ChrisWeigant.com

Inslee Ups The Ante With Public Option Law

[ Posted Tuesday, May 14th, 2019 – 17:02 UTC ]

Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington state, just signed into law the first-ever statewide experiment with a "public option" in heath insurance. This is a momentous event, but so far it hasn't been getting that much attention in the media. Inslee is also a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, so it will now be incumbent upon him to become the champion spokesman for instituting a public option nationwide.

Enacting a public option is a big deal, for a number of reasons. Many Democrats (myself included) still have strong feelings against those Democrats in Congress who directly fought against including a public option in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare). Two senators in particular -- Max Baucus of Montana and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- successfully stripped the public option from what was being considered when the Obamacare bill was being written. Since that time, the issue has faded into the background of the healthcare debate, but it is now experiencing a renaissance of sorts.

As opposed to "Medicare For All" (more on that in a moment), the public option has now been rebranded as "Medicare For All Who Want It" or, sometimes, "Medicare X." Rather than moving the entire U.S. healthcare system over to single-payer all in one fell swoop, Medicare For All Who Want It would leave this choice up to the individual. Like your health insurance and want to keep it? Fine. No problem. But if you don't like your current insurance, if you are shopping around for insurance, or if you don't have health insurance at all, then you would have the option to join Medicare on the public exchanges, right next to all the private insurance plans. So if you, as a consumer, wanted to choose this public option, then you would have the chance to do so. That's a pretty easy concept, and politically it might be a lot easier sell than destroying the private health insurance market entirely, by fiat. The choice of joining Medicare would not be imposed on everyone, it would instead be up to each and every one of us. The costs and benefits of doing so would be competing with the best the private health insurance market could offer. May the best plan win.

This is precisely what Inslee just signed into law in Washington state. Well, not precisely -- the public option wouldn't be labeled "Medicare," but it would have a transparent list of its benefits and costs for everyone to compare to what else was on offer. No family would have to spend more than 10 percent of their income on health insurance. The public option would be available in every county in the state, whereas currently there are over a dozen counties where only one private plan is available on the exchange (meaning people in those counties have no other choices). But, unfortunately for Inslee, this all won't happen until 2021 -- after the presidential election, in other words. So he won't have solid results to point to and people in Washington won't have experienced the new system yet.

The fear that all the private insurers have is that they simply won't be able to compete against the public option. They know how much overhead they spend, and they know that Medicare has far less of an overhead -- a competitive difference that will allow the public option to be offered cheaper than they can manage. So they see their own business model as dooming them in competition with a single-payer model.

They might be right, and then again they might not. That remains to be seen. The big question is how many people will migrate to the new public option and leave the private health insurance market. Nobody really knows the answer to that, because no state has instituted such a system before. Washington will be the test case, in other words, and the data will be examined microscopically to see the effects on the marketplace of having a public option to choose. There are multiple ways the new system could fail -- it could fail to garner much interest from the public, it could wind up costing too much, it could fail to bring down prices, etc. But it could also succeed, of course, and become a model for other states to institute for their citizens. But we won't even begin to know this until roughly 2022, when the first year's data becomes complete.

But at least we will have such data to examine. This is why the new Washington law is so ground-breaking. To date, the advocates of a true single-payer Medicare For All plan have never chalked up such a state-level victory. This hasn't been from lack of trying -- they got very close to enacting single-payer in Vermont, and made strides towards doing so in California, but both of these legislative efforts failed. In Vermont, they simply could not make the numbers work -- it was going to be too expensive for such a small state to institute. In California, the bill that passed one legislative chamber didn't even really address the cost side of the equation at all. This should be a cautionary note to anyone -- like presidential candidate Bernie Sanders -- who insists that only a pure single-payer system is the answer to all our health insurance ills. If such a plan can't pass legislative (or economic) muster in these two very blue states, then it is going to be a monumental job to get Congress to approve such a thing at the national level. It may be a great idea in theory, but implementing it is going to be a nightmare no matter how it happens, in other words.

