Reason Roundup

The Mueller Report Isn't Out Yet, but the Spin War Has Already Begun: Reason Roundup

Plus: E.U. authorities terrorize the internet (again) and "memers of the world unite."

|

It's Mueller Report Day, which for many media and politics types is apparently like Christmas, Election Night, Rex Manning Day, and Free Burrito Day all wrapped in one. People are professing excitement! Vindication! That either certain things will happen or other things will! (That last bit is the expert observation of venerable MSNBC host Chris Matthews.)

This morning, Attorney General William Barr is holding a press conference before the highly anticipated, lightly redacted document gets released to the internet and Congress. Though Barr has summarized Special Counsel Robert Muller's findings, there are still heretofore unknown facts that could come out. But there's zero mystery about the ways the warring factions are going to frame this, no matter what the report actually says or doesn't say.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are demanding that Mueller himself come give them the CliffsNotes, since Barr's testimony before Congress last week was "irresponsible." What was irresponsible about it the two Democratic leaders do not say, leaving the impression the only "responsible" outcome in their book would be for Barr, or Mueller, to have delivered the results of an entirely different report (preferably one that provides grounds for impeaching the president).

"The American people deserve to hear the truth," state Pelosi and Schumerright after calling it "indefensible" that Barr plans to hold a press conference to talk directly about the report. Apparently the people only deserve to hear "the truth" once that truth has been filtered through Democratic leadership.

Other Democrats have also been asking Barr to cancel the "inappropriate" press conference and "let the report speak for itself." But speaking for itself might be hard over all the spin both the left and the right are already putting up.

For instance, here's the president tweeting this morning:

Those without an ideological stake in the game are still finding ways to milk this moment. The bookstore chain Barnes and Noble has already started selling pre-order ebooks of the not-yet-released report.


FREE MINDS

European regulators terrorize the internet again. The European Union just voted again to require companies to take down "terrorist content" within one hour of it being posted or face sanctions. There are two different versions of this bad plan that must now be reconciled, but "either way, this whole concept is a very poorly thought out knee-jerk moral panic from people scared of the internet and who don't understand how it works," writes Mike Masnick. More here.


FREE MARKETS

Meme Employees International Union? A group of Instagram users thinks they should somehow be paid for using the free platform to promote themselves. To this end, they have started union-style organizing. "Solidarity actions with memers," says the IG Meme Union Local 69-420 Instagram page. "Memers of the world unite."

The union "will probably never be recognized by the National Labor Relations Board, but organizers say it can still act as a union for all intents and purposes," writes Taylor Lorenz at The Atlantic.

"We're calling it a union and doing union-organizing tactics," organizer Paul Praindo told Lorenz. "We stand in firm support of others who are working to organize anti-labor industries. We think these movements mark the beginning of a labor renaissance."


QUICK HITS

  • In a book released just last year, Sen. Kamala Harris stands by her former attempts to jail the parents of truant schoolchildren, going so far as to state that one of the prime reasons she ran for attorney general of California was to take this truancy initiative statewide. But after taking heat from pretty much all sides over that position, she claims that she now regrets her truancy initiatives.
  • Bill Weld has picked a mascot:

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

204 responses to “The Mueller Report Isn't Out Yet, but the Spin War Has Already Begun: Reason Roundup

  1. It’s Mueller Report Day…

    Your present? Four more months of milking this thing.

    1. Some people will do something.

    2. Someone’s political career will die because of this tomorrow, only to come back on Sunday.

    3. we did not see a shadowed font, i guess

    4. Hello.

      WOLVERINES!

      1. That was sweet how they chucked those grenades through the open hatches of that empty APC.

  2. This morning, Attorney General William Barr is holding a press conference before the highly anticipated, lightly redacted document gets released to the internet and Congress.

    Where he will be promoting his Soundcloud.

  3. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are demanding that Mueller himself come give them the CliffsNotes…

    Just when he thinks he’s out, they pull him back in.

    1. Wait, is there a Cliff Mueller that’s been taking notes this whole time?

  4. The European Union just voted again to require companies to take down “terrorist content” within one hour of it being posted or face sanctions.

    When the phone buzzes at 2am alerting about another “learn to code” comment, who do you want logging into the CMS to remove it?

    1. “There are two genders”.

      TERRORIST!

  5. The American people deserve to hear the truth…

    Mueller: YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH APPARENTLY.

  6. What the hell is than? A pine maarten?

    1. That

    2. Bill Weld 2020

      “We CAN weasel our way in”

    3. Gary Johnson: “Nice marmot.”

    4. It’s a fisher cat, a very vicious species of weasel, specifically picked to indicate that Weld is going to be a nasty candidate in his attacks on Trump. I approve.

  7. But speaking for itself might be hard over all the spin both the left and the right are already putting up.

    another word for spin is english. it feels good to be the first person to ever recognize this.

    1. Control the balls, control the game.

      1. As Posh Spice might have put it.

  8. I would like to thank American hero Robert Mueller for his decades of patriotic service, culminating in exposing the greatest scandal in world history — #TrumpRussia. Despite Barr’s pathetic coverup attempt, now everybody knows what we in the reality-based community have for years.

    The walls are closing in. This is the beginning of the end.

