ChrisWeigant.com

Trump Faces Reality, Twice In One Week

[ Posted Friday, April 5th, 2019 – 18:17 UTC ]

[Program Note: OK, I'm feeling slightly better, but still nowhere near good enough to tackle a real Friday Talking Points column. I tried to write this column yesterday, but didn't make it very far. So I thought I'd finish it up today and hopefully by next week I will have recovered to the point where I can start posting regularly once again. Thanks to everyone for the "get well soon" wishes, and thanks to everyone for their ongoing patience in dealing with the interruption in service here. Oh, and... Wash your hands! Take some vitamin C! You DO NOT want to get this year's flu, trust me....]

 

In an extraordinary turn of events, President Donald Trump has had to face reality not once but twice within the same week. Seeing as how this has only happened a handful of times throughout his entire term, this double-shot of reality is rather notable. The last time he was forced by those around him to readjust his worldview to actual facts was after he had hastily announced he was pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria. It took weeks for his advisors to force him to backtrack on this decision, but in the end they successfully convinced him. This time around, though, it took only days -- and it happened not just once but twice.

Trump is becoming increasingly more focused on his re-election campaign, and he unilaterally decided earlier in the week that the Republican Party would magically turn the biggest losing issue for them in the 2018 midterms into a winning platform for 2020. He boldly announced ("You watch!") that the Republican Party would soon be known by one and all as "the party of great healthcare." Trump would snap his fingers and the Republicans would instantly manage to do what has eluded them for the past nine years -- come up with a plan to replace Obamacare that would be cheaper, better for everyone, and so obviously superior that even Democrats would be eager to get on board with it. And, of course, the new plan would not have Obama's name attached to it (the overriding criteria for most Republicans, if truth be told).

Republicans, predictably, recoiled in horror. Not only are they actually cognizant that such a plan not only does not exist but is actually impossible to create, but they also are acutely aware of how the issue played for them politically in the midterms. They lost the House largely on the issue of their contempt for people with pre-existing conditions, and they had no stomach for a repeat of this performance in 2020.

Trump, however, was oblivious to all of this. He had, reportedly, come up with the idea of going on the offense on healthcare on the ride over to the Capitol to a meeting with Republicans, so how hard could it really be for them to fulfill his grandiose vision of GOP healthcare perfection, after all?

True to form, Trump was using his standard operating procedure: create a crisis (where none previously existed), announce he and he alone could solve it, and then introduce something only very slightly different than the status quo ante, before loudly proclaiming a great victory. In this particular case, Trump was going to precipitate the crisis by instructing his Justice Department to stop defending any portion of Obamacare as constitutional in the court case currently being brought against it by overzealous Republican state attorneys general. If the courts agreed, then Republicans could ride in to save the day at the last minute with their new plan to create great healthcare for all.

Which, of course, does not actually exist. Neither Donald Trump nor his own administration has any clue how to make good on his sweeping promises, and so their idea was to once again punt the whole "come up with a fantastic plan" to Republicans in Congress -- specifically in the Senate, where they still control the calendar. However, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately let it be known that he would be having nothing whatsoever to do with such a suicidal political mission, announcing that he'd be happy to consider any plan the White House sent over, but absent that, the Senate would not be dealing with replacing Obamacare at all for the foreseeable future.

Faced with this open revolt in his own ranks, Trump was forced to punt. He stopped talking about coming up with a plan any time soon and instead started laughably promising that Republicans would unveil their magic Obamacare replacement plan right after they had won the White House, the Senate, and the House in the 2020 elections. In other words: "Trust us -- we'll show you our secret plan just as soon as you re-elect us all!" To say that this isn't exactly a winning campaign strategy is to state the painfully obvious, really.

Which brings us to Trump's second dose of reality this week. He quite obviously had a grand plan to travel (once again) down to a border town and use it as a backdrop to announce that he was "closing the border" with Mexico. This was the original plan, at any rate.

In terms of border politics, Trump is caught in a cycle of trying to one-up himself, though. Nothing he's done so far has made the slightest difference in the reality of the border or immigration patterns, so he keeps trying to come up with ever-more-Draconian ideas to throw as red meat to his political base. He is absolutely, positively convinced that the border is the biggest winning political issue for him (all evidence to the contrary), so he keeps trying to outdo what he's already done in order to get those MAGA crowds cheering once again.

Trump hijacked the entire Republican Party midterm campaign strategy last year, focusing not on good economic news but rather on xenophobia and fear of hordes of immigrants despoiling America. This didn't do him any good at the ballot box, but that certainly hasn't changed his outlook one iota. He doubled down on the issue immediately after his electoral defeat, by shutting the government down for over a month and then declaring a non-existent "national emergency" at the border after Congress refused to fund the wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for.

This left Trump with little room to maneuver, however. How could he top his "national emergency," after all? What could he do to dramatically focus everyone's attention on the border once again, to get those rally crowds cheering? Hey, why not just shut the border down completely, in a fit of pique? He could blame Mexico for not "stopping all the drugs and immigrants" and therefore wash his hands of any responsibility for whatever happened next. Yeah, that's the ticket! Trump loudly proclaimed that he wasn't "playing games" and that he was indeed serious about slamming the border shut. How manly! How decisive!

Sane Republicans immediately freaked out. While initially the news media treated the entire concept as something of a joke (focusing, bizarrely, on the fact that America's avocado supply would run out within three weeks), eventually some real economists explained to the public what a massive blow this would be to the entire American economy. For starters, the whole U.S. automotive industry would have to shut down within a single week, if no Mexican car parts were flowing north. And that's just one industry that would be affected, among many. Almost two billion dollars of trade happens each and every day with Mexico, and halting it would immediately send both countries' economies into a tailspin of epic proportions.

Thankfully, someone at the White House seems to have sat Trump down and fully explained what the fallout from his little temper tantrum would look like. Trump went from threatening to shut the border down "this week" (or "soon") to a rather dramatic walkback where he begrudgingly changed his mind to "We're going to give them a one-year warning." He then verbized the word "tariff" ("I'm going to tariff the cars") and tried to regain his bluster and tough talk, hoping nobody would notice the fact that "this week" had turned into "a year from now" after someone explained the hard cold reality to him.

Donald Trump began the week in high spirits, convinced that he had come up with some winning strategies for the 2020 election. Republicans would be known ("You watch!") as the party of great healthcare, and he'd show those wily Mexicans how serious he was about the border by just slamming the gates on everyone. This would all work out wonderfully for both him and his party, and the American public would gratefully thank him by re-electing him in a landslide.

Never before have we seen such a swift reversal of Trumpian fantasies, however. Never before has reality intruded so brutally on Trump's fantastical worldview. Republicans from the Senate to his own advisors obviously had to forcefully readjust his thinking in a way we've never really seen before. That is astonishing on its own, but what's even more astonishing is the speed with which it took place.

It's doubtful that Trump has learned any larger lesson from the disastrous political week he's had. He probably won't be consulting with anyone before he tries to singlehandedly dictate another election strategy for Republicans in the coming weeks, just to double-check on whether any of it is a good idea (or even slightly realistic). Which means we can probably look forward to similar reversals to come. What should keep Republicans awake at night, though, is the worry that sooner or later no matter how much actual reality is explained to Trump by his advisors, that he's just going to go ahead with whatever wacky idea pops into his head no matter what anyone else thinks of it. And then all his sycophantic Republican politicians will somehow have to get out on the campaign trail and explain to the voters that reality isn't really real, and how Trump knows better than anyone else what to do next.

Good luck with that.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

145 Comments on “Trump Faces Reality, Twice In One Week”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You picked a great time for no FTP.

    And, I mean that sincerely - I'm not trying to be facetious here. Ahem.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    I think these wild swings by Blouts were meant as much to be distractions from the Mueller Report Cover-up as they were election 2020 gambits and thus they could be jettisoned pretty quickly.

