 - 2009 regarding Cluck Schumer.

And, some days, it's  like I'm still living between the years 2006 - 2009 regarding Nanny Pelosi.

Schumer and Pelosi are nothing but political Reruns. To think that I'm still writing about them, and their  obstructionism, nine and ten years later is a Giant Blot on the American Body Politic.

  These two are like the old joke about
  herpes.

  What's the difference between Chuck
  Schumer and Nancy Pelosi from that of
  herpes?"

  Answer: Both are very painful and never
  go away on a permanent basis.

Cluck is back enumerating his talking points as he always has; eyeglasses resting at the end of his Super-Sized Large Beak: The Bezos Daily:

"First, if accurate, a disclosure of this type could threaten the United States’ relationships with allies who provide us with vital intelligence and could result in the loss of this specific intelligence source. . . . Second, if accurate, such a disclosure could damage our interests in the Middle East. We do not collaborate with Russia in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East for the simple fact that we have diverging interests. . . . And third, if the report is true....["]

Well, we know Cluck is capable of listing THREE, count 'em THREE reasons, over the overblown and hyperbolic "crisis" of President Donald Trump in disclosing alleged highly classified information in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the White House last week.

This feigned outrage from The Left over classified or de-classified information reminds me of, what is probably, a little known film, "Wrong Is Right." 

It's really a good film that flew under the radar in terms of being a financial success or one of film critic's better reviews. It was also way ahead of its time. If you can find it, watch it and see how it parallels the politics and media of today.

In it, Sean Connery plays a globe-trotting television reporter. In the film, Connery's character meets with the President of the United States (played wonderfully as both "low-key" and "intense" by George Grizzard), and has a long conversation after which, the president says to Connery, "By the way, the conversation we just had is classified."

Connery's character asks, "Who classified it and when?"

The President: "I did, and just now."

And that is exactly the kind of discretion and prerogative any president has in de-classifying classified information.

And now, returning to Pelosi, parroting the same false narrative  as the other goo-covered members of her party. Washington Examiner:

[Pelosi] wondered aloud "what the Russians have on him" that would make Trump do this.

It's Pelosi who has some explaining to do. Daily Mail:

[Pelosi was asked] about whether she had ever met the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kisliak.
[.]
'Not with this Russian ambassador, no,' was Pelosi's response.
[.]
Within hours, a photo surfaced showing Pelosi seated around the same table as the peripatetic ambassador.
[.]
Pelosi's spokesman, Drew Hammill, [in defending Pelosi said], 'Of course [what] she meant,' [was] she  never had a private one-on-one with him.'

Who buys this BS other than Liberals and The Media who happily carry the water bucket for The Insane Liberal Clown Posse.

"Not with the Russian ambassador, no."  "NO."  But then it turns to "YES" when shown proof she did meet with him, she's standing almost next to him, the two of them shaking hands.

"What she meant was..." that she didn't meet with him in "private. One on
one."

"What I meant was..." is always the fallback phrase from Liberals when caught in a lie.

And, totally off topic: You have noticed Cluck Schumer's frontal hair "plugs", haven't you? It looks like he went to the same failed hair reconstruction surgeon as his fellow Lib Joe "The Plagiarist" Biden.

But let us return to splitting hairs in not meeting someone that you did, indeed, meet: 

"Dave, have you ever met Two Dogs?"

"No. Never."

"Dave, we have a photograph of you and Two Dogs seated at the bar at TGIF."

"Oh, that...I thought you meant did I ever meet with him one on one."

This double-speak hair splitting with words from Liberals is just another variation of the definition of "what is is":

The sanctimony displayed on The World Stage by the ilks of Schumer, Pelosi and all the other members of The Insane Clown Posse are a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

All of America's Liberals contract a sudden case of hardcore amnesia on the GOLDMAN SACHS SPEECH from Hillary Clinton on the subject of her admiration for Russia and Vladimir Putin:

“I would love it if we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia,” Clinton said during a speech to Goldman Sachs on June 4, 2013. In the same speech, Clinton said “obviously we would very much like to have a positive relationship with Russia and we would like to see Putin be less defensive toward a relationship with the United States so that we could work together on some issues."

"...so that we could work together on some issues."

Doesn't that sound damn close to Trump's, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could get along with Russia"?

Of course it does. The Drama Queen Act from Liberals is old, very very old. It doesn't work anymore, yet, they keep doing the same thing year after year.

It's like I'm caught in Liberal Reruns from 8,9,10 and more years ago. Hold on...I am caught in Liberal Reruns. We all are.
- - -
Grammar corrections  5/17/2017