    #Impeach

    1. CNN gives itself a much-deserved pat on the back

      “It’s been a long 2+ years on the Trump-Russia beat for CNN. What a privilege. Our team has been though bombshells, actual bomb threats, weddings, babies, breakups, and literally everything in between. We’ve all aged tremendously. Tomorrow closes one chapter… and begins another.”

      1. Except for a few denialists like Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey, the media’s coverage of this scandal has been uniformly excellent.

        I’d also like to thank Rachel Maddow for having figured out years ago what Mueller’s report will prove: that Russians literally control our government.

      2. They are going to Chapter 11.

        1. ISWYDT

    2. I look forward to your highly anticipated book.

  9. “We’re calling it a union and doing union-organizing tactics,”

    Your going to charge each member $1,500 a year, and in return give them a summer picnic and a Christmas party later in the year?

    1. And open a bank account in the Caymans.

  10. Other Democrats have also been asking Barr to cancel the “inappropriate” press conference and “let the report speak for itself.”

    Using Adobe Acrobat Reader’s Read Out Loud Text-to-Speech function.

  11. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are demanding that Mueller himself come give them the CliffsNotes

    and the GOP wants sparks notes! will this yawning divide ever be healed?

  12. Weigel thinks the shallowest statistic is IMPORTANT. He never changes.

  13. Though Barr has summarized Special Counsel Robert Muller’s findings, there are still heretofore unknown facts that could come out.

    This will be like when SCOTUS issues a 50-page opinion and pundits rush to the camera to offer their misinterpretations based on a gopher’s quick skim.

  14. The Greatest Political Hoax of all time! Crimes were committed by Crooked, Dirty Cops and DNC/The Democrats.

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 18, 2019

    Now’s the time to hit him up for criminal justice reform.

    1. Everyone knows Trump designed the screen.

    2. Satire……right,,,???

  15. To this end, they have started union-style organizing. “Solidarity actions with memers,”

    You post dat picture of Kermit sipping tea again, and we send ovah Vinny here to start breakin’ tings.

    1. The meme has actually become reality?

  16. The European Union just voted again to require companies to take down “terrorist content” within one hour of it being posted or face sanctions.

    Europe is suddenly interested in keeping terrorists out?

    1. Love the terrorist, hate the content.

  17. Face to face meetings between President Trump and Emperor Xi are scheduled for late May or early June. Such meetings are usually meant to announce final deals rather than negotiate them. Contrary to what Boehm has been reporting, preliminary indications are that the Trump administration wants to keep some of his tariffs in place for a certain period of time, but they’ll phase out as China follows through on its commitments. Apparently, it isn’t enough for China to agree to things; the Trump administration wants to see them actually being done.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-china-set-tentative-timeline-for-next-round-of-trade-talks-11555521885?

    As I’ve argued recently, the agreement’s ability to get rid of forced technology transfers alone may make the agreement better than what we’ve had before–even if other aspects of the new agreement are worse than they were before. Regardless, I hope Trump’s efforts are wildly successful since, you know, I’m an American.

    1. Hoping Trump is successful? That looks like terroristic content to me!

      1. I know you’re kidding, but it’s amazing how many Americans want terrible things to happen to the U.S. because Donald Trump might get credit for it if things go well. Even when I opposed the Iraq War, I used to throw in that I hoped I was wrong. I hoped American style democracy would flower in that desert like an oasis.

        If and when Bernie comes to power and implements democratic socialism, I hope it works wonderfully. I am an American, and I want the American people to enjoy freedom and prosperity. If they try democratic socialism, a la Venezuela, I hope it makes us all free, prosperous, and happy as all get out. I don’t believe that will happen, but I hope it does.

        I opposed Trump’s moves on our trade agreements with China–every step of the way–but I hope his efforts are wildly successful. I hope we win our wars–even the ones I oppose. I’ve opposed my government on so many policies, from the Drug War to ObamaCare, but, as an American, I always hope I’m wrong. I certainly don’t want America to fail just to prove me right.

        1. It is because their entire sense of self worth is based on their politics. You hope you are okay with the other side succeeding because it turning out that you are wrong about something doesn’t mean you lose all of yourself worth. People whose self worth is entirely based on politics don’t have that luxury.

  18. WILL SOMEONE ONCE AND FOR ALL PUT A BULLET IN THE TERM ‘LIBERTARIAN-SOCIALIST’?

    1. Started drinking early, Rufus? Or has last night’s session continued into today?

      1. It’s playoff hockey time. He never really stops drinking.

        1. Our neighbors to the north are a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

          1. I can’t keep up with all the upsets!

          2. Our neighbors to the north are a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

            … and served with a side of poutine?

      2. This is me without a drink. Imagine when I do!

        This morning it’s some black cherry yogourt sprinkled with balsam fir sugar.

        No homo.

        1. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to Rufus?

  19. A group of Instagram users thinks they should somehow be paid for using the free platform to promote themselves.

    Iowahawk with a cautionary tale.

    1. People don’t realize that taking pics of your butt and posting those pics on your Instagram account is…..HARD WORK !!!!

  20. …the president’s approval rating has moved from 42.1 percent to 42.0 percent.

    It’s almost like no one gives a damn.

    1. 112 people are talking about this

      Simple Mikey is really upping his sock game lately.

  21. I’m almost certain Trump’s approval ratings would be higher if not for this Mueller bull shit.

    1. Eh, I doubt it. Most people already made up their mind about him long ago–you either like him or you don’t.

      This is a guy that was in the public eye for decades before he ever became President and was already a controversial figure.