    It's all about avoiding the reckoning now.

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    still happy to receive my weekly dose of vitamin CW, even if it's a smaller dose than usual.

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump's fantastical world view is looking more and more like a series of increasingly frequent "senior moments." Unlike his many other lies, the "My father was born in Germany" served no discernible political purpose. Trump is looking more and more like a man in not so early dementia....and Trump seems to know it. My late mother lived in a very nice Senior Facility late in life, and I witnessed senior moments on a regular basis. Many people having cognative incidents are aware of it....they halt, look puzzled and try and try to carry on as if nothing has happened. Trump fit that pattern this week, and the pattern goes all the way back to The Slurring of America TV incident. I am well aware of the hazards of remote amateur psychiatric disgnosis, but if Trump were a family member I would be arranging a medical appointment and removing hazardous objects. Republicans are probably quietly sizing up the prospects of a Pence Admin.

  5. [5] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Good luck with that."

    Everybody should have thought harder before they decided to get on this coaster. The first drop is the biggest on a conventional coaster but not so The Red
    Hot Magma Ride of Death.

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4] TS: Yep. Blotus really needs an actual medical work-up and we all need to know what a real MD determines. But what we'd likely get is just another cover-up.

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the picture is getting clearer though. donald constantly acts guilty even when he's innocent. he covers up stuff he doesn't even have any reason to. he protests too much, so to speak, and it makes people think he's guilty of the worst - when for the most part his transgressions are completely typical in politics.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Credit where Credit is due..

    Dumbocrats have had their WORST week since the first week of Nov 2016 and the spin and "social construct" to turn it into TRUMP'S worst week is a feat of spin and delusion..

    The fact that Trump's approval is over 50% made the attempt all the more daring...

    I can understand ignoring physical reality of the Dim's RUSSIA COLLUSION delusion being totally decimated in favor of the social construct is especially appealing...

    What with the trainwreck that is the Dim candidates for POTUS...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is looking more and more like a man in not so early dementia....

    Yea... And Odumbo was a Manchurian Candidate muslim who's intent is to bring Sharia law to the US.. :^/

    It truly is amazing that ya'all act EXACTLY like ya'all accused the Republicans of acting towards Odumbo..

    Except ya'all are 20 times worse because you actually BELIEVE the social construct bullshit ya'all are spewing...

    It's a fascinating case study in HHPTDS....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think these wild swings by Blouts were meant as much to be distractions from the Mueller Report Cover-up

    Yea... President Trump wants to "cover up" the FACT that Mueller has completely, totally and utterly exonerated President Trump with regards to Russia Collusion..

    In other words, you are claiming that President Trump wants to "cover up" the FACT that Dumbocrats were totally and unequivocally decimated by their loss...

    Like I said. Ya'all actually BELIEVE ya'all's social constructs...

    Laughable....

  11. [11] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In other words, you are claiming that President Trump wants to "cover up" the FACT that Dumbocrats were totally and unequivocally decimated by their loss...

    Like I said. Ya'all actually BELIEVE ya'all's social constructs...

    Sounds a lot like you've built some constructs yourself. "Totally and unequivocally" decimated isn't how Dems are feeling. As a matter of fact, Dems are feeling pretty good about much of what's going on right now...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sounds a lot like you've built some constructs yourself. "Totally and unequivocally" decimated isn't how Dems are feeling.

    Of course you would say that.. Have to save face after all...

    But the hysterical 180 degree turn around on Mueller's honesty and integrity ("He's only a Republican, after all") proves it beyond any doubt...

    As a matter of fact, Dems are feeling pretty good about much of what's going on right now...

    Of course ya'all are... {{snicker, snicker}}

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day.... :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, Balthy.. It's a perfectly natural reaction to a huge disappointment..

    I mean, ya'all have been HYSTERICAL about Russia Collusion since Nov of 2016..

    It's a completely normal reaction that you would be in denial when your Hero, Mueller, the Trump slayer totally and indisputably exonerated President Trump for the very thing ya'all had pinned your hopes on.

    It's a totally understandable reaction that ya'all would be completely and utterly demoralized...

    It'll get better.. Right up to the point when President Trump wins re-election in a landslide in Nov of 2020....

    THEN ya'all start the sad cycle all over again...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Deputy Sheriff II Spencer Englett
    Forsyth County Sheriff's Office, Georgia
    End of Watch: Thursday, April 4, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, Balthy.. It's a perfectly natural reaction to a huge disappointment..

    I'm fine. What Barr has managed to do, is to make the Mueller Report even more important than it was. If he'd have put it out sooner, without comment, it would have been more or less over by now.

    But no, he had to protect Trump.

    Well, now we've got several committees hot on the trail, and vowing to take it to the Supreme Court if necessary. Same with the taxes. Other agencies of the government are proceeding with court cases in several jurisdictions.

    Seems like all I have to do is sit back and watch.

    You seem to be the one digging for excuses every five minutes or so. Good luck with that.

    ..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    If he'd have put it out sooner, without comment,

    Sooner!?? He put it out in less than 48 hours. Jeeze...

    it would have been more or less over by now.

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Son, for you and your Dims, it will NEVER be "over"...

    Ya'all will STILL be talking about Russia Collusion in Nov of 2020, even though Mueller has totally, completely and unequivocally exonerated President Trump on Russia Collusion..

    Well, now we've got several committees hot on the trail, and vowing to take it to the Supreme Court if necessary.

    The 5-4 SOLID Conservative Supreme Court?? Heh Yea.. Goood luck with that.. :D

    Seems like all I have to do is sit back and watch.

    Which ya'all have been doing since 16 Jun 2015....

    And all you have seen is President Trump making complete and utter fools of the Dumbocrats..

    :D

  17. [17] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And all you have seen is President Trump making complete and utter fools of the Dumbocrats..

    Huh? More like making a fool of himself. Note: unlike other presidents, he's barely moved the political needle toward himself. If he stays on the same path, a wet sock could beat him squarely.

    He put it out in less than 48 hours. Jeeze...

    Try again. He put his own letter out in less than 48 hours. The Mueller Report is now..um..12 days old? Looks like we're gonna haveta rip it from his fingers...

    The 5-4 SOLID Conservative Supreme Court?? Heh Yea.. Goood luck with that.. :D

    Funny, cause I was gonna say the same thing. I mean, Roberts could become the new swing vote. Just saying...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huh? More like making a fool of himself. Note: unlike other presidents, he's barely moved the political needle toward himself. If he stays on the same path, a wet sock could beat him squarely.

    Yea.. That's what you said in Nov of 2016....

    Why would I believe you now???

    Try again. He put his own letter out in less than 48 hours. The Mueller Report is now..um..12 days old? Looks like we're gonna haveta rip it from his fingers...

    Mueller is working with Barr to make the report releasable.. Mueller also signed off on Barr's summary of the report...

    So, no matter how you slice it, you lose..

    Funny, cause I was gonna say the same thing. I mean, Roberts could become the new swing vote. Just saying...

    Funny, cause I was gonna say the same thing. I mean, Roberts could become the new swing vote. Just dreaming..

    There.. Fixed it for you..

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why would I believe you now???

    Don't, by all means. It'll be sweeter when you lose.

    Mueller is working with Barr to make the report releasable.. Mueller also signed off on Barr's summary of the report...

    Y'know, I'm wondering about just how much Mueller is 'helping'. We'll see.

    Besides, it doesn't matter. Eventually, Congress gets to see the entire thing anyway.

    And I see that he's skipping the Correspondent's Dinner again. Seems that "Mr. Thin Skin" likes dishing it out, but hates being on the receiving end..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden: 'I'm not sorry for anything that I have ever done'
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437582-biden-im-not-sorry-for-anything-that-i-have-ever-done

    And here is Biden talking out both sides of his ass....

