ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- The Mueller Report's Aftermath

[ Posted Friday, April 19th, 2019 – 17:41 UTC ]

Yesterday, Robert Mueller's investigative report on Donald Trump was made (mostly) public. Today, Trump and his cheerleaders are insisting that he has been totally vindicated and exonerated, while some Democratic candidates for president are demanding that impeachment proceedings be launched in the House of Representatives. That's a pretty wide gulf in perception, but at this point it was to be expected.

Just as has already been revealed in multiple behind-the-scenes tell-all books written about the Trump White House, at the heart of the Mueller Report's findings on obstruction of justice is a bit of incredible irony: what saved Trump from the more blatant forms of obstructing justice was nothing short of his own incompetence. He'd order an advisor to do something that was clearly illegal or highly unethical, and the advisor would either refuse outright or just do nothing in the hopes that Trump would forget about the whole thing. The fact that high-ranking aides would repeatedly just fail to act on Trump's outrageous demands in the hopes he'd soon forget about them obviously means that such a tactic was often effective. The picture this paints is not a flattering one, of Trump blowing up and screaming at someone to do something but then being so easily distracted that he'd forget all about it and often never mention it again. Again, this is the same picture painted by multiple tell-all books as well as a variety of other sources, so it is probably pretty accurate. Trump was saved from a whole lot of lawbreaking because he'd immediately forget that he had demanded such a thing. Hell of a way to run a country, isn't it?

This Keystone Kops performance begs the question of how many other wild-eyed things has Trump demanded of his staff only to be completely ignored? How much chaos have "the adults in the room" prevented, just by allowing Trump's faulty memory to erase his own tantrums? It's a frightening thought, really, especially after so many of these adults in the room have confirmed such episodes after they've left Trump's administration. The Mueller Report didn't create this narrative, it merely built on it.

Democrats, of course, are wondering what to do next. Elizabeth Warren led the pack of presidential candidates by explicitly calling today for Trump's impeachment:

The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.

As of this writing, the only other candidate who has agreed has been Julián Castro. Most of the others took a more measured stance. Many denounced Attorney General William Barr's press conference, where he toadied up to Trump to the exclusion of all else. Many called for further investigations by Congress, or demanded that the full and unredacted Mueller Report be made available to members of Congress. And most Democrats took the opportunity to slam Trump around, of course.

Nancy Pelosi, so far, has been charting a cautious course. She has scheduled a conference call for Monday so House Democrats can discuss what is going to happen next. Jerrold Nadler has called for hearings with lots of witnesses, including both Barr and Mueller himself, to happen in the next few weeks. Steny Hoyer, though, openly scoffed at the idea of impeachment: "Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months, and the American people will make a judgment."

Hoyer immediately received some pushback, but he and Pelosi are probably right about the politics of the situation. Those calling for impeachment right now are leaning heavily on the "it's your constitutional duty" argument, which is a potent one indeed. But to what end? Opening an impeachment process would mean more investigation, but that's going to happen anyway, whether you call it "an impeachment hearing" or not. Mueller's team launched 14 tangential investigations, so the Justice Department already is hard at work on everything Mueller uncovered that was not considered conspiracy or obstruction, but which still may be criminal. The House has several committees already investigating all things Trump, and those investigations are going to move forward no matter what else happens.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the House did vote in the next couple of weeks to impeach Trump. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote, which means that 20 Republicans would have to cross the aisle and vote to remove Trump from office. Twenty Republicans. Any bets as to the likelihood of that happening?

Now, as many have pointed out, obstruction of justice was at the center of both the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the looming impeachment of Richard Nixon. A president obstructing justice is indeed a high crime and misdemeanor, in other words. In their own words, many Republicans still serving in the Senate today were absolutely outraged at Bill Clinton's obstruction of justice, way back when. So Mueller's case for obstruction -- laid out in ten instances within his report -- is entirely sufficient to remove a sitting president.

That's an excellent legalistic point, but it does not exist in a vacuum. Bill Clinton, if you'll remember, not only survived impeachment (when enough Senate Democrats stuck with him) but his popularity actually went up during the process. He emerged politically stronger and the Republicans in Congress emerged weaker. Absent any other bombshell revelations about other Trump misdeeds, this is likely exactly what would happen if Democrats immediately began impeachment proceedings. The House could impeach him, but the Senate would not convict him. He'd be in a constant rant against Democratic overreach, and he'd paint himself as the victim of nothing but partisanship. In the end, he'd win and Democrats would "chalk up a moral victory by acting," or something. But it would all definitely affect the 2020 election, that's for sure.

At this point, we have to agree with what has been Nancy Pelosi's position all along -- that not unlike Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, the American public "will know an impeachable offense when they see one." And that we haven't met that standard yet. So far, nothing in the Mueller Report has changed our mind, either.

Democrats should continue in their efforts to obtain an unredacted Mueller Report, just to see what else it contains. They should redouble their efforts to investigate the president for government misconduct, for elections misconduct, for financial misconduct, and for anything else there is to be uncovered. The search for a smoking gun is nowhere near over, in other words. Any one of these investigations may reveal something so shocking that even Republicans refuse to defend Trump. But we're just not there yet.

Of course, there were other things happening last week than just the Mueller Report. The Democratic presidential campaign got a little more concrete with the release of fundraising figures for all the declared candidates. Here are the totals everybody raised in the first quarter of the year:

  • Bernie Sanders: $18.2 million
  • Kamala Harris: $12 million
  • Beto O'Rourke: $9.1 million
  • Pete Buttigieg: $7.1 million
  • Elizabeth Warren: $6 million
  • Cory Booker: $5 million
  • Amy Klobuchar: $4.6 million
  • Kirsten Gillibrand: $3 million
  • Jay Inslee: $2.3 million
  • John Hickenlooper: $2 million
  • Andrew Yang: $1.8 million
  • Marianne Williamson: $1.6 million
  • Tulsi Gabbard: $1.5 million
  • Julián Castro: $1.1 million
  • John Delaney: $300,000
  • Wayne Messam: $43,500

By week's end, though, the big news was that Joe Biden is finally ready to throw his hat in the ring. He's teasing an announcement possibly next Wednesday and possibly from Charlottesville, Virginia (to make a statement against Trump's "very fine people on both sides" idiocy). Will Biden be the last major announcement for Democrats? Will the field finally be set? Well, probably not -- Senator Michael Bennet also seems ready to launch, but he'll likely wait until after Biden does. To date, there are 17 Democratic politicians running (those who have held or currently hold some kind of office) as well as two outsiders (Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson). With Biden and Bennet in the race, those numbers will be 19 and 21, respectively. To be completely accurate, you'd also have to count Richard Ojeda, who officially ran but became the first candidate to quit the race. So the entire field will be at least either 20 or 22 candidates, depending on how you count. Whew!

There wasn't a whole lot else going on in Washington this week, as everyone was focused on the Mueller Report. If you're sick of in-depth analyses of the Mueller Report or just need a laugh, we would highly recommend Alexandra Petri's amusing "book report" on it (written in the style of a junior-high-school student who obviously hadn't read the whole book).

Let's see, what else? North Korea is testing weapons again, just to rattle the world's cage a little bit. Oh, and a bit of good news to end on, here -- the state of Arkansas is going to replace a statue of a Confederate inside the United States Capitol (each state is allowed two statues of prominent citizens to represent the state in the "People's House") with a statue of "The Man In Black," Arkansan Johnny Cash. Now there's a "retire the Confederate statues" move that everyone can go along with!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week made news for entering not a lions' den but rather a Foxhole.

Senator Bernie Sanders appeared Monday night on Fox News to participate in live town hall meeting. This was obviously a risky thing for any Democrat to do, because you never know what'll happen on Fox.

Sanders, however, not only held his own but from all accounts actually knocked it out of the park. He defended his own positions, he defended making money from writing a book, and the Fox moderators got a huge dose of humiliation on what was supposed to be a gotcha question. All around, a pretty good night for Bernie!

We wrote about this earlier in the week, while suggesting that more Democrats ought to go on Fox if they truly have the strength of their convictions. Bernie's defense of Medicare For All was probably the highlight of the entire evening, but before we get to audience participation we have to point out one thing few have so far noticed about Bernie's position on the issue.

As far as the inside-the-Beltway media crowd is convinced, Medicare For All is a big, scary thing to virtually everyone, because it would totally do away with the private health insurance industry, and "most people are happy with the insurance they get through their employers." Well, yes and no. Bernie has been countering this impression with a valid point that few have ever bothered to make -- you may like your company's health insurance, but just because you like it doesn't mean that each and every year you aren't in danger of your employer deciding to go with a different company that is offering cheaper rates. When this happens (as it does for millions, each and every year), people lose access to their favorite doctor, they have to understand a new company's system from scratch, and they themselves have no say in the matter whatsoever (unless they're lucky enough to belong to a Union). So just because you get health insurance through your employer, there is no guarantee that you'll have that same insurance and doctor next year, or the year after that. That is the reality people live with, but that is completely ignored in what passes for a Medicare For All debate in the mainstream media. Bernie is pointing out something that everyone can relate to, in other words, because it is so commonplace.

But getting back to the audience participation. When the moderator asked the town hall audience how many had health insurance through their employer, a sea of hands went up. Then -- in true gotcha style -- he asked how many people would be willing to give up their employer's healthcare for Medicare For All. What Fox obviously expected was for almost every hand to go down, because this proves their own warped world view. What actually happened, though, was that almost every hand stayed up. People are fed up with health insurance companies, whether they are paid through their employers or not. This is why -- another fact usually ignored by the media -- Medicare For All actually polls very well among a majority of Americans. As those hands proved, even on Fox News.

So for outfoxing Fox News in such spectacular fashion, Bernie Sanders is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. He may have even won the MIDOTW this week anyway, even if he hadn't appeared on Fox, because he topped the list of Democratic candidates in first-quarter fundraising ($18.2 million) and also led the pack in percentage of money raised from small donations -- 84 percent (more on this in a moment). Both of those are impressive statistics, especially considering how far out in front Bernie is. Number two in fundraising was Kamala Harris, who only raised $12 million. This means that Bernie led all challengers by an amount ($6.2 million) that was more than twelve other campaigns had collected in total. That's pretty impressive all around.

But we didn't even have to resort to the numbers game to make this week's decision, because Bernie's performance on Fox News early in the week was all we needed to see to determine this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Now, we do understand that political campaigns always try to spin everything as positively as possible for the candidate. But, at times, such spinning is so wildly misleading that it needs to be called out as cutting too close to outright dishonesty. We got a taste of this in the first-quarter fundraising numbers reported by the Democratic presidential campaigns. We're not sure any of it rises to an actual Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, so instead we will leave this week's MDDOTW statuette on the shelf and instead award (Dis-)Honorable Mention awards to a number of Democratic candidates, for how their campaigns are spinning the numbers.

The first example was in how the fundraising numbers were reported. Most of the campaigns reported the amount raised for the primary election alone (election law splits donations for primaries and for the general election into two categories). But three candidates tried to obscure the record. Two of them -- John Hickenlooper and Amy Klobuchar -- reported the total they had raised for both the primary and the general as one lump sum. This artificially boosted their numbers compared to the other candidates' totals. And one candidate -- John Delaney -- reported over $12 million raised, but failed to break this down into what he had personally given to his own campaign versus what other people had donated. The actual amount ($300,000) Delaney had raised was a tiny fraction of what his campaign said he had [Note: the numbers in the above list have all been corrected to what was raised from donors for the primary, not what these three campaigns claimed].

There was a second way the campaigns tried to obfuscate their own records as well. It has become a point of honor within the Democratic Party to boast of how much of your campaign chest was raised "from small donations." But there are two ways to measure this -- the way everyone previously had measured it, and a new way which sounds a lot better in campaign literature, but which is also misleading.

The first method measures campaign funds. What percentage of your funding was given in the form of small donations (usually defined as $200 or less)? Take the amount raised by small donations and divide by the total raised, and you get a percentage of your funding that came from small donors. This is the accepted way of measuring things, or at least it had been up until now.

A second way has now appeared, which helps make the numbers sound a whole lot better. Instead of measuring money, instead measure the number of donors. So take the number of small donations and divide by the total number of donors. Voilà! The percentage becomes much higher (because this metric ignores the imbalance in the size of the donations between large and small donors).

The Washington Post fact-checkers helpfully pointed all this out (while awarding two Pinocchios to all the campaigns fudging the numbers). Measured in the standard way (comparing the amounts raised), Bernie Sanders leads the field with 84 percent of his money raised through small donations. Behind him are Andrew Yang (81 percent), Elizabeth Warren (70), Pete Buttigieg (64), Marianne Williamson (60), Beto O'Rourke (59), and Tulsi Gabbard (55). All the other candidates fell below 50 percent, meaning over half of the money they raised came from larger donors.

But five of the candidates decided their numbers weren't impressive enough, and instead released the "compare donors, not money" numbers instead. Let's begin (in increasing order of the severity of the sin) with Beto O'Rourke, who reported that he had raised a whopping 98 percent of his money from small donors. In terms of money raised, however, this number falls to only 59 percent -- a difference of 39 points. That is, to be blunt, misleading. It's the difference between "almost everybody" and "six out of ten."

But he wasn't the worst, by far. Amy Klobuchar reported 85 percent of small donations, when she raised only 35 percent of her money this way. She doesn't have many big donors, but they've got deep pockets, obviously, to create a 50-point disparity in the numbers.

Kamala Harris was even worse, reporting the same 98 percent as O'Rourke but only raising a measly 37 percent of her money this way -- a 61-point difference.

But there were two champions by far in the "fudge the numbers" category this week, because both Kirsten Gillibrand and John Hickenlooper reported numbers so filled with fudge you expected a Keebler elf to be answering questions afterwards. Gillibrand reported a sunny 92 percent of small donors, but only raised 17 percent of her money this way. Hickenlooper reported a more-modest 85 percent small donors but only raised a pathetic 10 percent of his money from small donations. Both candidates misstated the actual number by a jaw-dropping 75 percentage points.

Spinning bad news, as we mentioned, is expected from political campaigns. But there are lines candidates should not cross. One of these lines is using the same metric as the rest of the political universe in measuring your campaign's effectiveness. For attempting to blur or erase these lines this week, we have (Dis-)Honorable Mention awards for the following: John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke. And we have a double (Dis-)Honorable Mention award for both John Hickenlooper and Amy Klobuchar, for using both methods of dishonestly trying to boost their fundraising numbers. Let's try to adhere to some agreed-upon standards in the future, folks.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 524 (4/19/19)

Not surprisingly, our talking points this week deal exclusively with the Mueller Report and the continuing fallout. While other things did happen this week, by week's end it was yet another one-story week, with the Mueller Report sucking all the oxygen from everything else that was happening, which is reflected in our talking points.

 

1
   Incompetence saves Trump

You just know this is getting under Trump's skin....

"For two years, America was saved from the worst excesses of the Republican Party by the Tea Partiers in the House being so incompetent that they ground the conservative agenda to an absolute halt. Now we're finding out that we were saved from the worst excesses of Donald Trump by the sheer incompetence of Donald Trump. If Trump's orders had been followed out -- if his aides had done what he explicitly told them to do -- then we wouldn't even be having an argument about impeachment, because he would have obviously obstructed justice at every turn. The only thing saving him from this is his own inability to follow through on much of anything. His aides ignored his demands or just refused to follow his orders out. They were apparently confident in the fact that Trump would forget what he told them to do almost as soon as he told them to do it. And for the most part, they turned out to be right. Trump's presidency is already an abject failure and disaster, but it would obviously be a lot worse if his people actually did what he told them to do. We're lucky, in fact, that Trump is such an incompetent leader."

 

2
   Here's one clue...

This one should be used pretty much every time the press confronts any White House spokespeople from now on.

"When I hear Sarah Huckabee Sanders speak from the podium in the White House briefing room, I know full well that what she is saying is almost certainly a lie. She has admitted under oath that she just makes stuff up when answering reporters, pulling stories and quips from thin air to back up Trump's delusional view of the world. In fact, at this point, it's easy to tell when Sarah Huckabee Sanders is lying -- just watch her lips. If they're moving, she's probably lying."

 

3
   The refuseniks

Again, almost guaranteed to get under Trump's skin.

"The Washington Post had a good rundown of all the top aides to President Trump who just flat-out refused to follow his orders. In shorthand, here is their list: 'Jeff Sessions refused to unrecuse himself. Don McGahn refused to have Mueller fired. Rick Dearborn threw a message from the president to Sessions in the trash. Rob Porter refused to contact the number three person at the Justice Department. Chris Christie refused to contact James Comey. Rod Rosenstein refused to hold a news conference to lie for the president. K. T. McFarland refused to send a memo. Dan Coats refused to put out a dishonest statement.' That's a lot of refuseniks working directly for the president! And one has to wonder -- all of this evidence was gathered on only two subjects. How many other insane or illegal orders does the president give on a regular basis that his aides must be trusted to just flat-out ignore for the good of the country? What else has he demanded be done that never happened? I mean, we're all happy that Trump is so incompetent that he forgets things he said five minutes ago, but it's kind of frightening to contemplate what would happen if so many people didn't just ignore Trump's worst impulses."

 

4
   One of the best memories

This was entirely expected, what with the answers being in written format.