The Medicare For All Who Want It idea is a lot more incremental and organic. By offering a public option next to all the private insurance plans, marketplace forces will determine who wins this ideological battle. If the public option proves to be popular, because it is seen as being better -- by being cheaper, being less of a hassle, being more comprehensive, or for whatever other reason -- then the consumers will flock to it. Eventually even businesses will choose to enroll their employees in the public option rather than paying more for private insurance plans. This will cause a migration of people from the private market to the public market. If this migration becomes overwhelming, then the private plans are going to eventually wither on the vine -- they'll have such small pools of people participating that they'll become unprofitable to the insurance companies, who will eventually stop offering the plans. But this may not kill off the private insurance companies, since under the new Washington system all the public option plans will actually be administered by private insurance companies (some European countries run their entire insurance market in similar ways, without sacrificing universal coverage). What will die will be the private health insurance companies own for-profit plans, not the companies themselves.

If the spiral of people shifting from private plans to the public option continues, though, then eventually Washington may wind up with almost everyone choosing the public option and virtually no one left on the private insurance plans. This is just one scenario, mind you, as there are no guarantees this spiral will even materialize. But it shows how Democrats who are convinced that a public option will be superior to private insurance might be proven right in the end -- and without forcing anyone off their current insurance by government edict. A single-payer advocate with the strength of his or her convictions shouldn't be afraid of testing the theory in the marketplace rather than disrupting the entire market by force, in other words.

Once again, though, we won't even begin to know any of how it turns out until 2022, at the earliest. In other words, there won't be any data to analyze before the 2020 election. So in political terms it will have a limited impact on the race (especially the Democratic nominating race). But maybe Jay Inslee will be able to use it nonetheless, because without actual data to point to nobody can criticize the new plan as a failure yet. Inslee can tout the plan as being the most wonderful answer to the problem, and there will be no contradictory data to refute any claims he now makes.

There will be a fierce debate between the single-payer purists on health insurance and those who advocate a public option as an interim step. The Democratic candidates are all currently staking out their positions, and the sparks are going to fly at some point. The purists insist that incrementalism isn't good enough and the only way to get costs down and improve coverage for everyone is to tear down the existing system and rebuild it from the ground up. Nothing less will do, because the current system is so inherently flawed. The public option advocates will point to the public's fear of that much disruption in the health insurance system, and now they will also be able to point to Washington state as an example of how instituting a public option is a lot more realistic politically than changing an entire state to single-payer all in one fell swoop -- which hasn't be successfully done in any state yet.

In other words, this debate is going to shift as a result of what Jay Inslee just signed in Washington. It may not shift all that much in the 2020 race, though. Inslee is a complete longshot at this point with very little actual public support at all among Democratic voters, so no matter what he does as governor is going to have a rather limited impact on the general debate. But it may indeed have a large impact on Democratic politics in the coming years, as actual data become available and the experiment is either seen as a sweeping success or a failure (or, more likely, somewhere in between). Even if a Democrat is elected president in 2020, and even if a big enough blue wave develops to give him or her a Democratic House and Senate, it's still going to be very hard to pass any comprehensive health insurance reform bill. It may not happen by 2022, in other words, and it may not have happened by 2024. There will still be enough Republicans in the Senate to block any such legislation, so in the end the Washington experiment may prove to be instrumental in whatever Democrats ultimately decide to do. It may even become a much larger issue in the 2024 election than launching Inslee to the nomination this time around. Nevertheless, he still will deserve the credit for such a pioneering step, because Washington's new public option is the first concrete step any state has taken towards a large-scale reimagining of the health insurance system. As Joe Biden might say, this is a big effin' deal, and Inslee deserves the credit for taking such a monumental step, no matter how it turns out in the end.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

56 Comments on “Inslee Ups The Ante With Public Option Law”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kudos to Inslee/Washington State.

    No matter how "right" it would be - and I, personally, have no problem with medical insurers going out of business by fiat - disruption is generally unpleasant. If it's possible to go directly to Single Payer I'll be happy, but transitioning to it or to something close to it is fine by me too. I was furious when the PO was dropped during the ACA effort and will consider it something of a miracle if it comes back to life nationally.