    Sad to see...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't, by all means. It'll be sweeter when you lose.

    I am sure it will be.. Just as I am sure you'll never experience it.. :D

    Y'know, I'm wondering about just how much Mueller is 'helping'. We'll see.

    Of course you are..

    Besides, it doesn't matter. Eventually, Congress gets to see the entire thing anyway.

    Which doesn't stop ya'all from being hysterical about it..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I see that he's skipping the Correspondent's Dinner again. Seems that "Mr. Thin Skin" likes dishing it out, but hates being on the receiving end..

    OH MY GOD!!!!!!

    President Trump likes to insult people but doesn't like to be insulted!!!

    MY GODS!!! HE MUST BE IMPEACHED!!!!! THIS IS CATASTROPHICALLY HEINOUS!!!!!

    Next thing ya know, you'll get all hysterical about the fact that President Trump has 2 arms and 2 legs...

    :^/

    Jeesh....

    Hyper Hysterical Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed...

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    OMG! I'd never put that many exclamation marks in a sentence!!

    I'm going off to work. Hopefully you'll be calmed down by the time I get back...

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Let's hope facing reality becomes a trend.

    It may even eventually get here and CW will face the reality that he should define what a small donor is if he continues to use the term and acknowledge the reality that there is a difference between a small donor candidate and a small contribution candidate and that referring to small contribution candidates as if they were small donor candidates by CW, the rest of the media or the politicians themselves is an outright lie.

    Though in this case CW should not emulate Trump in putting it off for a year (or should I say ANOTHER year)- it should be done in the next week.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dear Citizen Collusion Truther—You Own This, Too

    Hey, what’s up . . . wait, where are you going?

    Why the dark glasses? Did you dye your hair? What’s with all the deleted tweets and Facebook posts lately?

    Oh, I get it. Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller didn’t find any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Ruskies to throw the 2016 election, you want to move on. Act like it never happened. Or at least pretend that you weren’t part of the whole damn hoax from the start.

    For two years, you helped do the dirty work of the vanquished Hillary Clinton campaign and the sore-loser Democratic Party. You reposted memes on your Facebook and Instagram pages that depicted Donald Trump as a Putin puppet, even suggesting tongue-in-cheek (in a way that you’d call homophobic if the other side did it) that Trump was Putin’s gay lover. You warned your neighbors that Trump’s son was a traitor. You insisted to your co-workers that, yes, Trump’s campaign team was populated by Russian agents and that the president’s attorney general, his secretary of state, his education secretary, his national security advisor, his son-in-law—among others—were Kremlin plants in the new administration.

    You actually believed that Carter Page was a spy. You actually believed that the FBI opened up an investigation into the Trump campaign because a drunken George Papadopoulos said he had Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. You actually believed that Trump urinated on a Russian prostitute at a Moscow hotel. You actually believed that a teeny tiny batch of Facebook memes and Twitter posts allegedly controlled by Moscow masterminds somehow convinced voters in Michigan and Wisconsin to vote for Donald Trump.

    You believed that Michael Cohen went to Prague. You believed that Russia hacked the DNC email system and fed those emails to Wikileaks. You believed that Roger Stone orchestrated the release of those emails. You believed that Sam Nunberg and Jerome Corsi and Konstantin Kilimnik had the goods on Trump.

    You tuned into Joe Scarborough each morning and Rachel Maddow each night, desperate to gratify your collusion urges with their passionate rants about Trump and Putin. Ditto for Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper and Chris Cuomo. The pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post read like collusion porn every morning, teasing you and titillating you with erotic tales about secret phone calls and mysterious interpreters and raven-haired Russian lawyers.

    You swooned over Adam Schiff. You suddenly believed every word of faux conservatives such as Bill Kristol and David Frum and Max Boot; people you had held in contempt prior to the 2016 election. You retweeted every post by the Krassenstein brothers, Kathy Griffin, and Alyssa Milano.

    You were the baritone in the Trump-Russia collusion quartet, harmonizing along with the news media, the Democrats and the NeverTrump Republicans: “The walls are closing in!” “Trump’s days are numbered!” “It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when!” “His cabinet is turning on him, ready to invoke the 25th Amendment!” “He’s brooding and angry and lashing out at staff as Mueller gets closer to finding out the truth!” “Trump won’t survive the week/month/year/term!”

    But the most compelling evidence that you refused to accept was right before your very eyes the entire time. In nearly two years, Mueller did not charge one person with so-called “collusion.” Not one associate tied to the Trump campaign was indicted or convicted of any crime related to the election.

    I know you still have hope that the full Mueller report will contain some far-fetched nugget of collusion evidence to vindicate your gullibility/ignorance/foolishness. You’ve already moved the goalposts to an imaginary crime of obstruction of justice even though there was no underlying crime to obstruct.

    History will not be kind to the Trump-Russia collusion truthers in Congress, the expert class, Hollywood, and the media. But history also shouldn’t forget the role that you, Citizen Collusion Truther, played in this. No matter how many tweets and Facebook posts you delete, it cannot erase your complicit stupidity in this scandal.
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/04/dear-citizen-collusion-truther-you-own-this-too/

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm going off to work. Hopefully you'll be calmed down by the time I get back...

    I get it.. You have the good sense to be embarrassed..

    Good on you.. That's a good first step..

  27. [27] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It looks more and more like Barr’s initial summary letter was written prior to Barr actually reading the whole report — skimming to find a few partial quotes to support his claims doesn’t count!

    Barr was hired to protect Trump, plain and simple.

    Reading Barr’s “my summary wasn’t really a summary” letter, with all of its back peddling, I am guessing Barr is now more concerned about protecting his own asp and not Trump’s. He might have discovered that Trump didn’t deserve to be protected.

    But Barr accomplished what he was supposed to — providing Trump with a smoke screen of “vindication” that his base will cling to for dear life as they rush to bury their heads deep enough in the sand before the report is finally made public.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Washington slams '44' for not supporting 'Africa or the Black Agenda' and praises '45' for inviting him to WH' to celebrate First Step Act prison reform
    He tweeted his thanks to Trump while criticizing Obama in a series of posts
    Washington was at the White House to celebrate a prison reform bill
    The actor shared pictures and videos of himself from inside The East Room
    Congress passed the First Step Act which gives judges more discretion when sentencing some drug offenders and boosts prisoner rehabilitation
    His comments provoked a mixed reaction online with some praising the actor
    But responding to the backlash Washington wrote: 'I may have 99 problems with 45, but mass incarceration ain't one of them'
    He was fired from Grey's Anatomy in 2007 for making a homophobic slur

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6893717/Greys-Anatomy-actor-slams-Obama-praises-Trump-inviting-White-House.html

    President Trump has done 20 times more for black and hispanic Americans than Odumbo ever could..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    It looks more and more like Barr’s initial summary letter was written prior to Barr actually reading the whole report — skimming to find a few partial quotes to support his claims doesn’t count!

    Facts to support??

    None?? Yea, of course not..

    That's like Neil's claim that Mueller wrote up a series of "briefs" that were ready for public release but Barr is sitting on them..

    Utter delusional bullshit with not an IOTA of fact that indicates...

    Barr was hired to protect Trump, plain and simple.

    Reading Barr’s “my summary wasn’t really a summary” letter, with all of its back peddling, I am guessing Barr is now more concerned about protecting his own asp and not Trump’s. He might have discovered that Trump didn’t deserve to be protected.

    But Barr accomplished what he was supposed to — providing Trump with a smoke screen of “vindication” that his base will cling to for dear life as they rush to bury their heads deep enough in the sand before the report is finally made public.