"Donald Trump used to brag about his memory, saying he had 'one of the best memories of all time,' but I guess it's not as great as he thought. In his written responses to Mueller's questions, Trump used some form of the phrase 'I do not remember' a whopping 37 times. So much for being one of the best memories of all time, eh?"

 

5
   The other 14 investigations

We're not done yet, folks.

"Some of what was redacted in the Mueller report deals with ongoing investigations. There are an astonishing fourteen of these investigations, launched in tangent to the main Mueller investigation. And none of these -- not one -- has concluded yet. So while the Mueller report was an important milestone, those who are now saying it is the end of the road and we should all just move on are woefully mistaken. Not even counting the investigations launched in Congress, there are still 14 federal investigations going on as a result of what Mueller's team uncovered."

 

6
   A culture of dishonesty

For our final two talking points, we turn to two paragraphs that stood out for us in the post-Mueller Report media coverage. The first is from the New York Times, which did not pull any punches.

The White House that emerges from more than 400 pages of Mr. Mueller's report is a hotbed of conflict infused by a culture of dishonesty -- defined by a president who lies to the public and his own staff, then tries to get his aides to lie for him. At one juncture after another, Mr. Trump made his troubles worse, giving in to anger and grievance and lashing out in ways that turned advisers into witnesses against him.

 

7
   No fake news here

The second makes a very important point. There was indeed "fake news" in all of this, but it was the "fake news" coming from the White House. The media got it right, the White House insisted it was "fake news" but in the end it turned out their own denunciations were the fakest thing around.

[T]he mainstream media's report on the incidents that Mueller examined with regard to obstruction were, in virtually all cases, completely correct. The White House's denials were bogus and right-wing cheerleaders who claimed the media got it "wrong" were themselves wrong. Trump did try to fire Mueller; he did mislead the public regarding the Trump Tower meeting; and he did try to influence witnesses.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

279 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- The Mueller Report's Aftermath”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Great summary. I've been wading through the Mueller Report online and I find it painfully slow. Beyond the legalese and eyestrain my tablet usually freezes up after a few pages and the indexes are terrible. I'm going to have to buy a hard copy with real pages, analog digital page selection (aka fingers) and rummage through my desk for paper clips and Post It book marks.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Mueller's team launched 14 tangential investigations, so the Justice Department already is hard at work on everything Mueller uncovered that was not considered conspiracy or obstruction, but which still may be criminal.

    … considered conspiracy with the "Russian government," to be exact. Any other type of "conspiracy" found outside of that narrow mandate of "conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government" would be spun off to other courts.

    For example:

    https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax

    The Michael Cohen case in SDNY where the sitting POTUS is the currently unindicted co-conspirator identified as "Individual 1," and Mikey is the criminal who conspired with "Individual 1" and currently packing for federal prison. :)

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i must object to your (and the rest of the mainstream media's) clear bias in reporting of fundraising numbers. you all report what slice of the pie is small versus large donations, but not a single mention of pie itself! for shame...

    JL

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    on another note, i wonder if shouting "you're fired" in a crowded theatre still counts...

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Take the amount raised through small donations and divide by the total raised, and you get a percentage of your funding that came from small donors."

    On what planet? How did this ever become the accepted way of measuring things?

    It may be better than the new deception, but it is still a deception.

    The only way to measure it is by determining how may donors are actually small donors which neither method you mentioned does.

    Both methods measure the small donations as if they each came from different donors and were each a separate donor and not just a separate donation.

    The same donor may make many small donations and it is the total amount donated by a donor that determines whether or not they are a small donor.

    Many donors that are small donors now because they have only made a few small contributions at this point will not be small donors by this time next year.

    50 dollars a week for a year is 2600 dollars. Not a small donor and not accounted for in either example of counting you provided.

    This basically the same lie I have been pointing out for way too long that you just can't seem to recognize.

    Before anyone can claim anything aboot small donors and any campaign they have to define what a small donor is correctly and not keep pretending that each donation is an actual donor.

    You are clearly deserving of the MDDOTW award as you have written aboot the deception of the campaigns while missing the most important deception- one that you keep repeating every time you write aboot campaign fundraising.

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    Impeachment should happen because it is the only actual weapon in Dem hands. It can be framed to hurt the GOP - you do the public hearings, you educate the public even more than they are starting to be with the release of the report - and you make the clear case DJT is UNFIT. Then you prep the public for the fact that GOP will vote party-over-country in advance and then make them eat it.

    Dems can do a lot of damage to repubs through impeachment hearings, not just to DJT - and all as we're moving to 2020. The fact that Bill Clinton stayed popular when HE was impeached is not a good comparison - he was impeached for a blowjob. Not for 400+ pages of crimes - crimes which Mueller says multiple times they believed happened but couldn't prove coz Blotus-gang destroyed evidence and lied.

    Crouching in fear in advance over the fact that republicans will refuse to do their duty is weak-ass shit.

    Of course the magats are going to think Blotus is being picked on - they think so now. They're already riled up.

    But new polling shows Independents are now MORE concerned about Blotus "getting off scot free" than they are about "dems overreaching."

    Doing more investigations is necessary and fine because DJT isn't the totality of what needs to be addressed. The GOP has a lot to answer for as do many figures surrounding DJT. But doing investigations in lieu of actually demanding accountability is a cop-out and will depress Dem turnout. Why elect Dems if they're going to give in to GOP every goddamned time?

    Elizabeth Warren showed actual real-life leadership by taking her stand. She read the report, drew a conclusion and made her announcement. She sent an email out to her list with her decisions WITHOUT an attached fundraising appeal. She is getting a lot of positive commentary for this and deserves it.

    There has to be an endgame that is more than "let's run out the clock and hope we win in 2020." Every day Dems play prudence Repubs will lie, lie, lie. And they will claim that if DJT was so bad why didn't Dems impeach? And they will mount harassment investigations against Mueller and HRC.

    Craven attempts to read the tea leaves and cower from obstructive repubs is not the answer this time. All that will do is further convince many Americans that Dems are weak. Sooner or later Dems have to step up. I think that time is now.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    4

    on another note, i wonder if shouting "you're fired" in a crowded theatre still counts...

    *laughs* I see what you did there. :)

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    ^^^^^^ EDIT ^^^^^^
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    *laughs* I see what you did there. :)

    and I goobed up the italics laughing... pffffffffffffft

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    In this brief clip (embedded in a tweet) Elizabeth Warren lays out her reason for impeachment. It is brief and perfect:
    https://twitter.com/_EthanGrey/status/1119439890142220288

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    AG Barr's hijacking of the Mueller report and outright lying to Congress and the American people about Mueller's findings may actually force impeachment hearings. It even seems to me like the GOP might be itching for it.

    Why would the GOP seek to push impeachment, though? Perhaps because they are spineless and want to expel Trump out of their Party and seek to use Democrats as a cover for it; I certainly would not put a move like that past the GOP. The way so many of them are on record regarding Clinton's impeachment for way less than conspiring to pay illegal hush money to a porn star and encouraging the hacking of his opponent by a foreign adversary and aiding and abetting the dissemination of hacked materials via a cutout of the Russian government by knowing they were doing it and denying it at the same time... and subsequent coverup of all that crime... might be enough to "force" some of those senators in the GOP to actually follow the rule of law as written in United States Code and "dump Trump" in favor of saving their Party.

    Perhaps Barr's role isn't to save Trump at all but to save the GOP from Trump... now that would actually be a logical move on their part. :)

  11. [11] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, there are lots of ways to 'do' impeachment without calling it that - I'm quite sure that Nadler has considered them all. Either way (and if you remember the Clinton impeachment as I do) we know that there just isn't time to mount that effort prior to the election.

    Nadler may have to open impeachment just to get some of the documents he needs. If so, this 'report' gives him all of the cover that he needs.

    Either way the election begins this year. Certainly, if the election is ALL about Trump, I'm fine with that.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    what saved Trump from the more blatant forms of obstructing justice was nothing short of his own incompetence. He'd order an advisor to do something that was clearly illegal or highly unethical, and the advisor would either refuse outright or just do nothing in the hopes that Trump would forget about the whole thing.

    That's one way to spin it.. :D

    The search for a smoking gun

    AKA, a witch hunt.. A fishing expedition... :^/

    Now, we do understand that political campaigns always try to spin everything

    Why yes... Yes ya'all do.. :D

    I have to admire yer stiff upper lip in the face of a devastating and decimating Mueller report..

    I know it can't be easy...

    I am sure there will be another Russia Collusion shiny to help ya'all back.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That's the way the GOP wants to spin it: the Dems are now hysterically trying to make something out of nothing.

    But if there's really nothing there, why worry about it? On "The Five", it was said that the second volume was 'bits and pieces of unrelated things' that were thrown together to create a bad impression.

    Really? Let's investigate that. Let's see if a 'pattern' of conduct can be construed from all of it.

    Oop. There I go again. Well, I guess we'll be discussing Mr. Mueller for awhile.

  14. [14] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Not knocking Johnny Cash at all, but you neglected to mention that Arkansas plans to replace BOTH of its statues. Like many civil rights leaders, Daisy Bates didn't seek fame or attention. Because of her efforts in the 1940s and 50s - and of the many other unsung civil rights heroes - Little Rock's schools were integrated in 1957. The armed confrontation shocked the nation. Without a doubt, because of Daisy Bates, no other state attempted to defy the Supreme Court's ruling (Brown vs Board of Education).
    And what powerful symbolism to replace a powerful white man with a humble black woman in the National Statuary Hall of the U S Capitol!
    https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/post/arkansas-house-oks-daisy-bates-johnny-cash-statues-us-capitol

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? Let's investigate that. Let's see if a 'pattern' of conduct can be construed from all of it.

    How funny..

    That's EXACTLY what the GOP said with regards to Benghazi and Clinton's emails..

    Funny how you HATED it then and castigated and denigrated and demonized the GOP for doing it..

    Funny how, when it's YOUR agenda being served, then you want to investigate til the cows come home..

    Funny...

    Oop. There I go again. Well, I guess we'll be discussing Mr. Mueller for awhile.

    Yep.. Right up to Nov of 2020 when President Trump wins re-election in a landslide...

    Don't worry.. I'll be around to say I TOLD YA SO once more... :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't worry.. I'll be around to say I TOLD YA SO once more... :D

    It's also funny how I get to do that so much, eh? :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Today, Trump and his cheerleaders are insisting that he has been totally vindicated and exonerated,

    When it comes to Mueller's probe raison d'être....

    President Trump **HAS** been totally vindicated and exonerated...

    This is fact that no amount of spin will change...

  18. [18] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yeah, funny is the word for it.

    Funny, the way that Barr declared the matter over and done with the moment the report came out. Republicans danced in the street.

    But when the heavily redacted report finally arrived, it was far from exculpatory. Democrats want to investigate.

    Republicans want to keep chanting. Maybe if they chant hard enough it'll all go away.

    Nope. Not going anywhere.

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But it must be very hard on the true believers.

    I mean they were SURE that Muellers report vindicated Trump. I can just imagine their horror when they actually SAW what it said. But..wait..

    They can't believe that Barr led them astray, so it must be something else.

    Democrats just don't make any sense. What are you reading there?

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And so democrats keep coming. Barr laid down a strong bed of denial, but it's based on so little that it was only meant to delay. To his credit, that helped, for surely if he hadn't, this would have been much worse.

    But the truth persists. Whatever else happens, we know who stands for truth around here.

    And it sure ain't Barr.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    But when the heavily redacted report finally arrived, it was far from exculpatory. Democrats want to investigate.

    It was exactly exculpatory...

    President Trump has been unequivocally and completely exonerated with regards to Russia Collusion..

    All you have is 'whataboutism's...

    Nope. Not going anywhere.

    That's great.. I am ECSTATIC that you are willing to do your part to re-elect President Trump in a landslide.. :D

    But the truth persists. Whatever else happens, we know who stands for truth around here.

    Democrats are for "truth".. THEIR "truth"..

    Me??

    I am into FACTS..

    And the FACT is President Trump has been completely, utterly and unequivocally exonerated over Russia Collusion...

    This is the FACT that you can't even THINK, let alone say aloud...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:
  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:
  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/04/18/purity-tests-how-media-describes-progressives-standing-principles

    Well, ain't that a "kick" that hits the bullseye- or is it hit the bullshit in the eye?

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    (to make a statement against Trump's "very fine people on both sides" idiocy).

    Why exactly is that idiocy?? Is it not factually accurate???

    I mean, granted.. The ones who actually started the violence and broke the law were AntiFa terrorists.. But I am sure there were fine people who were simply protesting the racists and the nazis... Just as there were people who were protesting the removal of historical monuments..

    But to deny that there were fine people on the Left is not factually accurate..

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fear - relief - crowing - eating crow.

    Been a tough week for Republicans.

    FEAR
    For two years they have been projecting their fear onto Democrats, claiming that we all thought the Mueller Report would result ing Trump being frogmarched from the Oval Office, when in fact only a tiny percentage, if that, of Democrats claimed any such thing. The howling and frenzy about the Mueller Report has been led from the top "My Presidency is over. I'm f**ked", and parroted by the right wingers around here.

    RELIEF
    The Mueller Report came out, and not only did the Dear Leader not get immediately imprisoned, but the pretend AG, Barr, became Trump's defense lawyer and made them all feel better.

    CROWING
    The right wing isn't very smart, they should have adopted a more conciliatory approach, but extreme emotions (they are the "feelies" after all) took control and their relief transformed into crowing about how the "libtards" were wrong to expect Trump to be frogmarched (even though nobody did on the left, for the most part).

    EATING CROW
    You'd have thought the right wing would have learned by now, but then to be right wing today requires coping with a lot of cognitive dissonance, and the smart right wingers have run away from this dumpster fire of a Presidency. Now part of the report is out, even that shows that Trump was as guilty as sin of obstruction and attempted obstruction.

    When will they learn that anybody who comes into contact with Trump is smeared for a long time with the stench of his lies, shamelessness, and venality?

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think what saved Trump was a little understood DOJ guideline that says a sitting president can't be indicted.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    When will they learn that anybody who comes into contact with Trump is smeared for a long time with the stench of his lies, shamelessness, and venality?

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

    I have to ask.. What are you going to do when President Trump wins in 2020 by landslide??

    What will your excuse be??

    Yunno, when you constantly lose and lose and lose and are wrong about EVERYTHING, a normal rational person would have to eventually concede that their political beliefs are shit.. :D

    I'm just saying...

    https://youtu.be/_1vTGN52MCc

    That's gonna be ya on 4 Nov 2020.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think what saved Trump was a little understood DOJ guideline that says a sitting president can't be indicted.

    Mueller could have recommended that, if Trump had not been President, he should be indicted...

    If Mueller actually believed that the offenses warranted indictment..

    Mueller didn't recommend indictment, so obviously he felt that the offenses didn't warrant indictment..

    Irregardless, Mueller's probe was to find facts to support Russia Collusion. Mueller clearly stated there were no such facts...

    Since there was no collusion, Mueller likely felt that any "obstruction" to the pursuit of something that wasn't there wasn't warranted..

    Ya'all can keep wallowing in this if you wish.. But it will only serve to make President Trump stronger and make his re-election even more guaranteed than it already is..

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, as I've mentioned before, the Helsinki presser where Trump bowed to Putin was the clincher for me. I don't understand why it wasn't for Republicans ...

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Also, Michale, as Mueller reported, there was plenty of collusion but no evidence that could be gathered to prove criminal conspiracy or coordination.

    Of course, conspiracy and coordination isn't the way the top spy in Russia operates, you know.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi Pressured as Progressives Demand Impeachment Post-Mueller
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-20/pelosi-pressured-as-progressives-demand-impeachment-post-mueller

    Apparently, the socialists aren't too confident they can best Trump at the ballot box....

    It will be interesting to see if Pelosi caves to her fringe wing...

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    rregardless, Mueller's probe was to find facts to support Russia Collusion. Mueller clearly stated there were no such facts...

    I know you know that the above statement is false and uncorroborated by the Report.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, I think it is pretty safe to say that the Democrats won't begin impeachment proceeding until they have the support of the senate Republicans ...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Michale, as I've mentioned before, the Helsinki presser where Trump bowed to Putin was the clincher for me. I don't understand why it wasn't for Republicans ...

    For those who were already inclined to dis-like Trump......

    It's nothing more than confirmation bias...

    Also, Michale, as Mueller reported, there was plenty of collusion

    There was plenty that COULD be explained by collusion.. Could also be explained by a host of other factors..

    There was no facts to support collusion.. No matter how you want to spin it, this is the overriding fact of the Mueller report...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know you know that the above statement is false and uncorroborated by the Report.

    There were no facts to support Russia Collusion..

    That is what Mueller stated...

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mueller stated no such thing, Michale.

    You know that because you know the difference between 'collusion' and 'conspiracy/coordination.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There was plenty that COULD be explained by collusion.. Could also be explained by a host of other factors..

    I just finished reading the parts that could be explained by collusion. But, I can't think of any other factors that might explain the numerous contacts with Russia. You'll have to help me with that one ...

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, did you see the Helsinki presser with Trump and Putin.

    I still cringe just thinking about it ...

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There were no facts to support Russia Collusion.. That is what Mueller stated...

    I don't suppose you can provide a quote or something … :)

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know that because you know the difference between 'collusion' and 'conspiracy/coordination.