    I'm fine with some combo of public/private assuming choices are quality - like the ACA required - and affordable.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    In the FWIW file: DailyKos has an online poll every other Tuesday, intended to measure ONLINE intensity of support for Dem candidates. With the unending stream of Dem candidates jumping in, it's been limited to candidates getting at least 1% of votes in previous poll. Today's was the 14th poll.

    Bernie always wins coz there's a very active BS fanbase on DKOS. He always won in 2016 too - only by a lot more. Up til recently he was getting somewhere in the 30%'s - with the rest of the field dividing the remaining 65-70%.

    Two weeks ago - May 1, Bernie got 34%, E. Warren got 19%, Biden 18%, Mayor Pete 10%, K. Harris 8%, and the rest 4%, 2% 1%.

    Today: BS got 26%, Liz Warren 25%, Biden: 14%, K. Harris: 11%, Buttigieg: 9%, Beto: 3%, others less than 3%.

    I'm wondering if Warren's anti-FOX announcement, in which she (with perfect accuracy) labeled FOX News a "a hate-for-profit racket" and declined doing a Town Hall there made the difference? Or her appearance last week in West Virginia? Or just her steady stream of position papers?

    We'll see if it holds but I'm certainly happy to see it. As Chris Hayes tweeted today, there seems to be a tortoise and hare storyline developing in the Dem field...

    See Liz Warren's excellent tweetstorm about why she declined FOX's invitation here: https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1128314854622859265

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    59,999 votes cast.

  4. [4] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    As Paula points out, the left is being scattered across a wide spectrum. Bernie drops 10 points in two weeks? What happened was the attention given to all the other candidates.

    This is the uphill battle that Inslee and others like him have to fight. As a Governor, he does have the ability (especially in WA) to do some stuff the others don't, but also misses the ability of, say Beto, to go wherever he wants whenever he wants.

    But don't place your money just yet. Clinton was in the back of the pack in '92 until AFTER the New Hampshire primary, where a 2nd place finish won him the title "the Comeback Kid", and reinvigorated his campaign.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am surprised you didn't mention California's experiment into the Public Option..

    It was a dismal failure...

    As all Public Option experiments will be...

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really funny..

    President Trump attacks the media and he is vilified and demonized..

    Let a Dumbocrat like Lie-awatha attack the media and she is worshiped..

    Once again, proof positive that it's ALL about the -D/-R....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all loved Mark Cuban when he was taking on Trump??

    Mark Cuban leaves open possibility of running for president as an independent
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/mark-cuban-leaves-open-possibility-of-running-for-president-as-an-independent.html

    It's all but assured that there will be at least ONE significant independent who runs against President Trump and whoever the Dim nominee is..

    Just as it's all but assured that any Independent run will siphon off votes from the Dim candidate...

    Which will guarantee a President Trump victory... :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Terrorism joke gets cops called on Egyptian-American comedian Ahmed Ahmed

    An Egyptian-American comedian had the cops called on him after a stand-up set in Florida over the weekend — when an audience member took his joke about terrorism seriously.
    https://nypost.com/2019/05/14/terrorism-joke-gets-cops-called-on-egyptian-american-comedian-ahmed-ahmed/

    HAD to have been a "woke" Dumbocrat..

    Only a moron such as that would be made to feel "uncomfortable" by an obvious joke...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    3 Florida radio stations vow to broadcast Trump speeches daily until end of 2020 election
    https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-trump-speeches-panhandle-radio-20190513-777fjb7xirayra3qpft3zfvali-story.html

    Florida is MAGA country... :D

    Hay, at least I didn't fake a hate crime, like Dumbocrats have to do, eh? :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    San Francisco becomes 1st major US city to outlaw police use of facial recognition technology
    https://www.foxnews.com/tech/san-francisco-1st-us-city-outlaw-police-facial-recognition-technology

    Yea... Let's make it HARDER to catch thugs and rapists and kidnappers and murderers.. :^/

    Only in California... :eyeroll:

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the Democrats worst fear is coming true..