    "Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong."
    -Luke Skywalker

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Barr has still failed to release the report after all this time, so you know nothing about what it says... although Barr felt it necessary to send a third letter to Congress in which he has reiterated the fact that Mueller’s report does NOT exonerate Trump. The Times and WaPo are both reporting that members of Mueller’s teams are unhappy that Barr failed to release the summaries that they had prepared to be released directly to the public.

    Barr had initially stated that he wanted to redact any mention of third party testimony that could be embarrassing to them. That isn’t a recognized federal exemption under the FOIA, so he should seriously rethink that one. Trump obviously had someone read it so they could tell him what it means since he suddenly is not so quick to say it should be released to the public.

    Until it sees the light of day, there is nothing that should be viewed as a “certainty” regarding the findings.

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I wonder I Biden is waiting to announce until he comes up with a new slogan as he can no longer use:

    Biden 2020- I Feel You

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    That should be I wonder "if" Biden....

    Typose really suck in a joke.

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's like Neil's claim that Mueller wrote up a series of "briefs" that were ready for public release but Barr is sitting on them..

    Utter delusional bullshit with not an IOTA of fact that indicates...

    You are very certain for somebody who hasn't seen the report. People that have, the ones that wrote it, contradict you.

    Their statements have also been stress tested by rigorous journalists.

    Guess who I think know what they are talking about vs. spouting their mouth off when they know nothing.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Talking about Utter delusional bullshit with not an IOTA of fact, what does Trump think wind and windmills do.

    It must be, quite frankly, amazing to anybody who believes the nonsense this dotard utters that anybody is still alive in Holland. (Thanks SC's writers.)

    This is becoming a more incredible, and really quite sad, spectacle:

    When will people like Michale finally realize their "Dear Leader" is lying all the time.

    Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall. There is no better healthcare plan. A spoilt brat from NY isn't going to solve all of America's problems because he is such a great "Businessman".

    A total con.

    A slow motion train wreck for America.

    "This is the worst trip I've ever been on."

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Future America will feel sorry of anybody who was well educated and read, and that really cared for America, in 2019. And Britain.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's very easy to PROVE ya'all's hypocrisy beyond any doubt..

    If Barr's summary had stated that Mueller unequivocally found factual evidence that President Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election...

    Would you have demanded to read the full report before you believed it??

    Would ya'all be saying, "No way!! I don't believe it until I read the full report!!!"

    Of course not..

    Ya'all would be buying Barr's summary lock stock and barrels..

    So, the fact is clear...

    Ya'all are demanding the full report SOLELY and COMPLETELY because Barr's summary says something you don't want to hear..

    Ya'all don't WANT to believe it...

    So ya'all don't..

    It's that simple...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barr has still failed to release the report after all this time, so you know nothing about what it says...

    I know perfectly well that it completely and utterly exonerates President Trump for Russia collusion..

    And you know it to.. You just don't WANT to believe it..

    What your paranoid fantasies don't take into account is that Mueller is working with Barr to release the report to Congress..

    So, anything you claim about Barr you are also claiming about Mueller...

    Which is 1000% diametrically opposed to how you have characterized Mueller for the last 2 years..

    Like I said.. You don't WANT to believe it..

    But it's factually accurate..

    Mueller completely exonerated President Trump on Russia Collusion...

    You lost..

    Deal with it..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are very certain for somebody who hasn't seen the report. People that have, the ones that wrote it, contradict you.

    Oh sure, a bunch of anonymous Hillary sycophants had made some claims..

    Of course, YOU believe it because you WANT to believe it..

    But you said, "Mueller delivered a series of "public ready" summaries of each section of the report. They were meant to be distributed to congress, and fairly quickly, the general public."

    Where's your FACTS to support this claim??

    You have none..

    Yer just making shit up because you can't handle that you lost..

    Their statements have also been stress tested by rigorous journalists.

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHA

    I think it's so cute that you actually believe these "rigorous journalists"...

    Considering how many times they have been caught lying and being lied to...

    Guess who I think know what they are talking about vs. spouting their mouth off when they know nothing.

    As I have proven beyond **ANY** doubt, you ONLY believe them because they say what you want to hear..

    But hay.. I'll be happy to admit I am wrong..

    All you have to do is show me your FACTS that say "Mueller delivered a series of "public ready" summaries of each section of the report. They were meant to be distributed to congress, and fairly quickly, the general public."..

    Do you have any facts??

    No, you do not..

    So, this begs the question..

    Why would you make up such bullshit???

    Because you can't handle the FACT that you lost...

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Would you have demanded to read the full report before you believed it??

    yes. i can't speak for anyone else, but i for one would like to be damn certain before i go about calling the president of my country a traitor.

    furthermore, when someone else does so and i don't engage them over it, my silence is NOT assent.

    JL

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Would you have demanded to read the full report before you believed it??

    Of course we would have. Wouldn't you? I imagine that scholars will be dissecting it for the next few years, at least.

    I mean, that's the part about all of this that I don't get. Barr knows that he's gonna lose, eventually. The ENTIRE report eventually gets to Congress. It always does.

    So maybe he's just stalling for time. Possible.

    We'll see.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all misunderstand.

    I have NO DOUBT that ya'all would want to see the full Mueller report..

    A report compiled by a bunch of Trump/America hating Hillary/Democrat sycophants???

    Of COURSE ya'all would want to see..

    But ya'all WOULD NOT doubt the veracity of Barr's summary if it said what you wanted to hear..

    That's the ONLY reason ya'all still want to see the full Mueller report.. Because it will be so chock full of Trump/America hating bullshit, it will help assuage the utter disappointment and decimation you feel that Mueller utterly and completely exonerated President Trump of Russia Collusion..

    And ya know what?? The full Mueller report (which no one will ever see) won't change that fact.. It won't change that Mueller completely and utterly exonerated President Trump of Russia Collusion...

    yes. i can't speak for anyone else, but i for one would like to be damn certain before i go about calling the president of my country a traitor.

    But you have no problem when others do it... Funny how that is..

    I mean, that's the part about all of this that I don't get. Barr knows that he's gonna lose, eventually. The ENTIRE report eventually gets to Congress. It always does.

    No, the entire report will not ever get to Congress... Grand Jury testimony is sealed...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny.. I seem to recall a lot more commenters here Pre Mueller Report release..

    President Trump gets fully and completely exonerated for Russia Collusion and a bunch of commenters disappear...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I gotta ask...

    Their statements have also been stress tested by rigorous journalists.

    When you typed that, could you keep a straight face???

    When you put those words to posterity, did a niggly little voice in your head say, "Ooooo yer gonna burn for that one.."

    When you hit SUBMIT COMMENT did you snicker giggle a little at the utter nonsense of your claim??

    Or do you whole-heartedly believe that claim??

    I honestly have to say I don't know which is sadder..

    That you posted such obvious and PROVEN bullshit??

    Or that you sincerely BELIEVE said bullshit..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ya know what?? The full Mueller report (which no one will ever see) won't change that fact.. It won't change that Mueller completely and utterly exonerated President Trump of Russia Collusion...

    This is such a good point, it needs to be made again..

    I am certain that the Mueller report will be chock full of Trump/America hating goodies that ya'all will salivate over and feast on until the cows come home...

    It was compiled by a team of Trump/America hating Hillary/Democrat sycophants after all...

    But there is one fact that simply cannot be denied by any rational and objective person...

    The full report (which no one will ever see) will not change the FACT that President Trump is completely and utterly exonerated of Russia Collusion...

    The sooner ya'all accept this FACT, the happier your lives will be..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wonder I Biden i{f} waiting to announce until he comes up with a new slogan as he can no longer use:

    Biden 2020- I Feel You

    Hehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny!! :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    furthermore, when someone else does so and i don't engage them over it, my silence is NOT assent.

    It's easy to claim that AFTER the fact..