    According to ya'all for the last 2 years, they are one and the same...

    I know it's hard to take.. But Mueller unequivocally exonerated President Trump with regards to Russia Collusion..

    It's time to move on to the next "I HATE PRESIDENT TRUMP" shiny...

    This dog won't hunt...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't suppose you can provide a quote or something … :)

    I'll do one better..

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html

    Enjoy :D

    Lemme know if you find anything that indicates I am in error.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know it's hard to take.. But Mueller unequivocally exonerated President Trump with regards to Russia Collusion..

    In the real world, Michale, Mueller stated that he could not exonerate the president.

    Fish in the barrel, Michale. It's almost too easy to be any fun ... almost.

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [42]

    GIMME A BREAK, MICHALE!

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Lemme know if you find anything that indicates I am in error.. :D

    Actually, I'll be glad to do that, just as soon as I finish reading it.

    Almost everything you have said here about the report is in error.

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll provide you with the relevant quotes to dispute what you have posted here.

    I think you owe me the same.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You really should get off of the 'collusion' bandwagon the President is driving.

    This report was not undertaken to prove collusion. Mostly because collusion is in plain sight. Of course, collusion isn't a crime and the president is free to collude with the Russians all he wants. It just doesn't look good on a POTUS.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you looking for a quote, Michale? I can feel one coming …

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A link from CNN!!!??? Are you kidding, Michale?

  50. [50] 
    Paula wrote:

    Among the stories coming to light in the Mueller Report are details about how Julian Assange and Sean Hannity despicably hyped the Seth Rich conspiracy disinfo.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-report-julian-assange-smeared-seth-rich-to-cover-for-russians

    With Assange behind it, the Seth Rich hoax moved into the almost-mainstream, spawning a quickly-retracted report on Fox News, and a series of “investigations” by Assange ally Sean Hannity. It also wreaked havoc in the lives of Rich’s surviving family, particularly his anguished parents who later begged perpetrators of the charade “to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son's murder.”

    Even as he was ruthlessly framing Rich to protect himself, the GRU, or both, Assange was privately communicating with his real sources to arrange the transfer of the second election leak, material the GRU stole from John Podesta’s Gmail account.

    ...In the end, the most charitable interpretation of Assange’s “dissembling” as Mueller calls it, in the Seth Rich hoax is that he genuinely couldn’t rule out the possibility that Rich was his source. The Mueller report demolished that final moral refuge. Rich had been dead four days when Assange received the DNC files.

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    Nice summary here: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-campaign-was-deeply-co-opted-by-russian-influence-operation

    While special counsel Robert Mueller was unable to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian government, his redacted report paints a picture of a campaign deeply co-opted by a multi-pronged Russian influence campaign.

    The report details how over several months in the summer of 2016, different Russian intelligence operatives were able to alternately use the operation as an instrument for its own ends, receive inside information on the inner workings of the Trump campaign, and meet with its top officials.

  52. [52] 
    Paula wrote:

    Can't wait to see Mueller testify.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the real world, Michale, Mueller stated that he could not exonerate the president.

    Context, Liz.. Context..

    Mueller stated he is not exonerating President Trump with regards to the obstruction issue...

    Mueller made no such equivocation with regards to Russia Collusion...

    I'll provide you with the relevant quotes to dispute what you have posted here.

    I think you owe me the same.

    I can't prove a negative.. If you cannot find ANY facts to dispute my conclusion that is all I can show you..

    You really should get off of the 'collusion' bandwagon the President is driving.

    That "collusion bandwagon" is the SOLE REASON that Mueller was appointed!!!

    And NOW... Now because it didn't go your way, you want to forget about it?? :D

    This report was not undertaken to prove collusion.

    Yes, it was.....

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

    Of course, collusion isn't a crime and the president is free to collude with the Russians all he wants.

    Funny... That's the direct opposite of what ya'all have been saying since Nov of 2016.... :D

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    A link from CNN!!!??? Are you kidding, Michale?

    You don't trust CNN?? Since when??

    Would NPR suffice?? HuffPoop??? It's all the same Mueller Report...

  55. [55] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/19/mueller-report-trump-commander-in-chief-russia-oath-column/3506216002/

    The President of the United States, like all elected officials and public servants, swears to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies. But there is one responsibility the president must bear alone, and that is the obligation to act as the commander in chief, the guardian of our national security and the defender of our nation from malevolent foreign powers. The Mueller report makes clear that Donald Trump has failed miserably in this sacred obligation, and instead has traded his constitutional duty for his own safety.

    ...A president determined to defend the nation would take the Mueller report as a mark of shame, and then support a full and bipartisan investigation of the security of our election process. A president who takes seriously his oath as commander in chief would, in a better administration, be in shock to realize the astonishing level of penetration of his inner circle by agents of the Russian Federation. He would clean house and demand to know how his own campaign and how people who might still have access to the West Wing became threats to national security.

    A commander in chief who cared about the country would put the Russians on notice, and would do everything in his power to protect the institutions of American democracy.

    None of that will happen because Donald Trump is less concerned about his role as commander in chief than he is about his own safety and reputation.

    ...Russia attacked our democracy. Trump and his cronies knew it and were glad for it. As president, Trump has steadfastly refused to accept his responsibility to do anything about this assault on our institutions. This is a dereliction of duty, and it continues even now.

    Donald Trump is the president and the commander in chief until the Congress or the voters say he is not. But nothing will ever change the fact that Robert Mueller has dragged into the light one of the greatest and darkest stains on a presidency in American history.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Context, Liz.. Context..Mueller stated he is not exonerating President Trump with regards to the obstruction issue...

    Yes, Michale, you are right about that and I read your comment too fast.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There were no facts to support Russia Collusion.. That is what Mueller stated...

    Mueller didn't say that, Michale. You will not find such a quote from him in the report. Go ahead and read it in its entirety.

    I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm proving you wrong.

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's amazing how much the debate on the Mueller report has changed around here between before the report and after.

    It's almost impossible to link the positions of the commenters now to their positions previous to the report being released. :D

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Non-serious.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Michale, you are right about that and I read your comment too fast.

    Thank you Liz... :D

    As I predicted, there are a LOT of whataboutisms that Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters can hang their hats on... I am not arguing that..

    But, when it comes to Russia Collusion, President Trump has been unilaterally and unequivocally exonerated...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I predicted, there are a LOT of whataboutisms that Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters can hang their hats on... I am not arguing that..

    I won't even begrudge ya'all your whataboutism.. Of course, I'll point it out as it has constantly (and erroneously) been pointed out to me :D

    But you are correct.. There is much in Mueller's report that is not flattering to President Trump.. I will never argue that fact...

    But President Trump didn't get elected to be flattered or flattering.. He was elected to Make America Great Again..

    And, gosh darnit all, he is doing a bang up job of that!! :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme ask you something, Liz...

    Regardless of how you and I view the Mueller report...

    Do you think it's wise for Democrats to pursue action based on the report??

    Or is it more wise to move on and address the needs of the American people? The people who are CLEARLY sick and tired of all the bullshit and want our political leaders to quit farting around and get to work FOR the people???

    In other words...

    Do you want Democrats to take the Mueller Report and beat anyone and everyone over the head with it??

    Or do you think they should move on and get to the people's business??

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a totally unrelated note..

    Just got an interior view of Star Trek: Discovery's USS ENTERPRISE

    WOW......

    Just.... WOW....

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think the Democrats should focus on doing the business of the people.

    And, a good place to start would be passing legislation to send more judges and other personnel who are desperately needed at the border to more efficiently process legitimate asylum claims. The Democrats are derelict in their duty if they don't quickly act on this immediate humanitarian crisis at the border.

    Because the president certainly isn't using his emergency powers to facilitate any of this.

    I'm not sure how Congress - Democrats and Republicans - should deal with the Report. I don't think it should be ignored. But, I also don't think beginning the process of impeachment is a smart strategy, at least not until Republican senators support it.

    There is quite a lot in the Report that the president should be held accountable for and I think the 2020 presidential election campaign may be the best way to bring that about.

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But, when it comes to Russia Collusion, President Trump has been unilaterally and unequivocally exonerated...

    Your arguments are generally based on some degree of the full truth. But, a great disservice is done to your case by using misleading statements like above.

    Mueller stated in his report that 'collusion' was decidedly NOT what he was investigating. Collusion is not a crime, it's a behavior and there was a lot of it, all detailed in his report.

    I wish you would use the right words in describing what the investigation failed to establish. Which is conspiracy and/or coordination. Mueller lays it all out in great clarity at the beginning of the report.

    By the way, I would also say that President Trump would be very wise to start saying that there was no conspiracy or coordination with the Russians. But, alas, being accurate has never been one of his strong suits. :(

  66. [66] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Sweet Jesus Weigantians, is the Mueller Report gonna last another 2 1/2 yrs, with nothing whatsoever being settled?

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Predictably non-serious.

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Do you want Democrats to take the Mueller Report and beat anyone and everyone over the head with it??

    no, only those heads that it incriminates (presumably most of those individuals are redacted because their cases are ongoing).

    Or do you think they should move on and get to the people's business??

    holding to account those who have abused their power IS the people's business.

    JL

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sweet Jesus Weigantians, is the Mueller Report gonna last another 2 1/2 yrs, with nothing whatsoever being settled?

    Oh sure. How many iterations of Benghazi were there? 15, 16? And Trump wants another one.

    Face it, you're in for a long haul.

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sweet Jesus Weigantians

    Just want to see if it's working

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sweet Jesus Weigantians

    Is this right?

  72. [72] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, I've got it.

    Senior moment.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, only those heads that it incriminates

    According to many people here (and the vast majority of the Hysterical Left Wingery) that includes **EVERYONE** who doesn't toe their social construct line.. You know I'm factually accurate in that..

    As such, it doesn't bode well for the future of the Democrat Party..

  74. [74] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Happy April 20!

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, just finished Season 2 of STAR TREK DISCOVERY

    WOW.....

    So...

    Season 3 takes place 940 years AFTER Kirk and Spock and McCoy??

    Fascinating.... :D

  76. [76] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    MDDOTW is Mayor Pete for colluding with Fox for a town hall.

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, John, Mayor Pete is doing the right thing.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    How do you think Trump should be held accountable?

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do you think Trump should be held accountable?

    You FIRST have to **PROVE** beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime..

    As of now, President Trump is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY innocent of ANY crime..

    Don'tcha think PROVING GUILT should come BEFORE being held accountable??????

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    A note to the Democrat Party...

    Winter is coming...

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You FIRST have to **PROVE** beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime..

    Why should I, Michale. My standard for very, very bad behavior is not whether a crime was committed!

    By the way, how do you think the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo about their guidance that a sitting president cannot be indicted?

    Mueller was obliged to follow this guidance so, from the get go, he wasn't going to charge the president with anything.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be clear …

    By the way, how do you think the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo about their guidance that a sitting president cannot be indicted impact the conclusions of the Mueller report?

    Mueller was obliged to follow this guidance so, from the get go, he wasn't going to charge the president with anything.

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You're not really saying that POTUS can do anything POTUS wants - no matter how bad the behavior is - so long as it isn't a crime, are you?

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're not really saying that POTUS can do anything POTUS wants - no matter how bad the behavior is - so long as it isn't a crime, are you?

    The **ONLY** recourse that is possible, in this case, is to hold the President "accountable" at the ballot box...

    Agreed???

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller was obliged to follow this guidance so, from the get go, he wasn't going to charge the president with anything.

    Mueller and his team wasn't a grand jury.. It was an investigative unit..

    The unit investigated and determined that no crime was committed with regards to Russia Collusion...

    Do you accept that determination or not??

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale, did you read [64]?

    Stop using the word 'collusion'; as the Special Counsel notes in his report, it is an essentially meaningless word.

    It is more accurate to say that the investigation did not establish that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. But, as the report also states, just because the investigation could not establish a fact doesn't mean that there was no evidence of that fact.

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    11

    Oh, there are lots of ways to 'do' impeachment without calling it that - I'm quite sure that Nadler has considered them all.

    Yep.

    Nadler may have to open impeachment just to get some of the documents he needs. If so, this 'report' gives him all of the cover that he needs.

    And moving ahead, next up, we have the Roger Stone trial for multiple crimes. If Mueller's findings are correct, Stone is clearly and obviously guilty of perjury and has a high probability of going to prison for a decent stretch of time.

    Either way the election begins this year. Certainly, if the election is ALL about Trump, I'm fine with that.

    I like the way you think. If the election is a referendum on Trump, he likely will be "f***ed" (his term for himself because he knows what he did... consciousness of guilt).

    New York State isn't done with Trump either, and they have no such impediment to indicting a sitting POTUS. :)

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very nice. :)

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    18

    Yep... to everything you said.

    Funny, the way that Barr declared the matter over and done with the moment the report came out. Republicans danced in the street.

    Honestly, after reading the report and reading between the lines, it appears to me that Barr declared the matter over before the report came out. I won't get into the weeds about the details, but I am convinced that Barr rolled up the investigation... gave Mueller a short window to shut it down. I would subpoena Mueller and first question would be: Did the Attorney General tell you to wrap it up early? It appears so.

    Unfortunately for Trump and company, Mueller had set it up where no one could shut it down in the same way that Comey had done the same thing.

    But when the heavily redacted report finally arrived, it was far from exculpatory. Democrats want to investigate.

    It's actually their constitutional duty to investigate. Republicans abdicated their constitutional duty, and not only that, the head of the Senate and House investigative committees were running interference for Trump... Burr and Nunes. Devin Nunes, call your lawyer; there is a redacted section with Devin Nunes' name written all over it and obstruction of justice. Burr at the very least has some 'splaining to do.

    Republicans want to keep chanting. Maybe if they chant hard enough it'll all go away.

    Heh.

    Nope. Not going anywhere.

    There are sealed indictments with more coming. Now does everybody believe me about the sealed indictments?

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Well, ain't that a "kick" that hits the bullseye- or is it hit the bullshit in the eye?

    Oh, look! After 3+ years, Don Harris has apparently discovered the ability to locate an opinion piece on the Internet that validates his worldview.

    I wonder if it will take Don 3 more years to discover how little anyone cares.

    Not clicking your link, Don. :)

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Quote from the introduction of the Mueller report:

    A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

    Far from the "total exoneration" Trump and his ilk are claiming. What Mueller decided regarding "conspiracy" was not to prosecute for it. He obviously did not think he could get a conviction, and this is a high profile case.

    Setting aside the fact that Mueller himself decided not to prosecute for "conspiracy" with the "Russian government," that is one heck of a narrow window that does not preclude prosecution for conspiracy with WikiLeaks or any other entity who isn't the "Russian government."

    Besides Mueller's decision not to prosecute for "conspiracy" with the "Russian government," he had determined from the very outset of his investigation that he was not going to indict the sitting President of the United States.

    Having said all that, there is a boatload of crimes still being investigated... witness Appendix D. This this is literally years from being over for Trump and company, and...

    Start spreading the news
    I'm leaving today
    I want to be a part of it
    New York, New York. :)

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    26

    Exactly this!

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    52

    Can't wait to see Mueller testify.

    Yes, ma'am.

    First question: Your investigation was fully funded through September 2019; were you in any way given a deadline by Bill Barr to "roll it up"?

  94. [94] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [89]:

    I'm with you. The sheer number of redacted cases makes your point. Mueller notes pressure on time when he discusses the President's deposition, or more accurately, lack of. He notes that he could get more if he had the time.

    Then again, don't drop all of your eggs into that basket. Mueller could have been playing us for chumps all along. There's a reason that Rosenstein keeps popping up everywhere. What if the entire goal was to whitewash what was really going on? Maybe Rosenstein kept counseling Trump: "Shut up, and we'll get you out of this". Keep your guard up. Demand proof.

    Mueller would understand. His reputation, like Barr's, is at stake, and I think he cares about that. He had no problem listing attacks against him personally as obstruction.

    His testimony ought to be interesting.

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    94

    Then again, don't drop all of your eggs into that basket. Mueller could have been playing us for chumps all along.

    No. Mueller is a straight shooter... by the book. If he wanted to "play," he wouldn't have created a roadmap to impeachment with 10 paths leading to the highway. Seriously, the absolute worst thing that could be said about Mueller is that he is the type of prosecutor who wins all his cases because he chooses not to prosecute the ones that are not "slam dunk" cases. Mueller has a reputation and would like to keep it, and that's very good news for the future and the reason he wasn't standing behind Bill Barr.

    On the flip side of that, Appendix D is a testimony to the cases that Mueller feels are "slam dunk" cases. I'm looking at you, Roger Stone. I will say this, if Jerome Corsi is indicted, he is the final link of something that I won't get into the weeds on at the present time. If Corsi is indicted, expect Trump's twitter feed to ballistic.

    There's a reason that Rosenstein keeps popping up everywhere.

    Rosenstein was set to leave the DOJ. There is definitely a reason he hasn't. I will not assume it is a nefarious reason yet. We'll see, though.

    What if the entire goal was to whitewash what was really going on? Maybe Rosenstein kept counseling Trump: "Shut up, and we'll get you out of this". Keep your guard up. Demand proof.

    Not likely... considering lots of things about counterintelligence and sources and methods.

    His testimony ought to be interesting.