    Alabama abortion ban: Nation’s strictest abortion bill passes; no rape, incest exceptions
    https://www.al.com/news/de8b00-alabama-abortion-bill.html

    Ya reap what ya sow, Dumbocrats :D

  12. [12] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale Your [5]

    The entire civilized world except for the U.S. has some form of single-payer (gov't sponsored) health care. (You should watch "Doc Martin" on PBS). The 'vested interests' (Pharma, hospitals, Drs, insurance Cos) will fight it but it will inevitably happen here, but likely not in my lifetime.

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...without any actual data to point to nobody can criticize the new plan as a failure yet."

    That's never stopped anyone on anything.

    Look no farther than comments here on One Demand for an example. Even when there is data, people just ignore it and make stuff up aboot One Demand to argue against when they can't dispute the data.

    One of my favorite nonsense arguments was made by conservatives during the Public Option/ACA debate.

    I saw several conservatives argue that they were opposed to the public option because they wanted to preserve choice.

    They would say that studies/polls showed that 60% of citizens would SELECT the public option and this would not leave enough of a market for multiple private insurers so the citizens that wanted to CHOOSE private insurers would have less choice and/or have to pay more.

    So they were preserving choice by opposing the public option.

    The obvious flaw in this argument is that using the word select instead of choice on the public option doesn't change the fact that they are preserving choices for the 40% or less that want private insurance by denying a choice to the 60% of citizens that would choose the public option.

    Not having data or a valid argument has never stopped politicians or pundits from any party from making stuff up or ignoring data that does exist.

    And this article is another good example.

    Inslee deserves credit for taking a bold step even though it most likely won't have any effect until 2022 or 2024- or 2204- fine.

    Yet you continue to ignore the bold step of One Demand that could begin being effective in 2020.

    You ignore the fact that I was advocating taking on the establishment candidates of both parties in the primaries long before there was a Tea Party when it was considered a strategy that could not work.

    You ignore that fact that I was advocating small contributions long before Bernie's 2016 campaign when it was considered a strategy that could not work.

    You ignore the fact that 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics.

    You ignore the fact that there is a difference between a small donor campaign and a small contribution campaign.

    As I have said before, though to seems to need to be said again:

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink if he's used to drinking the Koolaid.

    "Water" you waiting for CW?

    The data clearly shows I was ahead of the curve on the facts mentioned, so what is the reason that citizens should not have a "public option" of demanding that candidates finance their campaigns only with contributions from small donors?

    Just 10% of presidential election cycle voters (6% of eligible voters) making just 100 dollars in contributions to small donor candidates would total over 1 billion dollars.

    That is just the tip of the iceberg.

    The data we have shows it is possible.

    So let's try it and get the data to confirm that it works or prove that it doesn't.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    The entire civilized world except for the U.S. has some form of single-payer (gov't sponsored) health care. (You should watch "Doc Martin" on PBS). The 'vested interests' (Pharma, hospitals, Drs, insurance Cos) will fight it but it will inevitably happen here, but likely not in my lifetime.

    And yet, there are horror stories about at the "rest of the civilized world" and their medical catastrophes..

    America is unique and what works for the "rest of the civilized world" may not work here..

    Regardless, it's a sure thing that the Democrat Party is not equipped to bring Single Payer to reality...

    will fight it but it will inevitably happen here, but likely not in my lifetime.

    I am sure eventually, it will be tried.. Though not in my lifetime either..

  15. [15] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The bottom line on "Public Option" (single-payer, gov't sponsored health care), is that the existing system, consisting of physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies, are 'ripping us off', in the vernacular.

    The U.S. healthcare system manages to appropriate to itself a far greater proportion of the U.S. economy, while delivering in many respects, inferior results compared to the rest of the civilized world.

    The main problem is, our system was never 'planned', it simply 'evolved', under the control of those who stood to profit from it. And now, it is so entrenched that it will require herculean efforts to revise it, but eventually, it will happen because it has to happen.