    But you being you, I take you at your word.. :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Sgt. Steve Licon
    California Highway Patrol, California
    End of Watch: Saturday, April 6, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Here's another slogan that Joe Biden will have to rethink..

    BIDEN 2020 Can't Stop The Feeling

    :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:
  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Given the extraordinary public interest in the matter, the Attorney General decided to release the report’s bottom-line findings and his conclusions immediately — without attempting to summarize the report — with the understanding that the report itself would be released after the redaction process,” the Justice Department statement said.

    The statement also said that every page of Mueller’s report was marked that it may contain grand jury material “and therefore could not immediately be released.”

    A Justice Department official, speaking Thursday on condition of anonymity to discuss a confidential process, said summaries of the findings that Mueller’s team included as part of its report also contained grand jury information, making it hard for a swift release.

    Barr has said that while Mueller did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, the special counsel left open a decision on whether the president had tried to obstruct the Russia investigation. The Mueller team laid out evidence on both sides of the question in a way that neither established a crime nor exonerated Trump, according to Barr’s letter.

    Barr has said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined that Mueller’s evidence was insufficient to support an obstruction allegation.

    Barr said he was continuing to work with Mueller’s office on redactions to the report so that it could be released to Congress and the public.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/05/barr_defends_handling_of_muellers_russia_report_139972.html

    No one will ever see the complete Mueller report untouched...

    It will never happen..

    So ya'all can continue ya'all's hysterical conspiracy theories right up to the 2020 election..

    Can't wait to see ya'all's face when it guarantees a President Trump re-election landslide.. :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    After 2016 loss, Democrats know they need white male voters
    https://apnews.com/79fefc13c5a54b089da12c7007e98ac8

    Democrats are realizing they will continue to lose voters if the constantly demonize and attack those who don't toe their ideological line...

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And ya know what?? The full Mueller report (which no one will ever see) won't change that fact..

    Yeah, yeah. Hey, if you don't mind, we'll decide that when we see it. And we'll see it, don't worry.

    Barr's 'hide the sausage' game is barely two weeks old, and the subpoenas are flying. Let's say it takes and entire year to finally pry it from his fingers.

    Well, that drops it into the middle of an election season. Are they sure they want that?

    We'll see.

  53. [53] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    If Russian/Trump "Collusion" and the Russian social media "disinformation" campaign caused Trump to win and Hillary to lose in 2016, what happened in 2018?

    Did those evil Commies quit hacking your Facebook accounts and e-mails, or did they switch allegiance to the Democratics??

    You guys are mostly all as dumb as the proverbial "Box of Rocks" about these issues.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, yeah. Hey, if you don't mind, we'll decide that when we see it. And we'll see it, don't worry.

    Only if someone commits a crime..

    Grand Jury testimony is SEALED by law...

    Well, that drops it into the middle of an election season. Are they sure they want that?

    Do you mean, Dumbocrats are going to be hysterical about fantasy Russia Collusion til then!!???

    Hell yea, "They" want that!!!!

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    You guys are mostly all as dumb as the proverbial "Box of Rocks" about these issues.

    You noticed that too, eh? :D

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Grand Jury testimony is SEALED by law...

    Yer gettin' smarter. Yep, and can be un-sealed by a judge (or by the Grand Jury). That's underway for everything that isn't still under investigation. Oop, what's that? Oh yeah, it's still being investigated on several fronts.

    You guys are mostly all as dumb as the proverbial "Box of Rocks" about these issues.

    Uh-huh. We're dumb, and you're stuck out on Lake Whataboutit without a paddle. Can Barr keep a secret the whole world wants to know?

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    You guys are mostly all as dumb as the proverbial "Box of Rocks" about these issues.

    This is typical right wing ignorant, over confident (Dunning-Kruger) thinking.

    CRS admits that he knows nothing about social media. He brags that he only accesses a few web sites and is just about email capable, yet suddenly he is so confident of his understanding of how the Russian attack on the 2016 election worked, and why it didn't work in 2018, that he is calling everybody else dumb.

    These people are usually the first to be arrogant if somebody doesn't understand one of their areas of expertise, yet when they are the novices, they are smarter than the experts (they usually call it "common sense").

    Sad.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    Why do most, if not all, of your comments here contribute little to the discussion at hand while demeaning your fellow commenters?

    This would be a much better place if you could behave with a little more humanity.

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like I set Michale off on a series of rants. Win!

    Remember the Michale rules - only read his comments if they are preceded and followed by a comment from another poster. Two strikes and he's out.

    Sticking to this rule drives him crazy.

    Also he had to run away after the 2018 elections, so he is a snowflake of the first order.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    I saw Julian Castro on Bill Maher - an OK performance.

    Pete B. was excellent - he addresses the questions and expounds sensibly on the subjects.

    Elizabeth Warren was on Steven Colbert and was just a wind up mouthpiece - far too scripted, and as somebody who has been in many rounds of media training, the performance was rehearsed and unnatural. I'm a fan of her message, not her delivery - she is trying too hard and comes across as stilted the same was Hillary does.

    Julian Castro let Maher lead him down the garden path in a way that Pete B. avoided. Castro could have given a brief answer then expanded into the subject to present his own ideas - instead he just drilled down instead of expanding out. A mistake in a short interview being driven by a smart comedian - you aren't going to out-wit a stand-up comedian - they are like sprinters, they will beat anybody over short distances, they tend to be weaker in longer interviews.

    As Pete B. rises in the polls, it will be interesting to see when he comes onto Trump's radar and the childish abuse starts. It won't be difficult to stop if Michale hasn't run away again, because he will parrot the jibes for us. Obviously the issue that Trump will want to make the election about is gay immigrants killing babies - and we know at least 40% of the electorate is dumb enough to think this is the only thing standing between them and their messiah making the 1950's come back for them.

    If Pete does rise to become a front runner, it will be interesting to see how the 15-20% in the center accept him. My guess is that it will be of little interest.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    If Pete does rise to become a front runner, it will be interesting to see how the 15-20% in the center accept him. My guess is that it will be of little interest.

    Should have read:

    If Pete does rise to become a front runner, it will be interesting to see how the 15-20% in the center accept him. My guess is that his personal life will be of little interest and they will care about his ideas.

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why do most, if not all, of your comments here contribute little to the discussion at hand while demeaning your fellow commenters?

    Because he thinks he is a smart troll. He probably sits around with his buddies bragging about "tellin' them libtards what's what".

    He actually can be interesting and post intelligent comments if he wants, he isn't as dumb as many of the trolls, but he has to scratch a brain itch where he thinks he is smarter than everybody else every so often.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Looks like I set Michale off on a series of rants. Win!

    Pray tell, what on earth did you 'Win'!

    It is quite amusing to see such purpose in correcting ones posts while at the same time egging on posters who contribute very little here.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like I set Michale off on a series of rants. Win!

    TRANSLATION: Michale caught me spewing factless bullshit and now I am lashing out in hopes that no one notices how bad I wet my pants...

    Don't worry Neil... Your secret is safe with me.. :D

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    Pray tell, what on earth did you 'Win'!

    It annoys him.

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don't worry Neil... Your secret is safe with me.. :D

    Thanks Michale ;)

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It annoys him.

    That's a sad excuse for a prize, Neil, and what diminishes the comments sections of this blog to no good end.

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's a sad excuse for a prize, Neil

    Yet, oddly enough, I'm pretty pleased with myself ;)

    Michale and I have a long term teasing session running and Michale has always been friendly in our private email exchanges.

    You might just need to cut us some slack on this one Elizabeth.

    My friends who I hike and camp with rip each other to shreds constantly - newcomers know they are in the group when they are pilloried mercilessly the first time about something dumb they have said or done. Maybe this is just a "British Guy" thing, but most of our adopted American friends give as good as they get.