    Yes, and Barr saying he wouldn't mind Mueller testifying... *laughs* :)

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (59)-
    Was that referring to my comment?

    If so, how is my comment non-serious?

    Just because I used a bit of a joke to make a point doesn't mean it wasn't a serious point.

    But If you really want to discuss something serious, clearly comment 5 contains a serious issue relevant to CW's article.

    Does the way the examples provided by CW actually count donations as if they were donors?

    Does CW do the same?

    How can these deceptions not be serious?

    Shouldn't people that use the term small donor apply it correctly and only to donors and not to donations?

    Shouldn't people that use the term small donor define what a small donor is?

    How can you let the opportunity for serious discussion pass when you are always complaining aboot the lack of serious discussion?

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    It's obvious you don't care aboot One Demand.

    And if you were anyone it might matter.

    It's also obvious you enjoy pretending to be stupid.

    Or maybe you really are stupid enough to again prove a point made in a previous thread on how you are afraid to find out whether you may be right or wrong.

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    JFC
    74

    Happy April 20!

    Happy 4/20, John... yet another of the "social wars" that the GOP and their ilk are losing... and losing "bigly." :)

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    97

    It's obvious you don't care aboot One Demand.

    Me and 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of the entire world, Don... so I think I'm in extremely good company for the most part.

    And if you were anyone it might matter.

    Says the guy who describes himself in the following manner:

    I have none of the credentials normally listed in a bio. No degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism. I am simply an average person that has been working and living at survival mode. But I have the only credentials that I believe really matters. I am a citizen and I have an idea that may improve our political system. ~ Don Harris

    As I have stated many times, you could shorten that whole testament to ignorance and simply say: "I have no education, no experience, no success, and absolutely no idea what I'm talking about." :)

    It's also obvious you enjoy pretending to be stupid.

    Juxtaposed with your admission to the entire world (see blockquote above) regarding the state of your intellectual development, I'd will say without equivocation or hesitation that "pretending" would be much preferable than your admitted condition of being positively bottom rung "average."

    Or maybe you really are stupid enough to again prove a point made in a previous thread on how you are afraid to find out whether you may be right or wrong.

    No one here is afraid of words, Don. This latest 2-bit hysterically comical argument that any of the commenters on this forum are "afraid" of your ideas or your comments after reading and responding to the bullshit for 3+ years are a living testament to your ignorance, but as an exercise in your obvious attempt at self-preservation, I'd say that convincing yourself everyone else is just "afraid" of your bullshit means never having to admit the fact that the majority just flat out couldn't care less about your "idea."

    Enjoy your delusion, Don, but do not for one moment buy into the utterly nonsensical notion that you're fooling anyone... with the obvious exception of yourself. :)

  100. [100] 
    Paula wrote:

    [93]Kick: Yep.

  101. [101] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [75]

    I loved MOST of the episode! I say “most” only because they chose to have some incredible dialogue stated at the most ridiculous time considering the events taking place. Spock and Burnham’s emotional make-up/goodbye was powerfully written and beautifully performed, but they’s SHOOTING AT YOU! It took way too much time during a battle where every second mattered.

    I hear that there is a big push for an Enterprise spinoff with Capt. Pike (Roddenberry‘s first choice) and crew. I know they are working on Picard’s new show and a 31 spinoff for after Season 3 of Discovery, but I would love to see Pike, Spock, and Number 1 leading the Enterprise!

  102. [102] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Wrote this on yesterday’s column by mistake.

    Michale:

    I am guessing that you have no plans to read the report so not to effect your unabashed cheerleading for Trump... which makes no sense for someone who loves to brag about how much more patriotic he is than anyone on here is. I should have said that it makes no sense for someone being honest about the 2016 election.

    Forget Hillary, forget Trump...neither of them were at the center of the initial investigation into Russia’s interference into our election. The Special Prosecutor was only brought in after Trump fired the FBI Director after he would not drop the Russian investigation with regards to Flynn. Trump stated publicly that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation — believing that he would be able to dictate how the investigation would work so not to include his own campaign being investigated.

    Do you believe Putin thought that Trump would be a strong president, and that is why he supported him? Or is it more likely that he thought Trump would be such a clusterfuck that he would do unimaginable harm to our country and it’s position of influence in the world? Why would Putin want someone who could “Make America Great Again” like America had been during the days of the Soviet Union?

    You have a foreign government contacting and openly telling a candidate that they are helping to get that candidate elected (and offer to assist even more if need be), and the candidate and everyone in the campaign lie when questioned about these contacts.

    The sad part is that the counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump conspired with Russia did not start because of all of the lies he told, it only started after he took steps to obstruct the investigation into the actions of a foreign power! The FBI’s investigation was not focused on Trump, it was focused on Russia! Trump made it all about Trump!

    Mueller also made in clear that there is a lot more information not included in his report that our intelligence agencies have collected regarding Trump’s campaign’s contacts with Russia that they could request, if they choose to. After reading the report, it really seems that the only thing that prevented conspiracy charges from being filed against Trump wasn’t a lack of evidence, but the DOJ policy on indicting a sitting president.

    So I have to ask you, why do you think it is “patriotic” to support a president that accepted foreign aide in winning the election? You can claim that there is no proof that Russian interference had any effect on how people voted...but I have no doubt that if we looked back over all of the stories you posted on this site bashing Clinton during the election that we would find that some of those were created by the Russian misinformation effort. If it would have no effect over how people voted, then why would Putin do it? Why?

    This has never been about Republican vs. Democrat, this is about a foreign government interfering with the selection of our president. That our president has intentionally attempted to undermine that investigation is not acceptable, regardless of their party affiliation.

    And in making it all about himself, he violated his oath of office to uphold and defend the laws of this country. Mueller laid out a very clear road map for successfully charging Trump with obstruction that either Congress can use for impeachment or that will be used to indict Trump if he leaves office prior to the statute of limitations expiring.

    The only reason Trump is not facing felony charges is because the DOJ believes that it cannot charge a sitting president...that is it! Any other person in this country would face charges...you and I would both have been indicted if we did what Trump did...but Trump will not as long as he is president. Why would you support that?!?!

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stop using the word 'collusion'; as the Special Counsel notes in his report, it is an essentially meaningless word.

    Yer kidding, right??

    ALL of you, including you, have been using the term "collusion" for over 2 years..

    And **I** (and another) have been telling you for that same over 2 years that it's a meaningless word..

    NOW that it comes to pass that I (and CRS) was totally and completely FACTUALLY ACCURATE and ya'all were totally and utterly WRONG.....

    NOW you want to pretend ya'all were right all along?? :D

    Sorry, Liz.. I luv ya and all, but ya'all chose the COLLUSION label and now it's affixed to ALL of you.. With Super Gorilla Glue..

    :D

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    I loved MOST of the episode! I say “most” only because they chose to have some incredible dialogue stated at the most ridiculous time considering the events taking place. Spock and Burnham’s emotional make-up/goodbye was powerfully written and beautifully performed, but they’s SHOOTING AT YOU! It took way too much time during a battle where every second mattered.

    I know, right!!!

    I was like, "There's something that just doesn't quite sit right, but I can't put my finger on it.." :D

    I hear that there is a big push for an Enterprise spinoff with Capt. Pike (Roddenberry‘s first choice) and crew. I know they are working on Picard’s new show and a 31 spinoff for after Season 3 of Discovery, but I would love to see Pike, Spock, and Number 1 leading the Enterprise!

    I hadn't heard of the Pike spin-off... That would be kewl..

    My biggest rant with STD (besides the acronym :D) is what it does to Canon..

    On the other hand, the blatant and obvious attempts to placate canon are cute and endearing..

    "We must never speak of Burnham or Discovery ever again!!"
    -Lt Spock

    Which is why we never heard it mentioned at all during Kirk's reign... It was an obvious attempt to appease canon. It was silly and ridiculous, but it was cute that they made the attempt.. :D

    But it brings up another conundrum... Will there be a Season 3 of STD?? Will it take place 940 years after the events of Season 2??

    That would be around the time of the USS RELATIVITY so we know Starfleet and (presumably) The Federation exists..

    I know you said you thought that Season 3 of STD will be a Section 31-centric based season... But, if Spock's soliloquy at the end of Season 2 is correct, Discovery will never be mentioned again..

    I haven't been this WOW/confused at then end of a season since the Cylons took over New Caprica.. Looking forward to Season 3 of Discovery.. IF there is a Season 3.

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ALL of you, including you, have been using the term "collusion" for over 2 years..

    No, Michale, it's not my word. It's the president's word. Don't put that on me.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Conservation Officer Eugene Wynn
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
    Enforcement Division, Minnesota
    End of Watch: Friday, April 19, 2019

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

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Michale, it's not my word. It's the president's word. Don't put that on me.

    Sorry, Liz you are incorrect..

    Hillary and the rest of the Trump/America haters used the word "collusion" long before the President ever did..

    If you disputed the word, why didn't you speak up against it, as CRS and I have, anytime during the last 2+ years??

    "Collusion" is a Democrat construct. Of that there is no doubt..

    You don't get to rewrite recent history solely because your side was wrong...

    It's against the rules.. :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I am guessing that you have no plans to read the report so not to effect your unabashed cheerleading for Trump...

    I don't need to...

    The *ONLY* question I had is:

    Did President Trump collude with the Russians to win the election??

    It's clear that Mueller has completely and utterly exonerated the President of that question..

    I don't care if Trump dotted a T and crossed an I.... I don't care if Trump said "shit" when he should have said "crap"..

    I don't even care if the President ranted and raved about firing Mueller and lashed out thru people he KNEW understood that he (the President) was just ranting and raving...

    As I said before many times.. The President colluding with the Russians to win the election.. Not just getting oppo research, but actually making an effort to rig the election..

    THAT would have been criminal.. Under those conditions, *I* would have advocated impeachment..

    But Mueller cleared President Trump of that..

    So I'm good... :D

    Do you believe Putin thought that Trump would be a strong president, and that is why he supported him?

    I don't presume to mind-read Putin.. Such actions invariably tell more about the reader and nothing about the readee...

    However, if you HAVE to have an answer, I would say the Putin probably chose, what HE thought, would be the lesser capable....

    But, much like Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters..... Putin underestimated President Trump... :D

    So I have to ask you, why do you think it is “patriotic” to support a president that accepted foreign aide in winning the election?

    Hillary Clinton also accepted foreign aide in an attempt to win the election..

    Why doesn't THAT bother you??

    You see, this is EXACTLY why I don't get excited over your claims.. Because I know they are based on nothing but your ideological bent and not on anything factual or relevant..

    If true and valid oppo research from the Russians won Trump the election, big woop..... If the oppo research was THAT damaging to Hillary that it cost her the election?? Maybe she shouldn't have done such bad things in the first place, eh???

    Make note, that NO ONE has disputed the validity of the oppo research against Hillary Clinton..

    So, who is the bigger scumbag?? Clinton for doing the bad things?? Or the oppo researcher who made Clinton's bad things public???

    This has never been about Republican vs. Democrat, this is about a foreign government interfering with the selection of our president.

    And yet, you ignore that the DEMOCRAT who accepted help from a foreign government which YOU claim is "interfereing" with our election..

    Not about Democrat vs Republican, you say?? Bullshit..

    That is ***ALL*** it's about..

    Would you be complaining about Ukraine's "interference" in our elections if Hillary had won???

    You and I both know you wouldn't..

    The only reason Trump is not facing felony charges is because the DOJ believes that it cannot charge a sitting president...that is it!

    That's not a "belief" it's a fact..

    It's also a FACT that you CAN impeach the President and then have him face those felony charges if the alleged charges are serious enough to warrant it..

    Apparently, it's universally accepted that impeachment is NOT on the table...

    So, that doesn't say much for your "felony charges"...

    Why are you so afraid of simply taking down President Trump at the ballot box???

    Is it because you know you can't?? Because a sitting POTUS with the economy humming along grandly is all but untouchable as far as replacing him goes??

    If that's what you think then I whole-heartedly agree with you..

    Democrats will lose and lose BIG in their "Plan B"...

    So, by all means.. Keep hammering away at the Mueller Report. It's your ONLY hope... :D

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Top 10 things the media got wrong about ‘collusion’ and ‘obstruction’
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/19/top-10-things-the-media-got-wrong-about-collusion-and-obstruction/

    Just a small sample of how Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters scroo'ed the pooch...

    By all means.. Keep the Mueller Report alive and in the minds of every American for the next 18 months..

    It will serve the Democrat Party SOOOOOO well.... :D

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that it is UNIVERSALLY AGREED by ANYONE and EVERYONE who has weighed in..

    Regardless of the ATTEMPTS by the Russian government, the sanctity and integrity of the 2016 was NEVER compromised..

    Russia tried to interfere in our elections. As they have done since Russia was the USSR and beyond that..

    But they failed...

    And the attempt is *ONLY* an issue because Hillary lost...

  111. [111] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    If you're interested in more analysis about campaign funding, here's an interesting article, graphs included.
    'In 2018, liberal dark-money groups outspent conservative dark money for the first time, according to Issue One, which advocates for bipartisan political reform. Though such groups are barred from coordinating directly with campaigns, in the tight-knit world of politics such lines can be blurred.'
    https://www.csmonitor.com/Daily/2019/20190306/Checking-candidates-claims-of-just-little-guy-donors

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    'In 2018, liberal dark-money groups outspent conservative dark money for the first time

    And the condemnation from the Left???

    {{{cccchhhhiiiirrrrrpppppp}}} {{{ccchhhiiirrrrpppppp}}}

    Yet when the Right leads the way in dark money, the Left can't shut up about it...

    That is exactly why I can't ever get excited from the accusations of the Left..

    Because I know full well that whatever they are complaining about is NOT the issue.. The issue is solely based on the -D/-R construct...

  113. [113] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Kick makes something up, says it and therefore it must true.

    Your 99.99....% is a perfect example.

    There are people that do like the idea. For example, a comment on the Radio Hour website generated a response that said "Ralph, as a long time listener please get this guy on your show ASAP and several signatures on the Nader petition.

    I have also received positive responses on other places where I have commented.

    The truth is that 99.99% of people have never heard aboot One Demand. It is not possible to either care or not care aboot something that you do not know aboot.

    You mat have been reading my comments, but your responses are not responses to my comments. Your responses are just stuff you make up to argue against because you are not able to make a rational argument against my actual comments.

    That is the proof that you are afraid to address One Demand.

    And you think because morons like Paula say "Yep!" when you talk aboot how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are that your delusions make sense.

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Italyrusty-
    Sorry I couldn't read the article without subscribing or logging in.

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    113

    Kick makes something up, says it and therefore it must true.

    Your 99.99....% is a perfect example.

    Yes, Don, the 99.99% figure I quoted is the perfect example of a fact. How sad for you that you're incapable of grasping even a simple concept. Allow me to reiterate the fact that 99.99% of the world doesn't care about your failed political venture. Can you find two brain cells to rub together to grasp the concept that people don't care about something they know nothing about? It's easy if you try.

    There are people that do like the idea. For example, a comment on the Radio Hour website generated a response that said "Ralph, as a long time listener please get this guy on your show ASAP and several signatures on the Nader petition.

    Several signatures!? Wow, Don; you're proving my point. Thank you so much. Also, you seem to have forgotten that I'm one of the 99.99% of the people in the world that doesn't care.

    The truth is that 99.99% of people have never heard aboot One Demand.

    Yes, obviously I already know that... hence my very factual statement that 99.99% of the world doesn't care about it. It's quite impossible to care about an "idea" that you have no idea exists.

    You mat have been reading my comments, but your responses are not responses to my comments.

    Responses by definition are "responses." You seem determined to prove that bottom rung "average" you describe in your bio, but there's really no need to keep digging down into that same hole when you've made your point a thousand times over.

    Your responses are just stuff you make up to argue against because you are not able to make a rational argument against my actual comments.

    Well, I do create my own responses so they're obviously "stuff." Thank you for that admission that my responses are indeed "responses." You're contradicting yourself, but that's all part and parcel of living up to your pathetic description of yourself. Like I said, you needn't keep proving your admitted ignorance.

    That is the proof that you are afraid to address One Demand.

    No one on this forum is "afraid" of your failed BS, but I see your self-protection mechanism is alive and well. Can you find it in your mind somewhere to figure out the vast difference between "afraid" and "uninterested" and "apathetic"? Use a dictionary and really try.

    And you think because morons like Paula say "Yep!" when you talk aboot how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are that your delusions make sense.

    I hate to break the news to you, but you're the demonstrable "moron" who is too ignorant to figure out that Paula was saying "yep" to an entirely different question that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you or your failed BS, and furthermore I would wager without hesitation that we could safely include Paula in that 99.99% of people in the world who doesn't care one whit about it. :)

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    The special counsel ended his investigation last month, pointedly choosing not to reach a conclusion about whether the president had obstructed justice.

    WASHINGTON — For nearly two years, the public, Congress and the White House waited to learn if special counsel Robert Mueller would find that President Donald Trump had committed crimes. When the answer was finally revealed, it turned out Mueller didn’t think that was his job at all.

    The special counsel ended his investigation last month, pointedly choosing not to reach a conclusion about whether the president had obstructed justice.

    In a report of its findings, Mueller’s team said that choice was driven in large part by a long-standing legal opinion at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that a sitting president should not be indicted, even if the charges remained sealed.