  16. [16] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops, subject - verb disagreement. Make that read "system . . . IS ripping us off.

  17. [17] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re: Michale's "There are horror stories . . ."

    Americans need to undestand that public health care, when it is finally implemented, will NOT simply be the level and the type of health care we now have, with somebody else (the taxpayers) paying for it. Ain't gonna happen!

    When your 85 yr-old granny gets to the point where she needs that $500,000 heart-lung transplant at taxpayer expense to compensate for her lifetime tobacco addiction in order for her to be able to live another 3 months, she ain't gonna get it!

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not a health care expert nor do I really have a dog in the hunt..

    But Democrats turn everything they do to shit (IE TrainWreckCare) so anything Democrats are FOR means to take a really good hard long look at it..

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When your 85 yr-old granny gets to the point where she needs that $500,000 heart-lung transplant at taxpayer expense to compensate for her lifetime tobacco addiction in order for her to be able to live another 3 months, she ain't gonna get it!

    Aside from being an ignorant and asinine comment, this contribution does not rise to level of thoughtful discourse that this blog should demand.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    DEEP STATE PANIC

    Dispute erupts over whether Brennan, Comey pushed Steele dossier, as DOJ probe into misconduct begins

    A high-level dispute over which senior government officials pushed the unverified Steele dossier amid efforts to surveil the Trump campaign has broken out into the open again, after it emerged that Attorney General William Barr appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if the FBI and DOJ's actions were "lawful and appropriate."

    Sources familiar with the records told Fox News that a late-2016 email chain indicated then-FBI Director James Comey told bureau subordinates that then-CIA Director John Brennan insisted the dossier be included in the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference, known as the ICA.

    Fox News was told that the email chain – not yet public -- referred to the dossier as "crown material," but it was not clear why this apparent code was used. On Tuesday night, former GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy said on Fox News' "The Story with Martha MacCallum" that "Comey has a better argument than Brennan, based on what I've seen."
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dispute-erupts-over-whether-brennan-comey-pushed-steele-dossier-as-doj-probe-into-misconduct-begins

    Democrats are crapping their pants!!!

    Let the Blame Games begin!!! :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aside from being an ignorant and asinine comment, this contribution does not rise to level of thoughtful discourse that this blog should demand.

    So says The Warden Of Wegantia!! :D

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I could use a little help here ...

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz,

    The reason that you're having trouble is that the right-wing boobs here have no appreciation for either topic-of-the-day or just for being civil.

    As Trump becomes less civil, so do they.

    Some folks think this will pass. My brother thinks we're watching a new, "punk" GOP being born.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reason that you're having trouble is that the right-wing boobs here have no appreciation for either topic-of-the-day or just for being civil.

    Being civil???

    Yer complaining about lack of civility!!!????

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Here's a thought, Birther.. Why not try BEING civil and see where that gets you??

    A little hint.. "right wing boob" is not civility...

    And it's not even accurate, but let's get you going on "civil" first..

    THEN we can work on your accuracy...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Trump becomes less civil, so do they.

    And it never entered your bigoted hate-filled skull that YA'ALL'S lack of civility is an issue???

    Ya'all have been making totally bullshit outlandish accusations against Trump and Trump supporters since day one.

    And you have the UNMITIGATED TEMERITY to complain about lack of civility..

    Take a look in the mirror, Birther. THERE is your lack of civility... :eyeroll:

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reason that you're having trouble is that the right-wing boobs here have no appreciation for either topic-of-the-day or just for being civil.

    In the FWIW file: DailyKos has an online poll every other Tuesday, intended to measure ONLINE intensity of support for Dem candidates.
    -Paula

    Funny how you don't complain about off-topic when it's bullshit you want to hear, eh? :eyeroll:

    Once again, it's all about the -D vs -R agenda.. Nothing else in play..

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why not try BEING civil and see where that gets you? Funny how you don't complain about off-topic when it's bullshit you want to hear, eh?