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that's not what I'm talking about, Neil.

    But, I'm pretty much done with this place, anyway. It'll never be what I want it to be.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If the arguments were better, I could put up with a little nonsense.

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the arguments were better, I could put up with a little nonsense.

    I'll try harder. For you.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent!

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh, in case that didn't come across. Ahem.

  74. [74] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Certain of you Democratics need to be introduced to something known as the Kunning-Druger Effect.

    That's just a hoity-toity term for the phenomenon where when somebody runs into another person who happens to have a better grasp of whatever priciple than he does, he makes a sorry attempt to rationalize his own ignorance by saying the other guy isn't REALLY more knowledgeable than he is, he simply has an unrealistic opinion of his degree of comprehension.

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    every great blog needs a healthy balance of serious etiquette and juvenile fun. they're the yin and yang that keep things spinning.

    https://66.media.tumblr.com/51e18a92487741914f09186e412094b6/tumblr_mmxb7iYrjm1qfvq9bo1_r1_1280.jpg

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe, one day, this blog's comments sections will begin to display that healthy balance … but, I'm not holding my breath, needless to say ...

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs[74],

    heh.

    JL

    “There you go, you got it.”

    “Got what?”

    “Sarcasm.”

    “No, I meant it.”

    “Sure you did.”

    “Is that sarcasm?”

    “Irony, I think.”

    “What’s the difference?”

    “I haven’t the slightest idea.”

    “So you’re being ironic now, right?”

    “No, I really don’t know.”

    ~christopher moore

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That about sums it up.

  79. [79] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-74

    You wouldn't be stirring up a little pointless controversy by deliberately misstating what the K-DE is ? The K-De isn't about rationalization, it simply states ignorant people tend to overestimate what they know.

  80. [80] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Nypoet-77

    CRS doesn't understand irony, so I thought a more direct approach might get your idea across better. Next step down is finger puppets.

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    Next step down is finger puppets.

    You can lead a horse to water ...

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet, oddly enough, I'm pretty pleased with myself ;)

    "You're easily amused, base clear.."
    -A1C Russel Morvant

    :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig

    You wouldn't be stirring up a little pointless controversy by deliberately misstating what the K-DE is ? The K-De isn't about rationalization, it simply states ignorant people tend to overestimate what they know.

    You DO realize that you just provided a perfect example of CRS's point, right??

    You DO realize that, right??

  84. [84] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Not sure what you mean there, Michale.

    How is Stig's point a perfect example of CRS's?

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Robert Charles: Obama is right -- Dems' circular firing squad is set to give Trump a 2020 landslide
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/robert-charles-obama-is-right-dems-are-set-to-give-trump-a-2020-landslide

    You people need to REALLY rethink the path your Democrat Party is taking..

    If you don't, ya'all will have to live in the world being created...

    A world without a viable Democrat Party..

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nadler may delay Mueller subpoenas so Barr can ‘change his mind’

    Rep. Jerrold Nadler hinted on Wednesday that he won’t immediately issue a subpoena to force Attorney General William Barr to release the full Mueller report.

    In his opening statements at a hearing to discuss the subpoenas, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted that he’s asked Barr “to work with us” but that “he has so far refused.”
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/03/nadler-may-delay-mueller-subpoenas-so-barr-can-change-his-mind/

    TRANSLATION: Nadler is a moron who know he can't compel the US AG to break the law so Nadler is backing off..

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    One truthful Democrat emerges to call out party’s ‘delusions’
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/06/one-truthful-democrat-emerges-to-call-out-partys-delusions/

    As I said.. You people better reign in your Party or you won't have a viable Party to reign in..

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Romney calls House Democrats' maneuvers to try getting Trump tax returns 'moronic'

    Sen. Mitt Romney, once a thorn in the side of President Trump, said Sunday that Democrats' maneuvers to try getting their hands on the president's tax returns were “moronic.”

    “I’d like the president to follow through and show his tax returns,” Romney, R-Utah, told NBC News' “Meet the Press.” “But, I have to also tell you, I think the Democrats are just playing along his handbook, which is going after his tax returns through a legislative action – it’s moronic. That’s not going to happen.”

    “So, he’s going to win this victory,” Romney added. “He wins them time after time.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/romney-calls-house-democrats-calls-for-trump-tax-returns-moronic

    Don'tcha'all like to listen to Romney when he is spewing anti-Trump nonsense???

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You wanted a serious discussion...

    Reality Check for 2020 Democrats
    This week offered more evidence that moderation is the key for the party to win back the blue-wall states that Trump carried in 2016.

    Even Joe Biden defenders are now worrying about the excesses of the Left, alarmed that the #MeToo movement has expanded from fighting the scourge of sexual harassment and is now shaming politicians who cluelessly invade personal space. Politics has turned into preschool, and candidates adhering to a no-tolerance standard toward every minor misdeed will invite backlash.
    https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/677871?unlock=OVBW84B01K2AVQPR

    I am sincerely curious..

    Are you worried about the "excesses of the Left" in this regard??

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember back when, when Justin Trudeau was the cat's meow around here???

    Rex Murphy: It will be a while before Vogue calls on Trudeau again
    Sans halo, he now walks the ground like every other politician, as pedestrian as the rest of them

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-it-will-be-a-while-before-vogue-calls-on-trudeau-again?video_autoplay=true

    "Well, well, well... Looks like the freshly driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it.."
    -Janet Wood, THREES COMPANY

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of cats and their meows..

    Ya'all used to love SNL when they were skewering President Trump..

    “SNL” Takes Break From Trump-Bashing to Focus on Biden Scandal
    “Saturday Night Live” alum Jason Sudeikis returns to play former VP in cold open.

    https://youtu.be/JKeG1iJNxGs

    I have to wonder if ya'all would find that funny...???

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to wonder if ya'all would find that funny...???

    I am betting there are 2, possibly 3 of ya'all who would..

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    SPLC DIRECTOR THREATENS TO CALL POLICE ON REPORTER OVER QUESTIONS ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/05/splc-senior-official-threatens-to-call-cops-on-reporter/

    Looks like the Left Wing anti-"Hate" group, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a lot of hate within it's ranks..

    The irony is delicious.. It tastes like chicken..

    :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    “There’s a lot of pressure all pointing in the direction of doing a robust release. We are very hopeful the attorney general will do the right thing here and make everything public that can lawfully be made public.”
    -John Bies, Former Senior Justice Department Official during the Obama administration, liberal watchdog group. American Oversight

    You see, Balthy?? Even Democrats are acknowledging that, legally, somethings simply can't be released..

    You will never see an un-redacted Mueller report. You might as well get used to that fact...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barr is working with Rosenstein, Mueller and their key aides to produce an edited version of the report. In a March 29 letter to lawmakers, he spelled out four areas that would be redacted: grand jury material, which could include any documents and testimony presented; information that could reveal the government’s intelligence-gathering sources or methods; information that could compromise ongoing investigations; and details that would violate the privacy of those deemed “peripheral” to the investigation.

    All of those categories give Barr significant latitude to decide what to leave in and what to take out of the report’s public version, none more so than the grand jury material. Under the federal rules of criminal procedure, government officials are not allowed to share material from grand jury proceedings. There are few exceptions.

    “Prosecutors generally take a broad view of what constitutes grand jury information in order to avoid inadvertently disclosing it, but here there’s a strong counterbalancing interest in ensuring that everything that can come out does come out,” Bies said.

    Democrats are NOT going to see an un-redacted Mueller report..

    This is another fact that ya'all better get used to..

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "You can lead a horse to water..."

    -but you can't make him drink if he is used to drinking the Koolaid.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You can lead a horse to water..."

    -but you can't make him drink if he is used to drinking the Koolaid.