    Mueller’s team concluded that also meant they could not accuse the president of a crime, even in secret internal documents, the report said.

    That move surprised everyone, including Attorney General William Barr and his senior advisers, according to current and former Justice Department officials. When Mueller presented his findings without reaching a decision about the president, Barr reviewed the evidence and decided that Trump had not obstructed justice.

    The unusual ending to the investigation stems from a key legal disagreement between Mueller’s team and Barr - opening the door to further political fights over presidential power, Justice Department policies and decision-making inside the Trump administration.
    https://www.oakridger.com/zz/news/20190420/how-legal-dispute-drove-end-of-special-counsels-probe

    It was Mueller's choice not to recommend charges against the POTUS for obstruction..

    If ya'all have a beef with that, take it up with Mueller, the man ya'all beautified and put up on the pedestal of honor and integrity...

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LOOK, MICHALE!!!

    Everybody and their brother, including the president and the media used and use the word collusion as an example of a crime.

    I wasn't one of them and neither was the Special Counsel.

    The only time I used the word was to declare that the president and members of his campaign and administration most decidedly colluded with the Russians. Heck, they gave collusion whole new meaning but let's not complicate the matter.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everybody and their brother, including the president and the media used and use the word collusion as an example of a crime.

    Yes, that's what I have been saying...

    I wasn't one of them and neither was the Special Counsel.

    Special Counsel wasn't saying much of anything so....

    The only time I used the word was to declare that the president and members of his campaign and administration most decidedly colluded with the Russians. Heck, they gave collusion whole new meaning but let's not complicate the matter.

    That's your opinion and I respect that.. But it's not the reality...

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you think Trump "colluded" then you MUST concede that Hillary and Sanders *ALSO* "colluded"....

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You really do have to read the report, Michale.

    The first volume outlines all of the collusive behavior the Trump campaign engaged in. It shows how incredibly easy it was for Russian operatives to make fruitful contact with the Campaign.

    Certainly and obviously, the president himself - disrupter-in-chief as he was - welcomed the efforts by the Russians to disrupt the 2016 election.

    And, don't forget the Helsinki presser! That's what really sticks in my craw.

    Can you explain to me how and when congressional Republicans came to be so seemingly in the pocket of Putin!?

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you think Trump "colluded" then you MUST concede that Hillary and Sanders *ALSO* "colluded"....

    Non-serious.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you think Trump "colluded" then you MUST concede that Hillary and Sanders *ALSO* "colluded"....

    Non-serious.

    But factually accurate...

    Can you explain to me how and when congressional Republicans came to be so seemingly in the pocket of Putin!?

    Easy.. They're not..

    You only want them to be because they are the "bad guys"..

    The FACTS clearly show that the administration of President Trump has been harder on Russia than Barack Give-Me-Space-To-Win-My-Election-And-I-Can-Be-More-Flexible-For-You Obama...

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you understand what I mean by 'Helsinki presser'
    ?

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just assumed they are in the pocket of Putin since they have said nothing about the president's very bad behavior when he is in the shadow of Putin.

    It's very hard for me to understand why you accept the president's behavior in this regard … ???

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you understand what I mean by 'Helsinki presser'

    Yes I do.. So Trump had an off day.. Big woop...

    Obama had plenty of them.. Remember the one where he was on a hot mike and bent the knee and promised fealty to Vlad??

    I just assumed they are in the pocket of Putin since they have said nothing about the president's very bad behavior when he is in the shadow of Putin.

    You saw what you wanted to see.. Just like the Mueller report..

    It's very hard for me to understand why you accept the president's behavior in this regard … ???

    Because I view it in the totality of his presidency, both good and bad..

    You only look at the bad..

  126. [126] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    yes. you are correct that Paula's comment was for an entirely different comment. My mistake.

    Apologies to Paula for mistakenly applying her yep to the wrong comment.

    See how easy that is?

    When I am wrong, I acknowledge it.

    But thank you for making my point while contradicting yourself by claiming your 99.99% that don't care aboot One Demand is a fact and state in the next sentence that they can't care aboot something they don't know aboot.

    One way people find out aboot things they don't know aboot such as One Demand is that the media informs them aboot these issues and ideas which is the basic definition of their job- to provide information to citizens that they are not getting.

    That's the whole reason I keep after CW as every activist does for the idea or issue they are working to solve until they get a response.

    Those are the facts in the real world. You are entitled to believe your fantasies and make an ass of yourself.

    But you being an asshole for 'kicks' is not going to stop me from doing what a citizen should do when they see a problem and a possible solution.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/should-a-white-man-be-the-face-of-the-democratic-party-in-2020/ar-BBW7KnG

    The mere fact that the question is being asked shows how racist and frak'ed up the Democrat Party is....

    :eyeroll:

  128. [128] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    The *ONLY* question I had is:

    Did President Trump collude with the Russians to win the election??

    It's clear that Mueller has completely and utterly exonerated the President of that question..

    Yes, by stating that “collusion” is not defined in legal terms that fit its general use during this investigation, therefore the investigation did not attempt to determine if “collusion” occurred.

    Make note, that NO ONE has disputed the validity of the oppo research against Hillary Clinton..

    What oppo research are you talking about? The hacked DNC emails? If so, I have a problem with anyone hacking private email accounts. I have a problem with Trump asking Russia to try to hack Clinton’s server and five hours later they attempted to hack her server.

    What foreign aide did Clinton get from the Ukraine? There is nothing illegal or wrong with hiring private investigations into a political opponents actions. The problem is when foreign gov’ts offer up dirt that was illegally obtained to one candidate and the candidate lies when questioned about it.

    So, that doesn't say much for your "felony charges"...

    A federal judge has referred to Trump as “unnamed co-conspirator #1” in their ruling... So there are plenty of felony charges to choose from.

    Why are you so afraid of simply taking down President Trump at the ballot box???

    Not afraid. I think the Democrats have an incredible field of candidates to work with, and Trump is not going to get any better at the job, that is clear!

    Russia tried to interfere in our elections. As they have done since Russia was the USSR and beyond that..

    But they failed...

    Weird, every intelligence agency in the country just called B.S. on that claim. Trump still accepts Putin’s claim that they did not even attempt to interfere with the election.

    I guess it is best that you don’t read the report... it shows Trump to be a coward, an idiot, and the least effective president to ever grace the White House.

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, by stating that “collusion” is not defined in legal terms that fit its general use during this investigation, therefore the investigation did not attempt to determine if “collusion” occurred.

    And yet, all of you have been using the term "collusion" for the last 2+ years as if President Trump COULD be guilty of it..

    Like Liz, NOW that you are confronted with the SAME facts me and CRS have been telling ya'all for the last 2+ years, NOW ya'all change your tune...

    What foreign aide did Clinton get from the Ukraine? There is nothing illegal or wrong with hiring private investigations into a political opponents actions.

    But you said you had a problem with FOREIGNERS interfering with our elections..

    NOW you claim, once confronted with the fact that CLINTON did it, NOW there is nothing wrong with it..

    A federal judge has referred to Trump as “unnamed co-conspirator #1” in their ruling... So there are plenty of felony charges to choose from.

    Big woop.. A Trump/America hater said something bad about President Trump..

    Do you care???

    I can find MANY "federal" judges who said Odumbo did this and that..

    Do you care??

    Not afraid. I think the Democrats have an incredible field of candidates to work with, and Trump is not going to get any better at the job, that is clear!

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    But, considering your track record to date... I wouldn't lay any money you can't afford to lose on your predictions. :D

    Weird, every intelligence agency in the country just called B.S. on that claim.

    Every document that weighs in on the matter says that the integrity of the election was untouched.. That ANY interference by Russians had NO effect or impact on the outcome of the election.....

    Do you have any facts that say otherwise??

    No???

    Of course you don't..

    I guess it is best that you don’t read the report... it shows Trump to be a coward, an idiot, and the least effective president to ever grace the White House.

    AND that President Trump was totally and completely exonerated with regards to Russia Collusion..

    And THAT is all that matters..

    You have your whataboutism.

    I have facts and reality.. :D

    "May you find your way as pleasant.."
    -Magistrate, STAR TREK-THE MENAGERIE

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Like Liz, NOW that you are confronted with the SAME facts me and CRS have been telling ya'all for the last 2+ years, NOW ya'all change your tune...

    Michale, don't put me in that crowd. You know better … if you've been paying attention here.

  131. [131] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale, how can you be missing the entire second half of the report?

    IMHO, Mueller ran out of time to "prove" the conspiracy with Russia. He essentially says as much, and encourages congress to continue investigating.

    No interviews with Trump. So much for transparency.

    The second half of the report is a list of obstructive crimes that were committed, as it turns out, by Trump.

    They are detailed, and damning.
    The question is: what to do with these?

    We could Impeach Now (as Warren suggests), or wait until after the imminent election, and then, if necessary, be brought up in a second term.

    I'm personally in the latter camp, believing that we can do more damage if we keep investigating straight through the election, without charges being brought.

    Then if (by some miracle) he wins, we have it ready to go on day one of his new administration.

    Maybe sooner. Call it "Mueller Insurance".

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I guess it is best that you don’t read the report... it shows Trump to be a coward, an idiot, and the least effective president to ever grace the White House.

    i'd say fourth-least. donald is still a ways away from the hallowed ineffectiveness of james buchanan, the legendary cowardice of warren g. harding or the enduring idiocy of andrew johnson.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    yes, the ballot box is the only rational place to hold donald accountable at the moment. he wasn't guilty of conspiracy with russia, he doesn't seem to have been aware of his underlings' crimes, and the orders he gave to do illegal things weren't followed.

    JL

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, the ballot box is the only rational place to hold donald accountable at the moment. he wasn't guilty of conspiracy with russia, he doesn't seem to have been aware of his underlings' crimes, and the orders he gave to do illegal things weren't followed.

    Yes, the ballot box is the best (and ONLY) place to legitimately address those issues...

    Would that the rest of the Weigantians could understand the sound logic of that...

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is there a process to prepare charges against somebody who you can't currently charge?

    For example, there are pending charges against Julian Assange that the incompetent Trump Justice Department (do we even need to put "incompetent" in front of anything Trump does any longer - isn't it taken for granted?) inadvertently revealed?

    How about sealed charges against Trump ready for his first day out of office? That would drive him nuts, which would amuse me almost as much as the pant-wetting Michale has been demonstrating for the past two years.

  136. [136] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yes, the ballot box is the best (and ONLY) place to legitimately address those issues...

    So, agreement at last! Of course, for different reasons - you seem to think that in that time, he can talk himself out of it, while I think that BIGGER crimes will be committed just out of habit.

  137. [137] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Is there a process to prepare charges against somebody who you can't currently charge?

    I dunno. I mean, pulling his driver's license wouldn't do much good, since I don't think he can drive. (seriously!)

    You could curtail his TV: that'd drive him nuts.

    No Fox for you!

    But yeah, sealed indictments would also do it...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, how can you be missing the entire second half of the report?

    You mean the "WHATABOUTISM" section???

    Only Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters care about that...

    The second half of the report is a list of obstructive crimes that were committed, as it turns out, by Trump.

    They are detailed, and damning.

    Yea.. Whataboutism....

    President Trump has been exonerated for collusion with the Russians to win the election..

    We could Impeach Now

    Yea??? Go ahead! I double dog dare ya!!!! :D

    I'm personally in the latter camp, believing that we can do more damage if we keep investigating straight through the election, without charges being brought.

    Yea?? You also "believed" that President Trump was guilty of colluding with the Russians..

    You were wrong then..

    Doesn't it enter into your conscious brain that you COULD be wrong about everything else??

    No, of course it doesn't...

    Maybe sooner. Call it "Mueller Insurance".

    Yea, Storzk and the FBI had an "insurance" policy too..

    How well did THAT work out???

    That's what's so hilarious about ya'all??

    You keep doing the EXACT same bullshit over and over and are positively SHOCKED when it doesn't work out for ya...

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, agreement at last!

    So, you'll shut up about all your fantasy bullshit and just address the issue at the ballot box??

    Yea, right.. When monkeys fly outta my butt...

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:
  141. [141] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    President Trump has been exonerated for collusion with the Russians to win the election..

    Yeah, sorta. But remember that they could never get Trump to testify, and that there are still cases open that could blow it up again. I personally think that Mueller just ran out of time.

    Yea.. Whataboutism....

    So, you ENDORSE the first section, and not the second. I assume that you also eat the Oreo crust and not the inside of the pie.

    Yea, Storzk and the FBI had an "insurance" policy too.

    ..and wasn't charged. So?

    So, you'll shut up about all your fantasy bullshit and just address the issue at the ballot box??

    About as much as you will.

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    126

    yes. you are correct that Paula's comment was for an entirely different comment. My mistake.

    Yes, I know it was your mistake.

    Apologies to Paula for mistakenly applying her yep to the wrong comment.

    See how easy that is?

    Yes, I see. It's obvious you've had a lot of practice apologizing to people for your ignorance. I would wager it comes with the territory of being you. You explained the problem quite factually in your bio, although not very succinctly.

    When I am wrong, I acknowledge it.

    Then it's safe to say you do quite a lot of acknowledging things, although not always admitting when you're wrong.

    But thank you for making my point while contradicting yourself by claiming your 99.99% that don't care aboot One Demand is a fact and state in the next sentence that they can't care aboot something they don't know aboot.

    See there. You just made my point again; you have a habit of doing that. In actual point of fact, I wasn't contradicting myself when I agreed with your statement that 99.99% of people don't know about your failed "idea." It was you who pointed it out, and it was me who agreed with you and then reiterated my very factual statement that people can't care about something they know nothing about.

    See how easy that was? I can admit when you are correct and then help your extremely "average" intellect to connect the obvious dots. In fact, I do that all the time because I'm not afraid of your stupid ideas.

    You should allow yourself to admit that 99.99% of the world who doesn't know about your failed "idea" do not care about it because it's not even on their radars, and one cannot care about something they know nothing about.

    One way people find out aboot things they don't know aboot such as One Demand is that the media informs them aboot these issues and ideas which is the basic definition of their job- to provide information to citizens that they are not getting.

    Agree to disagree that it's the media's job to advertise half=baked issues... with the notable exception of pie. It is definitely the media's job to shill for pie, half-baked or otherwise.

    That's the whole reason I keep after CW as every activist does for the idea or issue they are working to solve until they get a response.

    Good for you, Don. Admitting you troll the author is the first step to solving your problem. It is unfortunate that you're far too ignorant to grasp the concept that he's actually given you several written responses and that he indeed gives you a response every single day by not responding any further.

    Those are the facts in the real world.

    You couldn't recognize a fact if it lived on your face.

    You are entitled to believe your fantasies and make an ass of yourself.

    Well, we all are entitled to believe our fantasies; it's just the height of ignorance to troll somebody to shill for our fantasies. We also all are entitled to not agree with other people's fantasies. Duh!

    But you being an asshole for 'kicks' is not going to stop me from doing what a citizen should do when they see a problem and a possible solution.

    I'm not an "asshole," Don, but allow me once again to educate your admitted ignorance: An asshole is that thing you've got your head shoved firmly up inside. :)

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    132

    i'd say fourth-least. donald is still a ways away from the hallowed ineffectiveness of james buchanan, the legendary cowardice of warren g. harding or the enduring idiocy of andrew johnson.

    Nothing for Trump to worry about, though. That's an awfully low bar, and there's still time for Trump to reach rock bottom when additional facts are revealed. You know how Trump aspires to "win" things. :)

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    131

    I agree entirely.

    Maybe sooner. Call it "Mueller Insurance".

    Yes! It seems to me like you could quite easily rename "Appendix D" and call it "Mueller Insurance." It's a good fit. :)

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    137

    I dunno. I mean, pulling his driver's license wouldn't do much good, since I don't think he can drive. (seriously!)

    Balthy is correct. I've seen him on the golf course; he can't drive and he cheats. No surprise there, though, because he cheats at everything he does. It's a necessity for people who can't accomplish things without breaking the rules.

    You could curtail his TV: that'd drive him nuts.

    I like the making him nuts idea... although I'm quite sure it would be a short drive.

    No Fox for you!

    Not counting that thing on your head, of course.

    But yeah, sealed indictments would also do it...

    Sealed indictments? I don't think there are any sealed indictments. *shakes head* Nope. I know for a fact there are sealed indictments. :)

  146. [146] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yes! It seems to me like you could quite easily rename "Appendix D" and call it "Mueller Insurance." It's a good fit. :)

    Sure, and the rest of it runs to 2022. So there's a comfortable window..

    I know for a fact there are sealed indictments.

    Of course there are. Mueller is thorough.

    Of course the Fox brigade is defiant. That's their business model.

    But the rest of them, including Trump, are privately sweating bullets. What will Mueller say?

  147. [147] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Not counting that thing on your head, of course.

    Heh. Just got that.

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know for a fact there are sealed indictments.

    And yet, Mueller has unequivocally stated that there are no sealed indictments..

    :D

  149. [149] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yep.

    Speaking of "Appendix D," look what the wind blowed in. The New York times has published some of those obvious obstruction of justice emails between Costello and Cohen.