    Paula's stuff was all about Democrats, which is today's topic. So she's okay.

    But what's this DEEP STATE stuff you're posting?

    You don't know that it's crap? Little more than something to rile up the GOP base.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula's stuff was all about Democrats, which is today's topic. So she's okay.

    No, today's topic was the Public Option...

    You don't know that it's crap? Little more than something to rile up the GOP base.

    Yea, it's crap as much as yer Russian Collusion delusion was crap.. :D

    But THIS actually happened.. Your Russian Collusion delusion was all in yer heads..

    But, glad you can be "civil" about it.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    But let's let Federal Attorney Durham do his investigation of Democrats unimpeded, OK??

    We gave your Mueller Witch Hunt 35 million dollars and 2 years..

    Surely Attorney Durham deserves at least as much, no?? :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barr Trolls Pelosi at the Capitol: ‘Madam Speaker, Did You Bring Your Handcuffs?’
    https://freebeacon.com/politics/barr-trolls-pelosi-at-the-capitol-madam-speaker-did-you-bring-your-handcuffs/

    hehehehehe

    Democrats are going down!!! :D

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No, today's topic was the Public Option...

    Sort of. Okay, you get some points for that.

    THIS actually happened..

    I'm sure it did - behind closed doors in GOP meeting rooms. Truth is, they're shitting themselves because they see a train coming, and they're trying to head it off. Making a 'scandal' out of a perfectly decent investigation is pretty much all they have.

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    let's let Federal Attorney Durham do his investigation of Democrats unimpeded, OK?

    That's not happening. Just judging by what you've posted today, that investigation is already leaking like an old bucket.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lawyer issues warning to Congress on Barr contempt: 'You are heading into a world of hurt'

    The D.C. Circuit recently ruled on this very issue, stating in the case of McKeever v. Barr that, outside of the specific exceptions outlined in Rule 6(e), courts do not have authority to order the disclosure of grand jury information. Since any legal action taken against Barr for contempt would likely end up before the D.C. Circuit, Turley made it clear that going down that road is a bad idea for Congress.

    "There’s no question that he cannot release this Rule 6(e) information," Turley said, calling Barr's position "unassailable."
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawyer-issues-warning-to-congress-on-barr-contempt-you-are-heading-into-a-world-of-hurt

    Democrats are going to lose..

    But it's OK...

    They are so used to losing..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's not happening.

    You don't have a choice in the matter. Durham is already on the job..

    Just judging by what you've posted today, that investigation is already leaking like an old bucket.

    You mean like the Mueller staff letter to Barr was leaked??

    You can't win, Birther.. The law and the facts are ALL against you...

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Being wrong is no big step for Turley, either. He predicted Bill Clinton's impeachment, for example.

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You mean like the Mueller staff letter to Barr was leaked?

    After 2+ years, and only in reaction to Barr's outrageous conduct.

    Durham is already on the job..

    Yawn. Too bad you had nothing but scraps to investigate during Obama's reign. You're so 'on it'.

    Durham isn't going to slap at his colleagues. This'll be done in short order.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Being wrong is no big step for Turley, either.

    Do you have any FACTS that prove he is wrong??

    No??

    Then his position stands as factual..

    Democrats are going to LOSE with trying to force the release of Grand Jury information..

    It's THAT simple...

    Get used to the idea..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    After 2+ years, and only in reaction to Barr's outrageous conduct.

    So, they throw a hissy fit and illegal leak confidential information... Nice..

    Durham isn't going to slap at his colleagues.

    Except Durham has a history of doing just that. Going after corrupt politicians..

    Startin' ta feel the heat, eh Birther?? :D

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Of course, Barr could always mis-characterize Durham's report as he did Mueller's. He has no chance of being accepted at face value anymore.

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Going after corrupt politicians..

    Too bad, then, that this isn't that.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Too bad, then, that this isn't that.

    Yea, that's yer claim..

    Yet the FACTS say different..

    Let's compare notes when Durham finishes his investigation. :D

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Let's compare notes when Durham finishes his investigation.