      1. You don’t think this ‘cloud’ shaded a couple of points of the total?

        1. Not enough to make that much of a difference, to be honest. Even if it affected it by a couple of points, that’s a pretty superficial difference overall. Going from 42% to 44 or 45% isn’t that much of a change.

          1. His approval ratings are higher than Obama’s and just a bit below what Clinton’s were this far into their first term.

            http://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1118567894902657024

            The fact that they didn’t change after the Barr report just shows no one gives a shit about the report anymore.

  22. 1. No one ever talks about DAPA?
    While Democrats can cry all day about the “humanity” of immigration, DREAMERS and keeping families together the truth is, it’s ALL ABOUT GETTING VOTES and this 2015 report by CAP had zero shame in admitting just that.

    4. Changing the demographics, nom nom how we will win these States based on doing illegal aliens a solid. They were confident it would give them Colorado, Florida, Nevada and maybe even North Carolina. They weren’t wrong (FL scary close)

    1. Colorado’s turn to blue is mostly about the migration of white liberals to the state, not Hispanics. Although the number of immigrants has skyrocketed in the state, especially in north Aurora, Westminster, and parts of Boulder County, they’re still heavily outnumbered by the mostly childless white Millennials.

      That’s why there’s been so many complaints about gentrification in the Highland/RiNO areas and other places in west/south Denver; a lot of those former residents migrated to the relatively cheaper areas mentioned above since they were already turning into Hispanic ethnic enclaves.

      Remember, positive demographic change can only go in one direction–when non-whites move into white-majority areas. If the areas are already non-white majority, then that demographic makeup needs to be forever preserved in amber. Whites moving in is gentrification and is bad; whites moving out is white flight and is bad.

      1. All things white are bad. But remember, Democrats don’t hate you.

  23. But after taking heat from pretty much all sides over that position, she claims that she now regrets her truancy initiatives.

    Whatever you people want, Harris is willing to say she wants it, too.

  24. So. Newly designed Reason (congrats) with a flag option (which I’m sure deadbeat prog-snitches will enjoy) but no edit button?

    1. Snitches are more important than proper spelling and grammar.

    2. They are moderating comments now.

      1. Why would they wants someone who calls himself “Palin’s Buttplug” on their site?

        1. (Sarah) Palin’s Buttplug is a valuable left-libertarian voice with an unparalleled knowledge of economics. I’m thrilled my #UnbanPalinsButtplug campaign succeeded.

      2. Fuck off. You lie.

        1. I am with you Rufus. They are not moderating the comments. They are just finally doing something about the bots that infest here. Yesterday I and another commenter called Shackford a retard. If they were moderating comments, those comments would have certainly been moderated and they were not.

          1. Or… The mod also sees that Shackford is a retard. That isn’t really far-retched.

            1. That is a possibility.

        2. Rufus,

          I just had a comment that used profanity go into “moderation”. No profanity on hit and run? What is next, no fighting in the war room?

        3. No Rufus, I think it got moderated because it contained two links.

          1. that may be the reason for mine too.

          2. Yeah, I have comments with two links “waiting for moderation”.

            It used to be that if you broke a posting rule, it would spit your comment back at you and tell you why.

            Now you just have to wait for Godot.

    3. They already had a report button.

      1. Right. Shows how much I paid attention.

  25. It doesn’t matter what the Mueller report says. If Pelosi hasn’t moved to impeach already, then she won’t. The rest is just about campaign 2020.

    Meanwhile, Pelosi’s House is going investigation crazy over the Trump administration. They’re going after banks that have had dealing with him in the past. They’re even going after the people who contributed to Trump’s inauguration. They’re desperate.

    There is no combination of Democrat issues that can both win a Democrat plurality in closed primary states and carry a national campaign to a win. The Democrats’ issues are all losers. The Democrats are a regional party that plays well on the pages of the New York Times and the minuscule audiences that watch MSNBC and nowhere else.

    They have to make this all a personality contest because there is no other way they can win.

    1. Actually most people agree with Democrats on progressive taxation, robust voting rights, meaningful criminal justice reform, preserving and strengthening Medicare and Medicaid, building better public infrastructure, gay rights, and even robust immigration.

      1. Don’t forget common sense gun safety, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, and access to abortion care throughout all three trimesters.

        This is how we know the only way the Republicans can win is to cheat.

        1. that is right. You tell em OBL.

        2. Three? I thought it was now four.

        3. OBL-tarian……Satire…..right…?????

      2. Totally. That is why the Republicans control the Senate by a wide margine, the White House, and a large majority of the state legislatures; because most people agree with them. You called it dude.

      3. “Actually most people agree with Democrats on progressive taxation, robust voting rights, meaningful criminal justice reform, preserving and strengthening Medicare and Medicaid, building better public infrastructure, gay rights, and even robust immigration.”

        The only issue on that list that Donald Trump doesn’t support is robust immigration, and the reason Pelosi and the Democrat field isn’t aggressively going after that issue is because they think it’s a political failure.

        The Democrat issues right now are The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and Reparations for Slavery, and they’re all so embarrassing from a political perspective that the Senate Republicans will bring those issues to a vote just to embarrass the Democrats with it–and the Democrats are too ashamed to vote for them. The Democrat issues are losers.