    How Michael Cohen Turned Against President Trump

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump.html

    So since Appendix D is in alphabetical order, it looks like Costello is a nice fit for that slot just beneath Cohen's. Oh, wait. The redacted slot beneath Cohen's likely belongs to Jerome Corsi… impending massive freakout... then with Robert Costello occupying the following slot.

    We'll see. :)

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, sorta.

    No.. No 'sorta'... President Trump has been totally unequivocally and completely exonerated on the issue of colluding with the Russians..

    I know you can't accept that, but it's a fact nonetheless...

    Only one Weigantian has taken the Sherman on that..

    So, you ENDORSE the first section, and not the second. I assume that you also eat the Oreo crust and not the inside of the pie.

    I make no endorsements..

    I simply state FACT...

    So, you'll shut up about all your fantasy bullshit and just address the issue at the ballot box??

    About as much as you will.

    Fair enough..

    If you and your fellow Trump/America haters will stop bringing up the Mueller Report, so will I... :D

    Deal??

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    148

    And yet, Mueller has unequivocally stated that there are no sealed indictments..

    I see your problem, and I'm willing to help you. You're welcome in advance.

    What Mueller has actually stated is there are no "additional" sealed indictments coming from his office. Fortunately for democracy, Mueller is not the only prosecutor in existence. :D

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, let's not forget who ya'all's hero was...

    Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick....

    Ya'all will *NEVER* be able to live that down...

    That right there shot *ANY* credibility ya'all ever had to hell...

    Cue retorts of "We never believed them at all!!!" in 3..... 2..... 1.....

    :D

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Mueller has actually stated is there are no "additional" sealed indictments coming from his office. Fortunately for democracy, Mueller is not the only prosecutor in existence. :D

    Oh yes.. There are other new "shiny"s and "whatabout"s that ya'all can hang your hats on, to be sure..

    But President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated when it comes to Russia Collusion...

    But I am SURE that all those other "shiny"s and "whatabout"s will pan out sooooo much better than the Russia Collusion shiny did..

    After all... It has SOOOOOO much credibility bank'ed, eh?? :D

    Forget the ballot box... Just try and impeach the fairly, freely and legally elected President Of The United States...

    It will work out SOOOOOO much better... :D

    Who was it who said that the hysteria over impeachment will be a very good indicator on how confident Democrats are over their Plan B?? :D

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    150

    President Trump has been totally unequivocally and completely exonerated on the issue of colluding with the Russians..

    I see you're still confused about the term "exonerated." Ask Paul Manafort how your insistence that he was "totally exonerated" on multiple counts worked out for him. Think about it this way since you're confused: Total exoneration means never having to say you're guilty... since you've been proven innocent in a court of law. If you're not indicted because you're the POTUS, then it's impossible to be "exonerated" until you've been indicted and then tried in a court of law. Additionally, if a prosecutor decides not to bring a case against you, total "exoneration" cannot exist because you're not being charged with anything since you're the POTUS. Not being charged with a crime isn't the equivalent of exoneration.

    You're welcome.

    Pauly Walnuts Manafort could probably explain it likely as well as I can since he's now been through it and living in jail for not being exonerated in any way, shape, or fashion for all those crimes he wasn't exonerated on that you insisted he was. :)

    I know you can't accept that, but it's a fact nonetheless...

    You know nothing, Jon Snow! ~ Rose Leslie... his wife obviously knows! :)

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    152

    Deflection. Non-serious. :)

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong..

    I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that ya'all believe all the stuff ya'all are spewing..

    But, take a step back and LOOK at ya'all's track record??

    Ya'all have been WRONG... WRONG... IMPRESSIVELY WRONG time and time again..

    Why do ya'all think that, all of the sudden, ya'all are going to start being factually accurate???

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Deflection. Non-serious. :)

    OK, Liz... :D

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale
    152

    Deflection. Non-serious. :)

    Goes to state of mind..

    Ya'all will believe ANYTHING, no matter how far fetched and outlandish, as long as it confirms your bias..

    It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS...

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    153

    Oh yes.. There are other new "shiny"s and "whatabout"s that ya'all can hang your hats on, to be sure..

    Wrong again. The sealed indictment against Trump cannot be characterized as "new." Although Appendix D can be characterized as "new," the issues redacted therein cannot.

    But President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated when it comes to Russia Collusion...

    No. He is POTUS and therefore can't be exonerated of a crime for which he can't be charged until he leaves office. It is a fact that Mueller decided not to prosecute Trump or others for the crime of "conspiracy" with the "Russian government." Mueller explain quite nicely in his report that those issues that were outside the narrow confines of "conspiracy" with the "Russian government" were spun off into multiple other cases... see Appendix D.

    But I am SURE that all those other "shiny"s and "whatabout"s will pan out sooooo much better than the Russia Collusion shiny did..

    Well, no one could argue with the fact that the obstruction of justice "shiny" is like a klieg light with 10 bulbs. :)

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, so ya'all support illegal immigrant sanctuary areas, right??

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-second-amendment-sanctuary-county-movement-illinois-20190416-story.html

    So, then ya'all won't have a problem with 2nd Amendment sanctuary areas.....

    Right?? :D

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong again. The sealed indictment against Trump cannot be characterized as "new." Although Appendix D can be characterized as "new," the issues redacted therein cannot.

    Semantics.. A distinction without a difference..

    It's all part and parcel to the same lame and tired attempts to nullify a free, fair and legal election, SOLELY because ya'all lost..

    Well, no one could argue with the fact that the obstruction of justice "shiny" is like a klieg light with 10 bulbs. :)

    Whatever ya have to tell yerself to make it thru your day..

    But at the end of that day, it's STILL President Trump and will be until 20 Jan 2024... :D

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me ask ya'all something.. Seriously...

    Do ya'all SERIOUSLY think that the Democrats are going to be able to remove President Trump from office???

    Seriously???

  163. [163] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    KICK [154]

    A minor point, but no, juries do NOT find the defendabt "innocent" they find him "not guilty."

    That does not mean the defendant didn't do it, it just means the prosecution was unablt to prove guilt to their satisfaction.

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats 'may' pursue impeachment against Donald Trump as Giuliani defends president
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/21/democrats-may-pursue-impeachment-against-president-trump/3533315002/

    Apparently, Democrats *ARE NOT* confident of beating President Trump at the ballot box... :D

    Who woulda thunked it!!??

    Oh... Wait.. :D

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    156

    Don't get me wrong..

    It's impossible not to get someone "wrong" when they are "wrong."

    I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that ya'all believe all the stuff ya'all are spewing..

    Well, I do have a wicked habit of believing those things that I know for a fact are facts.

    But, take a step back and LOOK at ya'all's track record??

    Our track record is way better than yours. Seriously, I would not whine about anybody else's track record if mine was worse than everyone else's. No one else here is whining incessantly about how somebody is exonerated of a charge that they haven't been charged with... that would be you. :)

  166. [166] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But, take a step back and LOOK at ya'all's track record?

    Wait. Do you honestly think that we care about our track record?

    Okay, for the record, here's the record:

    Destroying Obamacare = wrong
    Tax bill for rich folks = wrong
    Alienating allies = wrong
    Russia policy = wrong, wrong
    Immigration = wrong
    Climate Change = wrong
    LGBTQ = wrong
    Emoluments = WRONG!

    That's a few things. This isn't about predicting stuff correctly. It's about DOING stuff correctly.

    Get used to it. You're gonna get more.

  167. [167] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But, take a step back and LOOK at ya'all's track record?

    Wait. Do you honestly think that we care about our track record?

    Okay, for the record, here's the record:

    Destroying Obamacare = wrong
    Tax bill for rich folks = wrong
    Alienating allies = wrong
    Russia policy = wrong, wrong
    Immigration = wrong
    Climate Change = wrong
    LGBTQ = wrong
    Emoluments = WRONG!

    That's a few things. This isn't about predicting stuff correctly. It's about DOING stuff correctly.

    Get used to it. You're gonna get more.

  168. [168] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    162

    Let me ask ya'all something.. Seriously...

    Do ya'all SERIOUSLY think that the Democrats are going to be able to remove President Trump from office???

    If you will recall correctly, I'm on record saying I did not think he would be removed from office since zero presidents have been removed since inception. :)

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Destroying Obamacare = wrong
    Tax bill for rich folks = wrong
    Alienating allies = wrong
    Russia policy = wrong, wrong
    Immigration = wrong
    Climate Change = wrong
    LGBTQ = wrong
    Emoluments = WRONG!

    All your own opinion...

    And all total bullshit..

    Were you right when you predicted Hillary's election??

    No..

    Were you right when you predicted Russia Collusion??

    No...

    Were you right when you predicted Kavanaugh's demise??

    No...

    Were you right when you predicted Gorsuch's demise??

    No..

    Ya'all have been **WRONG** at every turn...

    EVERY TRUMP prediction ya'all have made has been WRONG...

    Get used to it. You're gonna get more.

    I *AM* used to it.. I am CERTAIN ya'all will CONTINUE to be WRONG...

    Because ya'all don't look at things logically and rationally...

    Ya'all look at things thru the social construct of your ideological slavery...

    So yea... Ya'all will CONTINUE to be wrong..

    The only question is when ya'all will concede how wrong ya'all are...

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    163

    A minor point, but no, juries do NOT find the defendabt "innocent" they find him "not guilty."

    A minor point, but juries do NOT find the "defendabt" "not guilty." They find the "defendant" "not guilty." As to your other point, you are 100% correct.

    That does not mean the defendant didn't do it, it just means the prosecution was unablt to prove guilt to their satisfaction.

    "Unable," exactly correct with minor spelling corrections.

    Stucki gets it on this issue. :)

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, look back over the last years since Nov of 2016...

    Look at how many times ya'all have been WRONG...

    WHY on earth do ya'all think ya'all have **ANY** credibility???

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/SICKENLAW/status/1118873752031285248

    Democrats...

    The Joke of the American people.. :D

  173. [173] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    171

    Look at how many times ya'all have been WRONG...

    Look back over just this commentary and look at how many times you have been wrong.

    WHY on earth do ya'all think ya'all have **ANY** credibility???

    I have a better question: Why on Earth would you think that somebody who keeps singing the praises of the Pathologically Lying Skeevy Porn Star Payoff President is somebody that has a real issue with credibility?

    Fact: Every single one of us has more credibility and than Benedict Donald.

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fact: Every single one of us has more credibility and than Benedict Donald.

    Whatever ya'all have to tell yerselves to make it thru yer OH MY GODS, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY EXONERATED OVER RUSSIA COLLUSION day... :D

  175. [175] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    174

    I have the list of talking points.

    The GOP and Fox News propaganda machine and their ilk are trying to wrangle control of the narrative by shouting "TOTAL EXONERATION" while knowing fully that the vast majority of Americans aren't going to read the Mueller report; however, shouting "TOTAL EXONERATION" is just a lie in all caps.

    The GOP modus operandi is now gaslighting the American people because they obviously believe they're not capable of thinking. That's why Trump and company will continue to keep up the steady drumbeats of "no collusion" and "totally exonerated."

    "No collusion" = Americans are gullible.
    "No collusion" = GOP thinks you're stupid.
    "No collusion" = We really think you're stupid.
    "No collusion" = We know you're stupid.
    "No collusion" = Obviously, you're stupid.
    "No collusion" = They just eat it up and spew it back on cue.

    "Total exoneration" = Americans are gullible.
    "Total exoneration" = GOP thinks you're stupid.
    "Total exoneration" = We really think you're stupid.
    "Total exoneration" = We know you're stupid.
    "Total exoneration" = Obviously, you're stupid.
    "Total exoneration" = They just eat it up and spew it back on cue.

    People who will gaslight you are people who have zero issues with credibility.

    Have a nice day. I always do. OAO :)

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have the list of talking points.

    Yes you do....

    But you have no facts...

    That's why I am not interested..

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Argue with NYPoet....

    If you dare..

    so in response to michale's question, yes, i think the report absolutely exonerates donald of conspiracy with russia. that doesn't make him innocent of anything else, but i think we can safely put the conspiracy question to bed.
    -NYPoet

  178. [178] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm [135]

    I think sealed indictments could have been filed that only Mueller and Rosenstein would be aware of. It would make sense, you don’t want to alert the person of the charges ahead of time or they could just try to pardon themselves or anyone involved before it could be served.

    Trump better pray that he never has to have surgery while still president. If that happens, before they would put him under with anesthesia, Pence would assume the presidency temporarily. In that moment as the doctor is counting backwards and Trump starts to drift off...”3...2...and,” a nurse serves him with the indictments!

  179. [179] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [175]

    THIS is why I love you so much! Well, one of the reasons, anyway! ;D

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick [175]

    THIS is why I love you so much! Well, one of the reasons, anyway! ;D

    Because you always have NOTHING but talking points.. That are totally and completely divested from reality... :D

    Nothing but a social construct...

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump better pray that he never has to have surgery while still president. If that happens, before they would put him under with anesthesia, Pence would assume the presidency temporarily. In that moment as the doctor is counting backwards and Trump starts to drift off...”3...2...and,” a nurse serves him with the indictments!

    I bet you fantasize about that, don'tcha?? :D

  182. [182] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Because you always have..Nothing but a social construct.

    Ah! There you go. The social construct. That's important. I knew that you'd get it.

    Nobody wants Nationalism. We fought a war against it. Only nazis, bigots, and folks with power want nationalism.

    We want a world that doesn't lock kids in cages, and in which people are healthy and educated. If that's not your world, we don't want it.

    Capice?

  183. [183] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    177

    Argue with NYPoet....

    Okay, will do.

    If you dare..

    I do dare... for I am daring that way. :)

  184. [184] 
    Kick wrote:

    "NYPoet"

    so in response to michale's question, yes, i think the report absolutely exonerates donald of conspiracy with russia.

    Okay, first off, I'm quite certain you meant "Russian government" versus "Russia."

    that doesn't make him innocent of anything else, but i think we can safely put the conspiracy question to bed.

    Here's why we actually can't put "conspiracy" to bed yet:

    Mueller's report actually does not exonerate the president (or anyone else who can be indicted) even with respect to "conspiracy" and "coordination." Although the report does state that there was "no evidence" of "conspiracy" or "coordination," it undeniably leaves open the possibility that there actually may be evidence out there that the president or the president's associates may have suppressed some evidence that proves otherwise, and this is far from the "total exoneration" that is being claimed.

    As the report clearly states, many individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Also, there was some information that was screened even from the Robert Mueller and his investigative team. It is a fact that several people affiliated with the Trump campaign -- including but not limited to Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and current prisoner Paul Manafort -- admittedly lied or provided incomplete information to Robert Mueller and his team of investigators about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals. Also, many others deleted communications and/or used encryption that did not provide for the long-term retention of data.

    Indeed, the most surprising parts of Mueller's report that he repeats in multiple sections are:

    * Special counsel Mueller went out of his way multiple times to dispel the nonsensical notion that Trump's babbling concept of "collusion" wasn't a consideration. Mueller's report makes clear repeatedly that what he investigated was instead "conspiracy" and "coordination."

    * Mueller's report did not exonerate the president even with respect to conspiracy and coordination. In fact, the report makes clear:

    "While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."

    So to recap: The term "exoneration" and "evidence not sufficient to support criminal charges" are two totally separate and wholly different things.

    And in conclusion: Pecan pie! Because you simply cannot argue with nutty pie; there's simply not enough nuts in pies. ;)

  185. [185] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    176

    Yes you do....

    Nice of you to agree that I have the list of GOP talking points... since I indeed have today's list. Actually, to be factual, I get a list of GOP talking points delivered to me every day.

    But you have no facts...

    Exactly right! The GOP talking points are chock full of long lists of "no facts."

    ATTENTION... ATTENTION... ATTENTION... ATTENTION

    I think Michale has had a breakthrough here. I'm so proud. :)

  186. [186] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    179

    THIS is why I love you so much! Well, one of the reasons, anyway! ;D

    Love you more! ;)

  187. [187] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    i did mean the russian government, but i don't think anyone has accused the trump campaign of conspiracy with the russian tea room. my judgment is that if mueller and his team couldn't find evidence of conspiracy with russia, then it probably wasn't there to be found. that's not exoneration (proof of the negative), but it's acknowledgment that there's currently no proof of the positive. absence of evidence vs evidence of absence and all that.

    you're absolutely right about pecan pie, of course.

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do ya'all SERIOUSLY think that the Democrats are going to be able to remove President Trump from office???

    If the Democrat's name is Biden, then yes, I literally do.

  189. [189] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Good for you, Liz.

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz

    If the Democrat's name is Biden, then yes, I literally do.

    I was referring to removing from office via any means other than the ballot box...

    Does ANYONE here honestly and truly believe that President Trump will be removed from office by impeachment???

    But, since you bring it up, let's look at that.

    You know I like and respect Biden..

    But, given the state of the push to the Left that Democrats are seeing and the explosion of identity politics.....

    Do you HONESTLY believe that an old white guy is going to win the Dem primary???

    And, if one did, can you imagine the demoralizing effect that would have on the massive dingbat/Occasional Cortex Wing of the Democrat Party???

    If anyone but a woman/minority wins the nomination, 2/3rds of the Democrat Party will stay home on 3 Nov 2020...

    So, I don't think Biden will be able to remove President Trump from office... Not because of Biden but because the Democrat Party won't give him the chance..