    Oh... SNAP...

    Point to DH :D

  98. [98] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [79]

    I get the impression you appear to be confusing/conflating the Kunning-Druger Effect with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, meaning in effect, that you likely missed the whole point of my [74]

  99. [99] 
    John M wrote:

    [97] Michale

    "You can lead a horse to water..."

    -but you can't make him drink if he is used to drinking the Koolaid.

    Oh... SNAP...

    Point to DH :D

    Captain Kirk: (Star Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country)

    "Note to Galley; Romulan Ale no longer to be served at diplomatic functions."

  100. [100] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    All you Weigantians need to visit this morning's TYT episode where Uyugar (sp?) interviews Glen Greenwald.

    Both of those guys are firmly embedded on your side of the political spectrum, but Greenwald is smart enough, or perhaps perceptive enough, not to let his political ideology distort his perception of reality, whereas Cenk takes your attitude, that being that any help whatsoever from Russians just gotta qualify as "something of value and therefore illegal", as Kick loves to call it.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Both of those guys are firmly embedded on your side of the political spectrum, but Greenwald is smart enough, or perhaps perceptive enough, not to let his political ideology distort his perception of reality,

    I have always said the Glenn Greenwald has the most integrity of ANY Left Winger I have ever met..

    It's not that he is always right.. He is usually always wrong..

    But his opinions and his activism is NOT swayed by Party slavery in the slightest..

    He cares not a whit for the -D or the -R after a person's name..

    That kind of unbiased and objective activism is very refreshing..

    As I said.. GG is often wrong.. But I have never questioned his motivations as he has ALWAYS indicated that they are pure..

    Wrong.. But pure..

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump Faces Reality Twice in One Week

    Local right wingers still to understand reality.

    The little love fest over Greenwald is rather amusing. Shame they can't add the introspection to address their rampant Dunning-Krugers.

    The pontification from on high about how "honest" Greenwald is, even though, he is "wrong" is the high-handed elitism that our right wing parrots think passes for political insight.

  103. [103] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    I'm not really well acquainted with everything about Greenwald, but I've caught two very recent interviews of his, one with Amy whatshername on "Democracy Now", and this one with the Young Turkeys, and far as I'm concerned, he was dead on both times.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Captain Kirk: (Star Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country)

    "Note to Galley; Romulan Ale no longer to be served at diplomatic functions."

    "Spock, I'm REALLY tired..."

    :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Local right wingers still to understand reality.

    Says the guy who's entire outlook is based on social construct and NOT reality.. :D

    The pontification from on high about how "honest" Greenwald is, even though, he is "wrong" is the high-handed elitism that our right wing parrots think passes for political insight.

    Huh?? What you say???

    You talking about high-handed elitism?? :D

    The simple fact is, unlike most everyone here, GG is not ruled by Party slavery...

    He says what he thinks, Party loyalty be damned..

    As I said.. That's refreshing because it is nearly non-existent in Weigantia...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat Party

    Dems ramp up anti-Trump probes post-Mueller, despite pledge to focus on agenda

    Days after the summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report rocked Washington, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats should shift focus to their legislative agenda.

    But while some in the caucus have indeed pivoted to issues like health care, senior Democratic lawmakers have sought to keep the investigations humming, ramping up their anti-Trump probes on a variety of fronts while mounting a battle with the Justice Department over access to the complete Mueller report and its underlying materials.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-ramp-up-anti-trump-probes-post-mueller-despite-pledge-to-focus-on-agenda

    Once again... Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory... :^/

  107. [107] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Once again... Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

    Heh, we've been talking about this for weeks, and finally Fox cops to it, and it's news.

    Truth is, Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time, and the investigations never waned.

    As for Greenwald, he's so far left, he's right, and probably on Putin's payroll. You can claim him.

  108. [108] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-98

    No, I got the point, but while on the topic of misinformation I decided to do a little psychological experiment of my own. How much pointless controversy could I generate by inserting a bit of misinformation of my own? I misrepresented your Kunning-Druger post as deliberate misinformation about the actual KDR*, which it is not - your script is an original parody. My misinformation exercise generated three hits. Not outstandingly successful trolling on my part, but personally informative (it is kind of fun) - and it was my first try. With practice I feel I could be a much better troll. Sorry to drag you into this Balthy.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for Greenwald, he's so far left, he's right, and probably on Putin's payroll.

    Joe McCarthy, is that you?? :D

    Heh, we've been talking about this for weeks, and finally Fox cops to it, and it's news.

    You have been talking about how Dumbocrats are ignoring legislation and solely concentrating on taking down President Trump???

    Where??

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I got the point, but while on the topic of misinformation I decided to do a little psychological experiment of my own. How much pointless controversy could I generate by inserting a bit of misinformation of my own? I misrepresented your Kunning-Druger post as deliberate misinformation about the actual KDR*, which it is not - your script is an original parody. My misinformation exercise generated three hits.

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    TRANSLATION: I fraked up royally but can't admit I fraked up royally so I'll go with the 3rd Grade Playground excuse, "I meant to do that!!!"

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Stig, I see yer the same elitist snob/moron you have always been..

    Don't ever change... :D

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS

    You're dragging all of us here into so please stop.

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Are you worried about the "excesses of the Left" in this regard??

    Yes, as I am worried about any excess.

  113. [113] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-111

    This was a one-off. Given the state of trolling here, it was like tossing an orange into the East River to estimate the current.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, as I am worried about any excess.

    OK... Good ta know... :D

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was a one-off.

    Until the next one...

    Given the state of trolling here

    Of which you contribute to on a regular basis, as you have just conceded...

  116. [116] 
    TheStig wrote:

    OK, I'll up my count to four. Thank you Michael. Four for one isn't awful efficiency. Do you track yours?

  117. [117] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M- "It's not so funny when it's your mother is it?"

    -Bob Einstein

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I'll up my count to four. Thank you Michael. Four for one isn't awful efficiency. Do you track yours?

    OK. Now yer 2-off for Trolling..

    M- "It's not so funny when it's your mother is it?"

    -Bob Einstein

    #3

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Guess your I AM A LUSER WHO DOESN'T HAVE SELF-CONTROL filter is not working again, eh??

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  120. [120] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hey, he got You to stop posting Fox stuff for awhile. I'd call that a win.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey, he got You to stop posting Fox stuff for awhile. I'd call that a win.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day.... :D

    I could just as easily say I got you to stop posting HuffPoop bullshit for a while..

    DUH...

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It all depends, Michale, on how one defines excess, you know. :)

    For example, a single-payer, government run through taxation on all taxpayers, healthcare system is not 'excess' - it's the only healthcare system that works.

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    This was a one-off.

    Excellent!

    Given the state of trolling here, it was like tossing an orange into the East River to estimate the current.

    Reason enough to hope that you meant it when you said it was a "one-off".

  124. [124] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-123

    I mean it, but the CW.com needs to take trolling seriously. If you don't mind being a bit depressed, Google:

    news media closes comment sites

    There is an interaction between web content, monetization, and user comments. A lot of sites have closed their online comments due to trolling. Evidently, trolling is bad for the bottom line. People in a sour mood are less likely to subscribe.

    I have pretty nearly abandoned YouTube due to rampant trolling and resulting loss of good content as collateral damage. Stupid content algorithms just seem to average good content with click bait in an effort to max out revenue. I don't need that.

    Make no mistake, I greatly enjoy and admire this site,it's savvy, it serves a need and I support it at Kitten Time. Lately, the revival of polarizing, repetitious and rhetorically shoddy mass trolling is a real turn-off. CW.com is a political newsletter oriented towards Democrats. No secret that. People with other politics should be welcome, but they, in turn, should be respectful, not clutter the scroll with repetitions or piss in the corners with shoddy rhetorical fallacies, especially those of the ad hominem kind. For those who find these terms untenable or just boring, use your abundant spare time to create, manage and update your own political commentary website, or find another political blog.