    Deal.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Until then, I'll talk about it every day, multiple times a day...

    Like ya'all did the Russia Collusion delusion...

    Not so fun when the glove is on the other foot, eh? :D

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, it'll be fun. Trust me.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, it'll be fun. Trust me.

    On that we agree... :D It will be fun..

    But I don't think you'll be the one who it will be fun for. :D

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar

    Sufficient facts have to exist in order to open a criminal investigation... probable cause and all that. Therefore, Durham isn't conducting a criminal investigation by a long shot... simply a slow-walked limited review they can point to and claim victimhood for the Whiny-Little-Bitch-Victim-In-Chief and his perpetually aggrieved cult following. :)

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barr’s pick to investigate the Mueller probe’s origins has a history of penetrating the FBI
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/14/barrs-pick-investigate-mueller-probes-origins-has-history-penetrating-fbi/?utm_term=.347b02c675a1

    Heads are going to roll...

    DEMOCRAT heads..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barr’s pick to investigate the Mueller probe’s origins has a history of penetrating the FBI
    washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/14/barrs-pick-investigate-mueller-probes-origins-has-history-penetrating-fbi/?utm_term=.347b02c675a1

    Heads are going to roll...

    DEMOCRAT heads..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    New Russiagate Prober Has Haunted FBI for Months
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/05/14/new_russiagate_prober_evidently_has_haunted_fbi_for_months.html

    And, to get the ball rolling, we should hear from the DOJ IG Michael Horowitz any day now..

    It's going to be a FRABJOUS time for me..

    And a LIVING HELL for Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone who says that John Durham's criminal investigation is just a probe is lying..

    John Durham already used a grand jury in Russia origins probe, Joe diGenova says
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-durham-already-used-a-grand-jury-in-russia-origins-probe-joe-digenova-says

    Durham will have subpoena power and Grand Jury power..

    Democrats heads are going to roll!!! :D

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Joe diGenova! *laughs*

    Now do Alex Jones. :D

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I have to agree with Balthy that Democrats is on topic.

    No matter what the other topic of the day is, it is always aboot Democrats and whether and/or how the big money Democrats can exploit the issue to manipulate voters without solving the problem so they can exploit the issue again in the next election.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to agree with Balthy that Democrats is on topic.

    Using that reasoning, ALL politics is "on topic"..

    And therefore, ALL my comments are on topic..

    Well, except for the GoT ones, the Trek ones, the Orville ones.. :D

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Glad to see Trump’s decided to say that Congress does not have the authority to investigate him for any possible corruption and/or criminal activity.

    Since the DOJ says a sitting President cannot be charged, AG Barr says there can no be criminal investigation of the President. So Trump has made himself above the law!

    Trump, who our intelligence agencies recognize is compromised on multiple fronts, does not want anyone to know ANY of the details of the investigation that Trump claims “completely exonerates” him of any criminal acts. We just need to trust the man who lies almost every time he opens his mouth!

    Trump is fighting tooth and nail to prevent the details of the report from becoming public while also starting investigations into those who “completely exonerated” him, claiming that THEY, not him, are corrupt... which seems like an odd thing for Trump to say about people whose findings he claimed had “completely exonerated” him.

    It is curious that Trump is trying to delay the information on the report becoming public now, as it will likely be made public closer to Election Day, which would be far more damaging for Trump.

    Makes you wonder if they are intentionally doing that in an attempt to use the argument that the release of that information so close to an election date would violate the DOJ’s policy against making announcements that could influence an election?

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    You lost, Russ...

    Get over it and move on....

    Now that the investigation into Dumbocrats is moving into high gear, you should concentrate all your efforts on defending your criminal political leaders...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting factoid...

    Despite all the attention around single-payer health care, there are fewer House Democrats co-sponsoring such legislation in this Congress than in the last Congress, even though there are more House Democrats, suggesting that many elected Democrats aren’t feeling pressure from their base to check the democratic-socialist box.

    Single Payer healthcare ain't all that, people.. :D

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]