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    i did mean the russian government, but i don't think anyone has accused the trump campaign of conspiracy with the russian tea room.

    heh

    my judgment is that if mueller and his team couldn't find evidence of conspiracy with russia, then it probably wasn't there to be found. that's not exoneration (proof of the negative), but it's acknowledgment that there's currently no proof of the positive. absence of evidence vs evidence of absence and all that.

    Exactly...

    Given the amount of resources give to Mueller in time, money and VERY motivated personnel, if there was even a SCINTILLA of evidence out there that proved collusion, it would have been found...

    In this case, absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence...

    Anyone who clings to the notion that Mueller didn't exonerate President Trump with regards to Russia Collusion is simply deluding themselves because they can't handle the fact that they have been completely and utterly WRONG since Nov of 2016...

    Sorry about dragging you into this..

    There are so few times that someone here actually steps up and has the courage of their convictions..

    I wanted to recognize you for that courage.. :D

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maureen Dowd: How the ego maniac in the Oval was ‘exonerated’

    Truth of Mueller report is Trump’s dirtbag machinations are driven by insane vanity

    When it comes to presidential obstruction, at least Watergate started with a crime. A stupid crime, but a crime.

    After 675 days, more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, $30 million spent, endless jaw-jaw on cable and countless whiny Trump tweets, we have come down to one fundamental truth.

    And it’s the same truth that has been terrorising us all along: Donald Trump’s dirtbag machinations are driven by insane vanity.

    The First Narcissist’s all-consuming blend of braggadocio and insecurity has turned Washington and its rickety institutions into a dystopian outpost of his id.

    President Trump obstructed on nearly every page of Volume II of the Mueller report, even though Robert Mueller was too lost in legalese to throw the book at him. The report counts as the Worst Exoneration Ever, replete with incrimination.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/maureen-dowd-how-the-ego-maniac-in-the-oval-was-exonerated-1.3867555

    "WORST EXONERATION EVER"...

    Maybe...

    But it STILL is an exoneration..

    And THAT is what is driving everyone (NEN) batshit crazy.. :D

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why bother impeaching Trump if you're confident you can beat him at the ballot box?

    Democrats 'may' pursue impeachment against Donald Trump as Giuliani defends president
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/21/democrats-may-pursue-impeachment-against-president-trump/3533315002/

    Apparently, Democrats are not all that confident they can beat him at the ballot box.. :D

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pete Buttigieg compares Bernie supporters and Trump fans
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/21/pete-buttigieg-compares-bernie-supporters-and-trump-fans/

    Yea.. THAT will endear Buttagig to a large portion of the Democrat Party.. :D

    Is he TRYING to convince Bernie supporters to stay home?? Or even worse (for Democrat Party), VOTE for President Trump??

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s best move forward: ignore the Dems, focus on policy

    As President Trump searches for the right responses to the Mueller report, he would be wise to follow the idea that “revenge is a dish best served cold.”

    Trump’s temptation will be to nurse grudges and settle scores immediately. A self-made man who became president his way, he will want to unleash his greatest ever punchback against those who put him through two years of hell.

    Who can blame him? No modern president has endured such fanatical hatred from his opponents, a group that extends far beyond the opposition party to include the gullible people who still believe everything they read in The New York Times and see on CNN.

    Indeed, the special counsel makes a big deal of accusing the president’s press secretary of lying to the press about the firing of Jim Comey from the FBI.

    Wow — first time in history a press secretary lied. See how uniquely rotten Trump is?

    So the probers, the press, the leakers and the Dems all sing the same song: Trump bad, bad, bad, blah blah blah. Repeat.

    And yet, despite two years of unchecked power and an unlimited budget, Mueller could not find a single Trump action that met the test of a criminal charge. There are two possible explanations for this: Mueller is a Trump agent or there was no crime.

    Congressional Dems can’t help themselves and are committed to keeping the impeachment flames burning, and the 2020 candidates are acting as if Trump is actually as guilty as they said he was the day before the report cleared him. Either way, the party is not ready to move on.
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/20/trumps-best-move-forward-ignore-the-dems-focus-on-policy/

    Just as I predicted...

    The Mueller Report is 1 part Russia Collusion Exoneration and 1000 parts Whataboutisms...

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Column: The Blanche DuBois fantasy over the Mueller report

    or almost three years now, much of the American political media — what I’ve been calling the Democratic Media Complex — has been clinging to a fantasy about President Donald Trump and Russia.

    You might call them bitter clingers.

    They cling to the fantasy that Trump won the 2016 election only because he was the servant of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

    And they believed, really believed, as a matter of faith, that their saint, special counsel Robert Mueller, would clap Trump in irons for his sins, or at least drag him out of the White House, and their long nightmare would be over.

    But when presented with the Mueller report, which showed there wasn’t enough evidence for criminal charges against the president, what did they do?

    They babbled and floated, stubbornly, willingly, deeper into the whirlpool, like Blanche DuBois.

    For years now, Blanche has been insisting that Shep Huntleigh (Robert Mueller) would be coming any day, to save her from the barbarian Stanley Kowalski (Trump).

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-mueller-report-kass-20190419-story.html

    I get it, people.. I really do..

    Ya'all have lived and breathed Russia Collusion since Nov of 2016...

    It must be completely devastating to learn that it was all just an illusion.. A lie..

    "A fantasy we create about people
    And places as we'd like them to be.."

    -I'VE NEVER BEEN TO ME, Charlene

    I wish I could tell ya'all it's going to get better.. That Trump is going to be resoundingly defeated in 2020 and Democrats will have their revenge..

    I honestly wish I could make ya'all feel better with that..

    But ya'all know and I know that it's just not gonna happen..

    Channeling my inner Dr Strange, I predict several scenarios that will play out in the coming 18 months..

    Unlike Dr Strange, I can't find even a single scenario that is likely... even possible.... that will allow a Democrat victory in Nov of 2020...

    If Democrats actually move on from this hysterical Trump killing agenda and actually works towards the betterment of the country, great things will happen and Trump will win re-election in a landslide...

    If Democrats continue to hammer hysterically with their WE MUST TAKE DOWN TRUMP mentality, more and more of the American people will become more and more disgusted with the actions of the Democrat Party and Trump will win re-election in a landslide..

    The best move.. The VERY best strategy for the Democrat Party is to swallow their pride, admit they were wrong and start planning for 2024..

    That would be the SMART thing to do...

    But NO ONE actually believes that Democrats are capable of doing the SMART thing...

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, the integrity, if not the wisdom, of Glenn Greenwald shines thru..

    It’s about reality. And the journalist Glenn Greenwald is not a conservative by any measure.

    He is a man of the left, a founder of The Intercept and no fan of Donald Trump.

    The other day, Greenwald noted that years ago, journalists who supported the Bush administration’s war on Iraq on false premises had reason to search their souls and spend time in self-reflection.

    Some of us apologized, publicly, for groupthink, and vowed never to be herded again. I apologized, publicly and repeatedly.

    “But here I don’t see any of that,” Greenwald told Tucker Carlson on Fox. “They’ve just put collusion and conspiracy and all those conspiracy theories they’ve spent the last three years endorsing, just flushed it down the toilet like they don’t exist and seamlessly shifted to obstruction. And then conflating them to claim, essentially, that they were right all along. And that is really the alarming thing.”

    They’re doubling down, moving quickly from the Trump collusion narrative. And since they can’t sell that one, they’ll sell the obstruction narrative instead.

    But if there isn’t enough evidence to charge a crime of conspiracy to collude with Russia, how do you make a credible case of obstruction for a crime that didn’t happen?

    No crime means that dog won’t hunt.

    Glenn Greenwald is no Trump sycophant..

    But he DOES have the integrity to acknowledge the facts when they stare him in the face..

    Would that we could have more Glenn Greenwalds in the world..

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Taking the high road: William Barr handled the Mueller report with class

    The attorney general deserves praise for trying to provide transparency to his role in this toxic drama

    The outrage, from certain quarters, directed at Attorney General William Barr following his Thursday press conference is as clear a case of “killing the messenger” as we’re likely to see for some time. While his message won’t please those eager to usher Donald Trump out of office, the messenger’s conduct was admirable.

    In particular, much has been made of Mr. Barr’s one-word response to the last question he took: “Do you think it creates an appearance of impropriety for you to come out and sort of, what appears to be, spinning the report before the public gets a chance to read it?”

    To which Mr. Barr replied, “No.”

    The question is, of course, a double-barreled weapon: It asserts Mr. Barr was spinning his work product rather than explaining his process and, based on this assertion, accuses him of unethical behavior.

    The question was not an honest attempt to seek information or clarity. It was a character smear. It was itself spin.
    https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2019/04/21/William-Barr-attorney-general-Mueller-report-class-transparency/stories/201904210059

    From Pennsylvania... Interesting...

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Collusion Dream Is Dead But The Conspiracy Lives On

    Our political, intelligence, and media elites sold us this crazy story and promised the American people the proof that never came.

    The President of the United States did not conspire with the Russians. Neither did his family. Neither did his friends. Neither did his campaign. At the end of the Robert Mueller investigation – now clearly staffed and advanced by partisans who loathe this president – not one single American, after all that, has been indicted or charged with any crime for conspiring with the Russians in any way, shape, or form to steal the 2016 election. That is now an indisputable fact. The uncomfortable reality is that we spent two years being fed the most irresponsible allegations advanced by an ignorant punditocracy gone savage for this idea, which should raise all sorts of questions about our political, intelligence, and media elites who sold us this crazy story and promised the American people the proof that never came.https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/19/collusion-dream-dead-conspiracy-lives/

    This bears repeating..

    At the end of the Robert Mueller investigation – now clearly staffed and advanced by partisans who loathe this president – not one single American, after all that, has been indicted or charged with any crime for conspiring with the Russians in any way, shape, or form to steal the 2016 election. That is now an indisputable fact.

    Ya'all should recite that in the mirror every morning when you wake up and every evening before you go to sleep...

    It will do wonders for ya'all's mental health.. :D

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the report released Thursday proved anything, it was that Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors had an extremely broad mandate to investigate all conceivable angles of the theory that Donald Trump and/or his associates colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Page after page of the report describes the elaborate lengths Mueller went to ascertain whether there was any truth to this theory. And using the most emphatic language available to a prosecutor working within the confines of his legal remit, Mueller concluded with virtual certainty: No. There was no collusion.
    https://spectator.us/robert-mueller-avenue-collusion-myth/

    The facts are in...

    There was no collusion...

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    John Feehery: Here are 5 reasons Trump will win re-election

    First: It’s the economy....

    Second: It’s the base.....

    Third: It’s the money....

    Fourth: It’s the border....

    Fifth: It’s the Democrats....
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/feehery-trump-reelection

    Unless President Trump does something MONUMENTALLY stoopid (a possibility, I grant you) Donald Trump will be POTUS until 20 Jan 2024....

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Multnomah County to pay $100k to black worker who complained ‘Blue Lives Matter’ demeans ‘Black Lives Matter’
    https://tinyurl.com/y3wfxs5u

    Another cop hating racist gets a pay-out... :^/

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW.. It's been a while since there has been an issue with the NNL filters..

    CW, Wordpress doesn't seem to like 'oregonlive' when it's part of a URL...

  204. [204] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (142)-
    Should you ever decide to have a real discussion instead just being an asshole, I will respond to real discussion.

    Otherwise it will just generate the response in my next comment. You're just not worth bothering with.

  205. [205] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (142)-
    Asshole.

  206. [206] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [204-205]

    Juvenile.

  207. [207] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does ANYONE here honestly and truly believe that President Trump will be removed from office by impeachment???

    Quite obviously, not.

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Quite obviously, not.

    Well, it's quite obvious that YOU don't believe it's possible..

    But I would be willing to wager that, amongst the rest of the Weigantians, there will be at LEAST 8 who DO believe it's possible to remove President Trump by impeachment..

    Such is the strength of the delusions that they cling to.

    Bless their hearts.. :D

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump will try to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero by ending sanctions waivers

    The Trump administration will stop allowing some countries to import Iranian crude oil.

    Trump granted waivers to several countries in November when he first restored energy sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

    Oil prices spiked to nearly six-month highs on the surprise news.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/22/trump-expected-to-end-iran-oil-waivers-try-to-drive-exports-to-zero.html

    Nice....

  210. [210] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Frankly, we Weigantian Democratics don't give a pinch of shit what Mueller, Barr, or anybody else says about Trump, we all know the 2016 election was stolen by the Republicans by unfair and illegal means, and we ain't never gonna let go of our bitterness.

    We KNOW he 'colluded', we KNOW he 'conspired', and as fast as anybody tries to explain otherwise, we'll keep inventing new charges to perpetuate our pain into eternity!

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for something totally unrelated..

    Could population growth propel Phoenix and Tucson to merge?
    https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/real-estate/catherine-reagor/2019/04/21/could-phoenix-and-tucson-merge-2040-population-growth/3509155002/

    Tusciex??? Phoescon???

    :D

  212. [212] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, I can certainly understand why many are talking impeachment but, even if it were possible, I'm with former FBI director James Comey in believing that it should be up to the American people to pass judgement on Trump and remove him from office if that is their desire.

    One thing is for sure, Michale. Trump's behavior since entering the political sphere has been despicable and decidedly not presidential. I continue to believe that he is wholly unfit for the office he holds, criminal or no criminal.

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    Frankly, we Weigantian Democratics don't give a pinch of shit what Mueller, Barr, or anybody else says about Trump, we all know the 2016 election was stolen by the Republicans by unfair and illegal means, and we ain't never gonna let go of our bitterness.

    Don't forget how Republicans "stole" the SCOTUS seat.. :D

    We KNOW he 'colluded', we KNOW he 'conspired', and as fast as anybody tries to explain otherwise, we'll keep inventing new charges to perpetuate our pain into eternity!

    That about sums things up perfectly..

    Yunno what scares me the most???

    That Democrats shrug their shoulders, get over their hate and intolerance and bitterness and get down to actually doing their jobs, working WITH President Trump...

    Democrats do that and they actually might have a chance to win back the government in 2024...

    Although I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery than I do of Democrats actually doing that..

    But the slim chance it COULD happen really scares the peepee out of me..

  214. [214] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [210]

    Not fit for this blog.

  215. [215] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You actually responded to that, Michale!?

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Michale, I can certainly understand why many are talking impeachment but, even if it were possible, I'm with former FBI director James Comey in believing that it should be up to the American people to pass judgement on Trump and remove him from office if that is their desire.

    There is absolutely NO DAYLIGHT between you and I in that assessment..

    One thing is for sure, Michale. Trump's behavior since entering the political sphere has been despicable and decidedly not presidential.

    I wouldn't go as far as to say "despicable" but I can see where someone who is logical and rational and would see that...

    As far as 'Presidential'???

    Acting "presidential" is no guarantee of being a good president...

    I continue to believe that he is wholly unfit for the office he holds, criminal or no criminal.

    I respect that opinion. Gods know Trump has given ample reason to support that opinion..

    But I still maintain that Trump's good far outweighs his bad...

  217. [217] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (206)-
    Not at all.

    I offered a relevant comment on CW's article and Kick attacked and ridiculed me and One Demand rather than engage in serious discussion, an opportunity you have also continued to pass on.

    It is pointless to continue to engage in Kick's bullshit acting like an asshole for kicks.

    But rather than just ignore Kick's bullshit I decided to find a simple response similar to the pie reference (though that is sometimes used pre-emptivley) that is appropriate to describe Kick's bullshit.

  218. [218] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obviously, there are commenters here whose only purpose is to sow division and have no ability to engage in enlightened discussion.

    I have always expected more from you, Michale - chalk it up to nostalgia for what this place used to be.

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    You actually responded to that, Michale!?

    He made some good points..

    With a few exceptions, the Anti-Trump hysteria has reached a fever'ed pitch around here...

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obviously, there are commenters here whose only purpose is to sow division and have no ability to engage in enlightened discussion.

    One person's enlightened discussion is another person's mocking troll.. And versie vicie...

    I have learned not to take it all TOO seriously... I had a stroke back in January.. Admitted to the hospital with a BP 260 over 180...

    Last appt my BP was 120 over 80...

    I have learned not to sweat the small shit.. :D

    A lesson I keep having to relearn over and over and over every day... :D

  221. [221] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Acting "presidential" is no guarantee of being a good president...

    It doesn't hurt.

  222. [222] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, you're doing a bang up job of raising my BP.

    Take care.

  223. [223] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One person's enlightened discussion is another person's mocking troll.. And versie vicie…

    I vehemently disagree.

    Any logical and rational person will always be able to discern the difference ...

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Michale, you're doing a bang up job of raising my BP.

    Take care.

    Not my intent, I assure you... :D

  225. [225] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's okay … I'm fine so long as I don't read your comments. :)

  226. [226] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M

    Re: My [210] being "Not fit for this blog".

    Please explain - is it "unfit" on account of being inaccurate/untruthful, because of the word "shit", because you disagree, or what?

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK I'm off.. 3 hours of GAME OF THRONES :D

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    the equivalent of 9 hours of relaxation

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, that didn't last long. :D

    @Kick...

    You (very accurately, I might add) predicted that Jon Snow was the son of Aerys Targaryen & Lyanna Stark...

    In the PREVIOUSLY ON GAME OF THRONES part, it shows Bran saying that exact thing..