        The issues you’re listing doesn’t differentiate the Democrats from Trump in the least.

      4. Thank you, OP, for showing us what an “Appeal to Majority” looks like.

        Class, please take notes.

  26. ‘This is actual collusion’: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd has a meltdown over reports the White House has been briefed on the Mueller report

    Todd said that Republicans in Congress had expressed outrage when former President Obama spoke about the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
    Todd said: ‘Where are all of these House Republicans now when what you have here, the attorney general briefing the President of the United States on a case that involves the President of the United States. What is the difference?

    Gee, Chuck, you mean other than Lisa Page confirming that Lynch and the DoJ pressured Comey to not recommend indictment over Hillary deliberately spilling classified information on her personal email server?

    Trump has utterly fucking broken these people. They put all their hopes and dreams on Mueller Claus delivering their impeachment presents, and are flailing about rather than face reality.

    1. The White House is running the exectutive branch. That is obstruction of justice and collusion. It is collusion I tell you Ken. Collusion.

  27. This is easily the best book review I have read in quite a while. It nails modern liberalism perfectly. The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies by Ryszard Legutko is a book everyone needs to read.

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/01/liturgy-of-liberalism

    Communism and liberalism feature an odd and distinctive combination of historical determinism and radical Pelagianism. The eschaton of radical freedom for all is inevitable, the forces of History will sweep toward their ultimate victory—and therefore it is essential that every good citizen accept liberalism (communism) in his heart and promote it publicly, eagerly detecting and shaming bias (class interest) and intolerance (oppression). It also follows from Legutko’s view that liberal orders like the EU recreate the pathologies of communism, albeit with a human mask.

    1. Light is defined by contrast, however, so the Festival requires that the children of light spy out and crush the forces of darkness, who appear in ever-changing guises, before the celebration can be renewed. The essential components of the Festival are twofold: the irreversibility of Progress and the victory over the Enemy, the forces of reaction. Taken in combination, these commitments give liberalism its restless and aggressive dynamism, and help to make sense of the anomalies. Fidesz in Hungary is more threatening than the Saudi monarchy, even though the latter is far less liberal, because Fidesz represents a retrogression—a deliberate rejection of liberalism by a nation that was previously a member in good standing of the liberal order. The Hungarians, and for that matter the Poles, are apostates, unlike the benighted Saudis, who are simple heretics. What is absolutely essential is that the clock of Progress should never be turned back. The problem is not just that it might become a precedent and encourage reactionaries on other fronts. The deeper issue is that it would deny the fundamental eschatology of liberalism, in which the movement of History may only go in one direction. It follows that Brexit must be delayed or defeated at all costs, through litigation or the action of an unelected House of Lords if necessary, and that the Trump administration must be cast as a temporary anomaly, brought to power by voters whose minds were clouded by racism and economic pain. (It is therefore impossible to acknowledge that such voters might have legitimate cultural grievances or even philosophical objections to liberalism.)

      1. And in the money quote of the entire review…

        Liberalism needs an enemy to maintain its sacramental dynamism. It can never rest in calm waters, basking in the day of victory; it is essential that at any given moment there should be a new battle to be fought. The good liberal should always be able to say, “We have made progress, but there is still much to do.” This is why the triumph of same-sex marriage actually happened too suddenly and too completely. Something else was needed to animate liberalism, and transgenderism has quickly filled the gap, defining new forces of reaction and thus enabling new iterations and celebrations of the Festival. And if endorsement and approval of self-described “gender identity” becomes a widely shared legal and social norm, a new frontier will be opened, and some new issue will move to the top of the public agenda, something that now seems utterly outlandish and is guaranteed to provoke fresh opposition from the cruel forces of reaction—polygamy, perhaps, or mandatory vegetarianism.

    2. The puzzle of the EU technocrats, on this account, is no puzzle at all. They are so error-prone, even from a technocratic point of view, at least in part because they are actually engaged in a non-technocratic enterprise that is pervasively ideological, in the same way that Soviet science was ideological. Their prime directive is to protect and expand the domain of liberalism, whether or not that makes for technical efficiency.

      This phenomena explains so much about modern society. Why do we no longer produce great art? Because liberals took over the arts and made it into a tool to advance liberal politics. What matters is the politics not the art. So, some shit spread on the wall to show the “oppression of the system” becomes “art” because it advances liberal politics. Why do our schools no longer function? Because they were taken over by liberals who turned them into indocrination factories that no longer educate. Education doens’t advance the cause. This is just two examples. There are endless others.

      1. I would add the day they put the focus on man as opposed to God, art began its descent. Where Michelangelo attempted to reach God, some prog artist gets a government grant to produce art pissing on Jesus.

        As for architecture, I don’t think it’s all that hard to see we’re nowhere where we once stood. Look at cities like Florence, Barcelona, Venice, London, Paris, the art-deco intricacies in Montreal, Chicago, NYC etc. Just sit and carefully observe how much we’ve lost.

        There’s no vision. Why? Because we’ve removed God from the equation.

        Plus the unions won’t do the work.

        1. We no longer have ideals. We just have the ego of the artist or the architect. Since great beauty has already been achieved, the artist or the architect can only distinguish himself by rejecting beauty. Frank Gehry is a perfect example of this. All of his buildings are designed to be as ugly and inhuman as possible. They are all a rejection of beauty and the human spirit and an affirmation of his own ego by its rejection.