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mind being depressed. A lot. So, I won't use the google to find out about media closing comment sites.

    As for 'trolling' and other nonsense/mean-spirited comments - I'd rather see them ignored or at least not egged on for exponentially more nonsense comments.

    I don't think that's too much to ask or hope for ...

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … especially at such a thought-provoking blog as this.

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    … but the CW.com needs to take trolling seriously.

    I agree that Chris should discourage nonsense, mean-spirited comments. That would go a long way toward improving the overall quality of many of the comment threads here.

    But, it is up to all of us in how we respond or not respond. I'd like to see us try it.

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For those who find these terms untenable or just boring, use your abundant spare time to create, manage and update your own political commentary website, or find another political blog.

    Now, was that really necessary?

    It's hard to get out of the habit but, it's well worth the effort, I believe.

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    People with other politics should be welcome, but they, in turn, should be respectful, not clutter the scroll with repetitions or piss in the corners with shoddy rhetorical fallacies,

    And people should realize that what THEY term shoddy rhetorical fallacies really aren't...

    especially those of the ad hominem kind.

    You mean, like calling people trolls??? Or attacking people's websites??

    If you want to know the problems here, you first must look in the mirror..

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    I agree that Chris should discourage nonsense, mean-spirited comments. That would go a long way toward improving the overall quality of many of the comment threads here.

    Just my personal opinion of course, but I think that CW doesn't like getting involved because he doesn't like to take sides..

    Again, that's just my personal belief..

  131. [131] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The thing aboot a free exchange of ideas is that sometimes it exposes people to thoughts and ideas that they don't like or want to hear.

    There are some sites that hold each comment for review before they post the comments (it's probably not just my comments). I don't think CW or any of us wants that.

    CW may just feel that it's better to let some people go a little too far so that the free exchange of ideas doesn't get eliminated by trying to stop those that don't want to play nice.

    "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."
    -Anne Arkey

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    The thing aboot a free exchange of ideas is that sometimes it exposes people to thoughts and ideas that they don't like or want to hear.

    Exactly...

    "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."
    -Anne Arkey

    “We don’t have to break anything.”
    “Clearly you’ve never made an omelet.”
    “I swear, he beat my by like 2 seconds!!”

    -Avengers Age Of Ultron

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    39

    yes. i can't speak for anyone else, but i for one would like to be damn certain before i go about calling the president of my country a traitor.

    No one who has knowledge of Donald Trump's history needs the "Mueller Report" to confirm the fact that he has been a traitor to this country, some of which is already public.

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    107

    Truth is, Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time, and the investigations never waned.

    Exactly right. :)

    As for Greenwald, he's so far left, he's right, and probably on Putin's payroll.

    Oh, right... we have a winner here! Does anybody actually believe it was mere happenstance that Greenwald's buddy Snowden's ultimate destination was Russia? Has anyone not heard that the DOJ let it slip accidentally that there is a sealed indictment against Julian Assange... another buddy of Greenwald and Snowden? Greenwald wouldn't have any reason to carry water for his buddies Snowden and J. Ass, would he? :)

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    125

    As for 'trolling' and other nonsense/mean-spirited comments - I'd rather see them ignored or at least not egged on for exponentially more nonsense comments.

    People might take you more seriously if you practiced what you preached, EM. However, when you're the poster who's generally not ignoring the comments you don't like, then you've quite literally become the very thing about which you're whining... incessantly.

    I don't think that's too much to ask or hope for …

    If you're constantly asking [and spoiler alert -- you are], then you meet or exceed your own definition of a person who is "part of the problem."

    Why can't people just ignore what they don't want to read here by people they don't like without always making a big issue out of it.

    If you (generic you) can't do that, then you are part of the problem (general disrespect) that plagues this site. ~ Elizabeth Miller

  136. [136] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    not having read the mueller report i can't say with certainty, but it appears that donald has NOT committed treason against the USA. sure there was enough evidence to make it worth investigating, but if it comes out the way i think it will, are you really going to say that mueller was wrong?

    JL

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Mueller report is probably not going to lead to the downfall of the Trump presidency.

    When will Democrats start effectively focusing on all that will?

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, for example, when and where will Democrats start taking the punch out of the president's claim that they are for open borders and crime?

    I mean, this isn't rocket science ...

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    136

    not having read the mueller report i can't say with certainty, but it appears that donald has NOT committed treason against the USA.

    One does not have to commit "treason against the USA" in order to be a traitor to this country. "Treason" is a legal term of art that was narrowly defined by the Founding Fathers for many reasons, not the least of which was because they "resembled that remark" with regard to "the Crown" they had overthrown. Me or anyone else opining that Donald Trump or anyone else is a traitor to this country is not necessarily a legal opinion. You may have heard that a

    sure there was enough evidence to make it worth investigating, but if it comes out the way i think it will, are you really going to say that mueller was wrong?

    While it's certainly no secret that regular posters on this board are bombarded ad nauseam by asinine and sophomoric posts that claim to know their innermost beliefs, how many times have I insisted that I know what you're thinking? I won't pretend to know... so if it comes out how you "think it will," what are you thinking?

    ___________________________________________
    ___________________________________________
    ___________________________________________
    ___________________________________________

    No cheating off other students' papers. ;)

    And am I really going to say that Mueller was wrong?

    I have no idea what I'm going to think in the future based on events that haven't happened yet. Right now I can tell you that I know Barr and Mueller were arguing for weeks. Full stop. Barr asked Mueller to review his statement before it was released to the public, and Mueller declined to do so. I believe Mueller declined in order to preserve the record, and I also believe that Mueller will speak through his report and under oath to Congress and otherwise won't speak. :)

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    137

    The Mueller report is probably not going to lead to the downfall of the Trump presidency.

    I'm "probably" not going to sprout wings and fly.

    When will Democrats start effectively focusing on all that will?

    What on Earth has convinced you that they're "effectively" not doing that? Why would Democrats announce their future plans to the public?

  141. [141] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    138

    And, for example, when and where will Democrats start taking the punch out of the president's claim that they are for open borders and crime?

    Probably because no one is for open borders and crime and because it's an asinine gaslighting claim on the level of: When will Democrats stop beating their wives?

    Answering stupid gaslighting claims out of the mouth of a con artist only lends credence to the bullshit spewing out of his mouth, and it's not even a new bullshit gaslighting claim since Trump was spewing it all during midterm season at the same time he was ginning up fear of the caravan that was coming to kill everyone.

    I mean, this isn't rocket science …

    Right... it isn't rocket science. The POTUS is lying... AGAIN. Next.

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why would Democrats announce their future plans to the public?

    Because they have the best policies and the public should know about them.

    Are you serious?

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick, I'm glad you aren't actually advising Democrats.

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    142

    Because they have the best policies and the public should know about them.

    Context, Elizabeth. Your comment's substance was "the Mueller report" and your belief that it "probably" wouldn't "lead to the downfall of the Trump presidency," and you queried when Democrats would focus on something that would.

    I answered your question in context. The Democrats I know are focusing on that, and many of the Republicans and NPAs I know are helping them. I will borrow Balthasar's very factual statement to inform that they can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time... multitaskers are us.

    Are you serious?

    I would say usually around 70/30... maybe 80/20. :)

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    143

    Kick, I'm glad you aren't actually advising Democrats.

    Well, I regret to inform you that I actually am advising Democrats... and Republicans and NPAs, and it was our collective ideas and very hard work that flipped the very heavily gerrymandered Congressional District known as TX-32 from Red to Blue in the 2018 midterm elections. It was all part of that "effectively focusing" we're collectively all still doing.

    You're welcome. :)

Comments for this article are closed.