    Do you recall what episode that was in?? I don't recall the scene...

  230. [230] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Please explain - is it "unfit" on account of being inaccurate/untruthful, because of the word "shit", because you disagree, or what?

    Your comments generally add nothing to the conversation.

    This place isn't some run-of-the-mill chat room.

    It is an excellent reality-based blog that commands an enlightened discussion in the comments sections.

    But, you're in luck. There will be another column up soon and you'll have a chance for redemption.

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    the equivalent of 9 hours of relaxation

    Maximum effect with minimum effort.. :D

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    The Warden Of Weigantia

    :D

  233. [233] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  234. [234] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz

    Sorry sweety, that wont cut it. I ask for specifics and you tell me we have ideological differences, but that doesn't qualify as "unenlightened".

    I maybe think your contributions aren't adding much to the CW blog either, but I don't claim that disqualifies you from posting.

  235. [235] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Shocking. Positively shocking.

  236. [236] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ahem. To raise the level of discourse, we have this little item:

    Trump sues to block Congressional inquiry into his financial affairs

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-sues-house-oversight-committee_n_5cbdc757e4b06605e3f14154

    It now appears that Trump is unable to distinguish the difference between oversight, and the financial forms that his properties use to establish good tenants.

    If I want to rent from Trump, they would ask to see my financial history. So why isn't that a prerequisite to being President again?

  237. [237] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, and Trump vetoes a bill that would end US support for the war in Yemen.

    Let's see what Chris focuses on tonight.

    I think this thread is done.

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I want to rent from Trump, they would ask to see my financial history. So why isn't that a prerequisite to being President again?

    Because it NEVER has been a pre-requisite..

    You just want to change the rules because yer candidate was shitty and lost..

    If you want to make it a pre-requisite for the next election go for it..

    But whining about it now is nothing but sour grapes and sore-luser'dom..

  239. [239] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If you want to make it a pre-requisite for the next election go for it.

    I do. After all, presidential candidates have been handing out copies of their tax returns for the last 50 years. Will Trump? No. We may have to pry it from his dead fingers.

    This is where the solemn intonations of the GOP fall apart. Good men are aghast at such impunity. Eventually, yes, a law has to be passed.

  240. [240] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But my point was: he has NO problem asking for financial forms from his renters. None.

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    I do.

    Fine.. Then do it for the next election..

    Tell me.. How have Democrats progressed on that legislation??

    Not at all.. They would rather just whine and stamp their feet..

    After all, presidential candidates have been handing out copies of their tax returns for the last 50 years.

    VOLUNTARILY....

    As our own esteemed NY Poet has stated.. You can't fault a person for using the rules to their own benefit...

    Yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing..

    But my point was: he has NO problem asking for financial forms from his renters. None.

    Is that or is that not good business sense??

    Once again, if you don't like it, CHANGE IT...

    Whining and crying that President Trump plays by the rules and NOT by YOUR demands..

    Well, that's just childish..

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wanted Odumbo to release his school transcripts.

    You don't see me whining and complaining that Odumbo wasn't the "true" POTUS because he refused...

    You people really have a problem with losing, don'tcha?? :^/

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, and Trump vetoes a bill that would end US support for the war in Yemen.

    Getting the US out of wars...

    Time was, Democrats WANTED things like that..

    But with President Trump all bets are off..

  244. [244] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I wanted Odumbo to release his school transcripts.

    They were released. You just didn't like 'em.

  245. [245] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    243: ?

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    A perk of working for CIA is world travel. Apparently that sometimes extends to other realms…

    “Little birds,” be on the lookout for a former deputy director of ours wandering through #Westeros in tonight’s episode of #GameOfThrones.
    https://twitter.com/CIA/status/1120123885771476992/photo/1

    heh

    :D

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    They were released. You just didn't like 'em.

    Facts to support???

    No???

    Of course not..

    Regardless, Rachel MadCow released Trump's tax returns.. Didn't you hear her breathless news report??

    Apparently, you didn't like them, eh? :D

  248. [248] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Facts to support?

    https://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

    That was easy.

    Now explain how you got #243 hopelessly backward.

  249. [249] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Odumbo didn't release his school records..

    Your link proves nothing..

    Now explain how you got #243 hopelessly backward.

    Explain how you think it's backwards???

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

    That was easy.

    But thank you for proving how fact check org is nothing but a Left Wing propaganda site... :D

  251. [251] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You've completely misrepresented what the Yemen Bill was about. A Bi-partisan group passed it in both the House and Senate. Then it was vetoed.

    That's the prez out by himself.

  252. [252] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I mean, the whole thing is, that Republicans in Congress don't really agree with Trump, except to try to save him from himself. When Trump has both houses, hardly anything happened, save for a giant tax giveaway. He's hopelessly backed up for nominees.

    Except for Judges. McConnell, is hot for judges, and has been sticking them in at every opportunity. I have to honestly wonder whether that's Trump's reason for being there.

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    You've completely misrepresented what the Yemen Bill was about. A Bi-partisan group passed it in both the House and Senate.

    You mean, like you misrepresented that bullshit fact check org link that had NOTHING to do with what was being discussed???

  254. [254] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz [237]

    Seriously shocking!!!

  255. [255] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Getting the US out of wars...

    No, Michale … Trump wants the US to REMAIN supporting the Yemen conflict. Which is why he vetoed the bill.

    Would it have anything to do with his relationship or the US relationship with the House of Saud?

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Michale … Trump wants the US to REMAIN supporting the Yemen conflict. Which is why he vetoed the bill.

    Yea, I misread your post.. My bust..

    Would it have anything to do with his relationship or the US relationship with the House of Saud?

    Possibly..

    You don't feel that's important, give the Saudis influence in the region and their check on the terrorist state Iran???

  257. [257] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The war in Yemen is a DISASTER!

    … a disaster that can lead to nowhere good.

    Hopefully, in future, Chris will write more about these foreign policy issues. He'll have to when Biden announces.

  258. [258] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's my hope that the US will eventually re-authorized the JCPOA, by the way ...

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    The war in Yemen is a DISASTER!

    Most wars usually are.. I mean, it's kinda a defining quality..

  260. [260] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What I mean is that SA is trying to minimize/eliminate a problem (Iranian influence) that was essentially non-existent.

    Now, however, after 4 years of war, Iranian influence has sky-rocketed.

    The US should have no part of this particular fiasco … chickens eventually coming home to roost and all that.

  261. [261] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, why do you support Trump in continuing US involvement in this war?

  262. [262] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, why do you support Trump in continuing US involvement in this war?

    Because HE has all the facts, unlike you or I...

    So, I'll trust his judgement..

    What I mean is that SA is trying to minimize/eliminate a problem (Iranian influence) that was essentially non-existent.

    Considering how many people have died in the region due to Iran's material support of terrorism, I am at a loss to understand how you can say that...

    You didn't seem to mind when Obama sent troops into Syria...

  263. [263] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Prove I didn't mind! Two can play this stupid game.

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prove I didn't mind! Two can play this stupid game.

    I don't recall any comments from you condemning or questioning Obama's move into Syria..

    I could be wrong in that.. But you'll have to show me..

  265. [265] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Considering how many people have died in the region due to Iran's material support of terrorism, I am at a loss to understand how you can say that...

    Well, Iranian influence in Yemen was minimal before Saudi Arabia took its decidedly unenlightened action there.

  266. [266] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [264]

    Give me a freakin' break, Michale. We're done here.

  267. [267] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Iranian influence in Yemen was minimal before Saudi Arabia took its decidedly unenlightened action there.

    The facts say different

    It is Iran’s war in Yemen and America’s problem
    https://thehill.com/opinion/international/422361-it-is-irans-war-in-yemen-and-americas-problem

    American elements wanted to punish SA for the Kashoggi debacle.. They thought that handing Yemen over to Iran was the best way to do that.

    They thought wrong...

    As bad as SA is, Iran is 100 times worse...

    If we're gonna have to deal with thugs and scumbags in the region, better to deal with thugs and scumbags that are on OUR side..

    As opposed to thugs and scumbags that work AGAINST us and our interests...

  268. [268] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    187

    i did mean the russian government, but i don't think anyone has accused the trump campaign of conspiracy with the russian tea room.

    True... The Russian pee room was the incident where Michael Cohen was informed just before the election in late October 2016 that a Russian had helped the Trump campaign in order to stop the "flow" of "compromising" tapes but could not attest there weren't others. Seriously. It's in the footnotes (a lot of the best stuff is), Mueller Report, Volume II, footnote 112, pp. 27-28. :)

    my judgment is that if mueller and his team couldn't find evidence of conspiracy with russia, then it probably wasn't there to be found. that's not exoneration (proof of the negative), but it's acknowledgment that there's currently no proof of the positive. absence of evidence vs evidence of absence and all that.

    Very well stated. Far from the "total exoneration" and "no collusion" Trump and his minions are claiming, they could still be charged with any number of crimes by another prosecutor who might decide to indict them for what Mueller chose not to prosecute... except the POTUS until he no longer holds the office. As far as everyone else not POTUS and not indicted yet, see Appendix D and all those redactions. There are a whole boatload of charges for which the Trump minions can be indicted. Just as a small "for instance," it is a felony to lie on your SF-86, and Jared Kushner did that in spades multiple times over; of course, it was outside Mueller's mandate. Who else? I would wager there are a dozen of them that lied either under oath or lied to federal investigators. Donald Trump, Jr. definitely lied to prosecutors; if they choose not to prosecute him for it, he is not "totally exonerated" by any stretch of the imagination.

    you're absolutely right about pecan pie, of course

    We make a wicked pecan pie with dark chocolate. CW is shirking his responsibility to inform the public about all the wonderfulness of pie; I can't believe they haven't taken away his man card over it. :)

  269. [269] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    188

    If the Democrat's name is Biden, then yes, I literally do.

    Yes! Removing him from office at the ballot box could totally happen, and Joe Biden could definitely do it. :)

  270. [270] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes! Removing him from office at the ballot box could totally happen, and Joe Biden could definitely do it. :)

    And what do you estimate the chances of Biden (old white guy) winning the Democrat primary???

  271. [271] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    191

    In this case, absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence...

    Wrong! If you'd like to be taken seriously as a law enforcement officer, this is not the way to go about it.

    Also, somebody didn't read the Mueller Report! Evidence was admittedly destroyed by multiple people.

    The GOP and their minions were all over television defending the actions of the Trump campaign for getting help from Russia; they're basically admitting it now and making excuses for it. I would wager they've pivoted from denying it happened to claiming there's nothing wrong with what they did because it's now totally front and center on their radars that they haven't remotely been cleared for "conspiring" and "coordinating" the release of stolen property from WikiLeaks, a cutout of the "Russian government."

    Buckle up. As I said long ago: When it looks like it's almost over, it'll just be getting started. :)

  272. [272] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    204|205

    Dearest Don,

    For future reference, using two comment boxes to respond to a post is not exactly the way to prove to another poster that they're "not worth bothering with." On the other hand, CW's non-responses to your myriad of posts over multiple years and his just plain ignoring your repetitive and incessant whining and moaning are exactly the way it's done.

    Have a nice day. :)

  273. [273] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    229

    In the PREVIOUSLY ON GAME OF THRONES part, it shows Bran saying that exact thing..

    Do you recall what episode that was in?? I don't recall the scene...

    As you know, the final episode of Season 6, Bran sees a series of flashbacks where Ned finds Lyanna dying, and she says "Promise me, Ned" and then whispers his name to Ned, cut to Jon Snow closeup.

    Remember also that during Season 7, Gilly shows Samwell in a book kept by the High Septon of the Citadel that he had given Rhaegar an annulment.

    Fast forward to the final episode of Season 7, where Samwell and Bran are having a discussion at Winterfell about Jon needing to know he was "Jon Sand" since he was a bastard born in Dorne so he wouldn't be called "Snow" (remember, Bran still thought his aunt was raped). Samwell then informs Bran what he learned at the Citadel about Rhaegar's annulment. Sam then tells Bran to see if he can "see" the truth. Bran uses the Three-Eyed Raven to discover Rhaegar and Lyanna being wed, thus "Jon Sand" born in Dorne wasn't a bastard at all, he was the legal heir of Rhaegar Targaryen with a claim to the Iron Throne of Westeros... forged by dragons.

    I would wager before this whole thing is over that dragons are going to "unforge" that Iron Throne. In other words, it's going to go out in the same manner it came in... dragon fire. The whole thing has to end with no one sitting on the Iron Throne because it doesn't exist in their universe any longer. Multiple characters have discovered many times over that "power" doesn't necessary lie with the one who occupies the darn throne.

    Didn't you just know Arya and Gendry would end up together? I did. As you know, I also think that Gendry isn't the bastard son of Robert and Cersei. Remember Cersei talking about seeing his little black head of hair yet never visiting his crypt? I would wager Gendry is as legit as Jon Snow... excuse me... Aegon Targaryen. I will be surprised if Gendry is not a Baratheon with a claim to the Iron Throne. If he isn't... missed opportunity by the author.

    Remember Season 8, first episode, when Jon/Aegon reunited with Arya (finally), and he said he was "part of the family too," and she said to "remember" that. I would wager the (original) Stark family is going to be ripped apart before this whole thing is over. They're going to have to work it out and discover that Westeros is stronger when they work together and have absolutely no need of "absolute rule" by King/Queen who unilaterally makes binding decisions.

    If you study history, which for a multitude of reasons I do not believe you do, there are many similarities of Game of Thrones to the War of the Roses in Britain... fast forward where Britain has dispatched absolute rule by Monarchy in favor of rule by the people. It's history repeated time and time again; the same story of Britain and their little spin-off colonies that became the United States. It the story and England and America all over again.

    Or not... I could be totally wrong. :)

  274. [274] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    236

    It now appears that Trump is unable to distinguish the difference between oversight, and the financial forms that his properties use to establish good tenants.

    Surprised? No one is surprised.

    If I want to rent from Trump, they would ask to see my financial history. So why isn't that a prerequisite to being President again?

    It is; it's just not a written law, and regardless if it were a law, people like Donald Trump believe rules/laws are for everybody else. Trump learned this bullshit from Roy Cohn. Unfortunately for Roy Cohn, lawyer to the mob and Donald Trump, the law did eventually catch up to him. Alas, Poor Roy, his demise was a fitting end to exactly what he deserved; he lost his law license and the majority of his friends, including Trump, who turned their back on him when he was diagnosed with AIDS. Roy referred to Donald as "Mr. Ingratitude."

    Unless Trump outlives the law catching up to him, and it eventually will, he'll learn in his old age that he isn't above the law either. No one ever is. :)

  275. [275] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    243

    Getting the US out of wars...

    Time was, Democrats WANTED things like that..

    But with President Trump all bets are off..

    I will not type what I am thinking. You're welcome. :)

  276. [276] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    270

    And what do you estimate the chances of Biden (old white guy) winning the Democrat primary???

    Your argument falls completely apart when juxtaposed with your prior argument that Bernie Sanders could win the nomination.

    You're contradicting yourself again. Try harder. :)

  277. [277] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your argument falls completely apart when juxtaposed with your prior argument that Bernie Sanders could win the nomination.

    I don't believe I ever said that BS could win the nomination.. If I did, I misspoke.

    What I **HAVE** said is that Democrat elites are PETRIFIED that BS can win the nomination..

    Thanx for that huge and awesome synopsis of GOT.. I know that took a while and your efforts are greatly appreciated..

    Yea, I was surprised Arya stripped down.. I had thought the GOT PTB would try to keep one girl "pure"... During my binge watching, I had thought it would be Sansa.. Then Ramsey got ahold of her.. :(

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember also that during Season 7, Gilly shows Samwell in a book kept by the High Septon of the Citadel that he had given Rhaegar an annulment.

    And, my gods, what happened to Gilly!!!

    She looks as big as Samwell now!!

  279. [279] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    277

    I don't believe I ever said that BS could win the nomination.. If I did, I misspoke.

    Duly noted, thank you. Even if you (or anyone else) had actually said it, things happen all the time that cause people to change their minds about things. Donald Trump is definitely on record regarding his belief that the Democratic nominee will be one of the two "old white guys."

    What I **HAVE** said is that Democrat elites are PETRIFIED that BS can win the nomination..

    Elites!? Funny word. The only problem Benedict Donald has with the "elites" is that they don't accept him in their circles. While the Drumpf's were always welcome in the circles of those in the underbelly, Donald's only problem with what he refers to as the "elites" is that he was only ever "allowed in" on the fringes, and now he's gone and blown his chance of ever being recognized as what he so desperately wished to achieve... in quite similar fashion as Benedict Arnold.

    Thanx for that huge and awesome synopsis of GOT.. I know that took a while and your efforts are greatly appreciated..

    Not all that long, just had to check a few spellings of fictional people's names. My voice recognition software has more epic fails when I discuss GOT.

    Yea, I was surprised Arya stripped down.. I had thought the GOT PTB would try to keep one girl "pure"...

    Pure!? I believe Arya has more kills than any other character in GOT that's not a dragon. Well, at least Arya was "pure" in that one regard... "was."

    During my binge watching, I had thought it would be Sansa.. Then Ramsey got ahold of her.. :(

    Poor Ramsay... a real bastard... GOT what he deserved in the end. As it should be. :)

Comments for this article are closed.