        2. It’s worth noting, given the recent events at Notre-Dame, that The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (and it’s less famous I-gor Meets Quasimodo at Notre-Dame) was a tome by Hugo lamenting the fall of architecture. Guess what ideology was sprouting up around that time?

          1. And that book saved the Cathedral. They were actually going to tear it down.

        3. Secularism and liberalism are two different things.

          1. No they are not. Read the article.

    3. I like going to First Things from time to time. Has it retained its vigour since Neuhaus (sp?) died?

  28. In a book released just last year, Sen. Kamala Harris stands by her former attempts to jail the parents of truant schoolchildren, going so far as to state that one of the prime reasons she ran for attorney general of California was to take this truancy-initiative statewide. But after taking heat from pretty much all sides over that position, she claims that she now regrets her truancy initiatives.

    Do you know who else was just following orders?

  29. Barr says he relied Trump’s “good faith belief” that he was unjustly the target of the investigation but they never interviewed Trump under oath to put that to scrutiny. On the one hand Barr says he discovered Trump’s intent but this discovery occurred without any meaningful examination under oath. Plus Trump lied his ass off so many times. Those lies are direct evidence of an intent to obstruct and confuse. Barr doesn’t interview Trump under oath, ignores the mountain of constant lies and disinformation, ignores the fact that Trump’s own close associates were all lying and being offered pardons. We’re going to have to reopen this investigation.

    1. Just what do you think Trump would have said under oath other than what he told Barr? Give it up. There is nothing there.

      1. Trump would have told a dozen lies.

        1. Okay. So, Barr is wrong to rely on the circumstanial evidence to determine there is nothing there but it is totally okay for you to assume the President would lie because you just know it.

          You are pathetic.

          1. He just granted you a benevolent indulgence Sevo. Don’t you realize how wonderful he is for thinking the state should allow you to keep more of its money? Because understand, in Ordinary Person’s view, everything including you belong to the state and every think you own or ever will own is the result of the benevolence of the state. You should feel honored.

          2. John, apparently according to reports that Dowd lawyer told Mueller he couldn’t let his client Trump sit for an interview because Trump is a compulsive liar and an idiot.

            1. Yeah, annonomous sources made up by Democatic operatives claim this. Yeah, that is legit.

              You are pathetic.

            2. “According to reports”.

              So desperate.

    2. Well said. I’ve really appreciated your posts on #TrumpRussia.

      #OlbermannWasRight

    3. “Those lies are direct evidence of an intent to obstruct and confuse.”
      Besides being a pathetic lying piece of shit, you are also occasionally funny.
      But fuck off and quit pestering the adults.

      1. Thanks Sevo. I hope they lower your taxes.

        1. “Thanks Sevo. I hope they lower your taxes.”
          Actually my taxes were quite a bit lower. I hope yours doubled; nothing other than what you deserve.

          1. He just granted you a benevolent indulgence Sevo. Don’t you realize how wonderful he is for thinking the state should allow you to keep more of its money? Because understand, in Ordinary Person’s view, everything including you belong to the state and every think you own or ever will own is the result of the benevolence of the state. You should feel honored.

  30. “AP interview: Palestinian PM accuses US of ‘financial war’”
    […]
    “The new Palestinian prime minister on Tuesday accused the United States of declaring “financial war” on his people and said an American peace plan purported to be in the works will be “born dead.”
    https://apnews.com/7db0740041884d40962fc8f3c8f114de

    What has the US done to provoke such a statement? Well:
    “The Trump administration has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars of aid, including all of its support for the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees.”
    Stopped shoveling my money to some whacko fundies. One more feather in Trump’s hat.

    1. 38 billion for Isreal tho

    2. Now if he could only slash/eliminate all the rest of the financial aid …

    3. Well, you know how it is with the Jews and finances.

  31. Do We Need More Police Or Better Police?

    In 2012, with a murder spree engulfing the city, the city made a radical decision: abolish its police department. The following year, it was replaced by a new non-unionized force run by the county. The new force was much cheaper, allowing them to hire 50% more officers for the same budget, and cops could be fired if they refused to work. Officers were sent out to walk beats again, meeting with citizens, handing out their cards, and listening to their concerns.

    1. The impact was rapid and transformative. Since 2012, murder is down by two-thirds, non-fatal shootings are down by half, and all other crime is down by 45%. The force was eventually unionized, but its structure, culture, and relationship with the community has fundamentally shifted for the better.

    2. We need better police. There is a finite number of people who are both interested and qualified to be police officers. For 50 years now the solution to every crime problem has involved “more cops on the streets”. By hugely expanding the size of our police forces we have not only run out of those with the proper character to be police officers, we have allowed those who don’t have the proper character to overwheld the ones who do and do grave damage to the honesty and efficiency of our police forces.

    3. Crime statistics are too complicated to attribute to any one factor like that. If anything, they’re closely tied to the economy. Still, I think there’s a big problem of focus.

      I had a $9,000 motorcycle stolen. Caught the whole things on high definition video. Got the thieves on camera in the act,

      1. That posted before I was done!

        Got the thieves on camera in the act, with pictures of their faces, and everything. Couldn’t get the cops interested in watching or storing the video.

        The bike was recovered before I even knew it was stolen. Because I had the steering lock on (which locks the steering to the frame), when they broke the steering lock, they broke the frame–and the bike is now uninsurable. I think the cops figure that since the bike was recovered and insured, they’ve got other things to do.

        Community policing doesn’t mean shit if they aren’t prosecuting people for stealing and destroying things like that. I don’t give a shit about adults selling each other weed–and that can even be done legally in this state. I don’t know that violent crime is something that goes up or down based on community policing. I think the cops’ priorities are seriously fucked up in certain jurisdictions. If they’re looking to give people parking and speeding tickets but not looking to prosecute thieves and such, something’s seriously fucked up.

  32. “Newsom plans to take on Big Pharma over prescription drugs. L.A. County wants in”
    […]
    “Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ambitious plan to rein in prescription drug costs through a statewide purchasing system — pooling the power of California’s largest public and private buyers — has a new ally: Los Angeles County….”
    https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-gavin-newsom-prescription-drugs-costs-20190417-story.html

    Anyone who read “Factfulness” must have been struck by Rosling’s naivete in assuming those in rich countries wouldn’t mind paying a bit extra so the Pharm makers could cut prices in poor countries.
    Nope. Some of the richest folks in the world are demanding the makers find their profits elsewhere, like those folks in Africa, who can afford it, right?

    1. oh god. It’s going to get so much worse before it gets better. I keep thinking is this it, do I finally have to leave California? Newsom is going to do his best to make me.

    1. LOL

      No Republican has a chance of winning the Presidency in 2020. Not when the economy is this bad, and voters are moving toward the Koch / Reason position on immigration.

  33. The other thing that struck me about Barr was the way he used “collusion” instead of conspiracy. Collusion isn’t a legal term outside of antitrust so why did the AG use that language. The other thing is that I never expected Russia to involve any Americans in their active measures. Trump didn’t coordinate the interference but he invited it and then he helped cover it up with disinformation and lying.

    1. He didn’t use “conspiracy” because conspiracies require a crime. Collusion whatever it is is not a crime. SO, there can’t be a “conspiracy to collude”. It struck you because you are appearently know nothing about the law and likely didn’t fully understand what he is saying. Do yourself a favor next time, when you don’t understand something, ask someone who does before forming your opinion.

      1. If inviting and covering with disinformation is a legal problem with respect to Russian involvement in the election, I invite you, Ordinary Person, to inspect the actions of the Clinton Campaign and the DNC. They worked closely with foreign agents to dig up dirt on their opponent – agents representing Russia and dirt that purported to come directly from Russian intelligence sources. “Worked with” to the tune of millions of dollars.

        We also know for a fact that the Clinton campaign actually rigged an election in 2016.

        So if you truly believe that there is a crime to be found in inviting Russian interference and covering it up with disinformation and lying, I would expect your ire to be pointed in the direction of the Clinton campaign. They actually did exactly that, and much much more along those lines.

        1. But Cyto, Trump said in a speech that the Russians should release Clinton’s emails if they had hacked them, which everyone knew they had. That is totally different and much worse than paying foreign nationals to dig up dirt on your opponent. Can’t you see that?

    2. “The other thing is that I never expected Russia to involve any Americans in their active measures.”

      The entire goddam accusation has been that Trump and his people colluded with the Russians. Actively. You’re not just moving the goalposts here, you’re melting them down and reforming them as something unrecognizable.

      Trump is a total piece of shit, but I’ll be damned if I want your side to have power, because somehow you manage to be more dishonest than he is.

      1. The other thing is that I never expected Russia to involve any Americans in their active measures.

        Then how is there a “conspiracy” or “collusion” if the Russians never involved any Americans? As best I can see, the his theory is because the Russians wanted to involve Americans and the Trump people said no, the Trump people are guilty of something because taking meetings with Russians and telling them no is a crime or something.

    3. Ordinary Person
      April.18.2019 at 10:29 am
      “The other thing that struck me about Barr was the way he used “collusion” instead of conspiracy.”

      The thing which strikes me is your slimy efforts to find something, anything, to justify your obsession with Trump.

    4. The Hihnbot 2.0 schtick is so grating because it lacks any creativity whatsoever. At least Tony and the Rev actually react to people. I am starting to suspect OP is just a computer generated parasite designed to suck all the intelligence out of any conversation.

  34. I caught a few minutes of CNN’s coverage of Barr’s press conference. They had a really big discussion panel…. the size they used for election night.

    The unanimous consensus was that Barr tipped his hand by saying he (and Rosenstein) disagreed with the Mueller legal theory on some of the obstruction items – this proves that he is not an honest broker and is covering up for Trump.

    The other unanimous consensus was that Trump absolutely committed criminal obstruction of justice – proof of his mental state is that he was worried about leaks… Just like Nixon. Therefore he was obviously committing obstruction.

    The big nail in the coffin was this: “Trump never sat down for an interview. This is obstruction, pure and simple.” Again, unanimous support for the notion that this is proof of obstruction – from like 10 legal analysts and political reporters.

    IOW, they were spinning HARD. Really hard.

    They ended the segment I watched with this: If Trump is a victim it is because people around him kept taking meetings with Russians to dig up dirt on his opponent. And they lied about it. The question is, what is congress going to do about it?

    All spoken without a hint of irony.

    1. The other unanimous consensus was that Trump absolutely committed criminal obstruction of justice – proof of his mental state is that he was worried about leaks… Just like Nixon. Therefore he was obviously committing obstruction.

      Obama being the most leak obsessed administration in history was just good government.

      They ended the segment I watched with this: If Trump is a victim it is because people around him kept taking meetings with Russians to dig up dirt on his opponent. And they lied about it. The question is, what is congress going to do about it?

      So if having a foreign power dig up dirt on your opponent is like the worst thing ever, then Hillary hiring a British spy to work with Russian intelligence to create a dossier of negative information about Trump is really bad right?

      And it is totally a crime for a private citizen to take a meeting with RUSSIANS!!!

      These people really have gone insane.

      1. The real nut-job conspiracy theory that should be bubbling to the top soon rests on those actions of the Clinton campaign and the “Trump Tower” meeting with the Russian lawyer.

        I have not seen it fully corroborated yet – because the big media outlets are not touching it with a 10 foot pole – but the question of “who was that lawyer working for” has come up. It seems that she was working with Fusion GPS both before and after that meeting.

        Now, we know that this was the pretext for getting wiretaps and claiming “Russian agents are trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign” … And we know that the people who got that investigation started are hard-core Clinton supporters who were using the Steele dossier from Fusion GPS… and we know that they then used all of that to “investigate” (or spy) on the campaign and that that intelligence was handed over to political operatives in the White House who then leaked it to the press (remember “Unmasking”?). And we know that the “Russia Investigation” was initiated from within the Obama White House by declassifying that “intelligence” and illegally distributing it around the government in order to “preserve” it and so that it could be leaked later to enable the push for an investigation.

        These are all things we have been told by the players themselves. The Obama Administration was so proud of their subterfuge that they bragged about it in the New York Times. The only piece of that thread that isn’t rock-solid is the Russian Lawyer – Fusion GPS connection. And I only mark it that way because I don’t know for sure. But surely the hard evidence exists, one way or the other.

        So if she indeed is a Fusion GPS operative in this matter, it certainly does raise the question of the entire genesis of the “Russian collusion”. Was the whole thing a pretext to get FBI spying on the enemy camp? It certainly is suspicious. Particularly since the only other “infiltration” of the Trump campaign that we know about is by FBI “informants” that were sent to try to plant information and pull that same information back out to be used as foundational evidence for a warrant. That the only other outside actor was working with Fusion GPS would be a really, really odd coincidence.

        1. I think it absolutely was a pretext to get the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign. I think they figured Trump had to be guilty of something and if they spied on him they would find that something and no one would ever know or care that the original investigation was a lie. They assumed Trump was dirty because they are dirty and couldn’t concieve that anyone else wouldn’t be as dirty as they are.

          The irony of this whole affair is that Trump, the guy the media assures us is the most dishonest and corrupt President in history, is likely the only honest man in Washington. If he were not, the FBI would have found something to nail him on during this investigation and they clearly didn’t.

    2. According the Glenn Reynolds Barr said that the White House was extraordinarily cooperative up to and including providing documents they could have properly asserted exectutive privilige over.

      The White House cooperation is just more proof of their guilty conscience over their obstruction of justice.

      1. The other nutter thing the left is jumping on is this:

        Barr said that he and Rosenstein disagreed with the legal theory Mueller was using to support some of his obstruction claims. But they did not use their reasoning in determining whether Trump committed obstruction, they used Mueller’s reasoning.

        The left has jumped on this as proof that Barr is engaged in a coverup and proof positive of obstruction…. because they are saying that Barr used his own legal reasoning – and he had to because he had to cover for Trump. They got his words exactly backwards. This is how motivated the reasoning of the left is right now.

        1. So Barr agreed with Rosenstein but went with Muehller’s interpration anyway, but it is Barr who is covering for Trump? Have these people just lost the ability to reason? Did they ever have it?

  35. A group of Instagram users thinks they should somehow be paid for using the free platform to promote themselves.

    Sounds like they need to strike.

  36. This is an actual exchange in the Barr press conference.

    ‘Do you think its proper that you described the President in such sympathetic terms?’ ‘Those were the terms used in Muellers report’

    Barr should have just walked out right then. Damn.

    1. The “reporters” at that presser were an embarrassment.

      1. They have been an embarrassment since the ’91 primary campaign. It has just gotten more and more explicit along the way.

        Maybe Trump is fixing this. Prior to Trump, the last real follow-up tough question I remember a president getting was when Christiane Amanpour asked Clinton about his pledge to do something about Kosovo and he blew her off so she asked again, pointedly. He blew her off again,…. and she got a 3 month suspension from CNN. Message sent.

        Obama went through multiple prominent campaigns and 8 years as president without ever once being asked a tough question. Well, he did get hit with a good one from “Joe the Plumber”, but that guy wasn’t a reporter.

        Finally Trump comes along and the media is unhinged, but at least they are asking questions again. They are all partisan hack questions, but at least they are questions designed to put the government on the spot.

        1. Well, he did get hit with a good one from “Joe the Plumber”, but that guy wasn’t a reporter.

          And the media tried to destroy that guy’s life for his trouble.

  37. Another thought is (this one may blow your mind) the obstruction is the collusion . Lifting the sanctions is the collusion. Mueller was investigating Russia. Trump and Putin were both using similar language and lies to distort the inquiry. While Trump was parroting Putin he was also trying to reward Putin by removing sanctions.

    1. You are on fire today. Keep up the excellent work.

      #TrumpRussia
      #ItsMuellerTime
      #Impeach
      #Resist

    2. the obstruction is the collusion

      That makes no sense.

      Lifting the sanctions is the collusion.

      How?

      Mueller was investigating Russia. Trump and Putin were both using similar language and lies to distort the inquiry. While Trump was parroting Putin he was also trying to reward Putin by removing sanctions.

      Reward Putin for what? You seem to have a real problem reasoning about this issue.

    3. Ordinary Person
      April.18.2019 at 10:49 am
      “Another thought is (this one may blow your mind)…”

      No, it simply points out how desperate you are to grasp any straw you think will help.
      Grow up, and fuck off.

  38. I guess we’re still waiting to receive talking points from Clapper/Brennan/DNC before we get an article about the press conference?

    1. Yahoo has the headline “Barr: ’10 episodes’ of possible obstruction”

      Think about that for a moment. What does “possible obstruction” mean? We know what is and is not obstruction of justice. It is a very well defined crime that has been prosecuted literally thousands of times. We know what happened here. The Muehler report tells us that. So we have the facts and we know the crime, how could there be any “possible” to it? It is either obstruction or it isn’t. You only say “possible” if you don’t know the facts, but you do here.

      Ten bucks says Reason publishes an article with the term “possible obstruction” in it before the day is out. That seems to be the talking point, even though it is utterly meaningless and essentially an admission that there was no obstruction.

      1. The real affront, as far as I can tell, is that Barr is doing a decent job controlling the narrative, rather than letting them get their talking points from the DNC/security state out first. They have actually stated as much.

    2. They are working hard… the “discredit the messenger” talking point has been getting hammered hard for the last two weeks, and it reached a fever pitch in the last 48 hours. Apparently Barr is widely known to be a partisan hack who is just covering for Trump. And we should be outraged that he has spoken on the matter at all. And he should not have even read the report before releasing it in its entirety. And the fact that he ran it by the lawyers at the White House (as is required by law) is proof that he is a hack who is covering for Trump. At least, this is what I’m being told….

      1. Have they said what they think was redacted that proves there was a conspiracy to do dastardly things or are they not even bothering with that?

        1. The act of redacting is the cover-up.

          Worse, Barr gave himself the first bite at the apple. The media and the democrats are livid that he is trying to “set the narrative” by announcing things before they have a chance to set the narrative themselves. (and yes, they have explicitly said this in exactly those terms. They really have that level of hubris)

          1. Yeah, I’ve seen this too. It’s basically an admission that it’s just spin wars.

  39. Interesting article
    Most American Christians Believe They’re Victims of Discrimination
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-christians-who-believe-theyre-being-persecuted-in-america/488468/

    1. It is because they likely are. Either it is a case of mass hallucination or there is something to it. I am going with the latter.

      1. Season’s greetings!

      2. In what form does this discrimination manifest itself such that *most* American Christians would believe they are victims of it?

        1. In what form would descrimination against black people cause to think they were victims of it? Go ask black people. You never doubt their word. You doubt Christian’s words because you hate their guts and want this dismissed because you don’t want it to end.

          But just to give one example, Christians are routinely discriminated against in college admissions.

          In fact, if we aggregate the reported enrollment figures, we discover that 4 percent of all college-age American Jews are currently enrolled in the Ivy League, compared to just 1 percent of Asians and about 0.1 percent of whites of Christian background.

          One of Ephanshade’s most striking findings was that excelling in certain types of completely mainstream high school activities actually reduced a student’s admission chances by 60–65 percent, apparently because teenagers with such interests were regarded with considerable disfavor by the sort of people employed in admissions; these were ROTC, 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, and various similar organizations.87 Consider that these reported activities were totally mainstream, innocuous, and non-ideological, yet might easily get an applicant rejected, presumably for being cultural markers. When we recognize the overwhelmingly liberal orientation of nearly all our elite universities and the large communities of academics and administrators they employ, we can easily imagine what might become of any applicants who proudly proclaimed their successful leadership roles in an activity associated with conservative Christianity or rightwing politics as their extracurricular claim to fame.

          http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

          Just some good news to cheer you up. I am sure this sort of thing makes you joyful.

          1. Actually, John, I don’t hate Christians, I don’t automatically believe people of any race regardless of their claims, but you do hate me and my guts and don’t mind lying about me if it means furthering a narrative.

            So how many Christian Americans apply for enrollment at Ivy League universities? I don’t doubt that there probably is some type of discrimination going on there. I don’t think that this alone can explain why *most Christians* think they are being discriminated against. See the difference?

            So I ask again, why do you think *most Christians* think they are being discriminated against?

            1. So how many Christian Americans apply for enrollment at Ivy League universities? I don’t doubt that there probably is some type of discrimination going on there. I don’t think that this alone can explain why *most Christians* think they are being discriminated against. See the difference

              Because it only happens at Ivy league? There is something different about them? I don’t see why that would be the case.

              And you say you have no doubt some discrimination is going on. You just conceded the arguement.

              Whether you hate Christians or not is your conscience not mine. But you clearly don’t give a fuck if they are discriminated against or treated unfarily and will go to any measure to diminish and lie about it occuring. Whether that is you hating them or just being the usual nasty piece of garbage you are is a question of semantics.

              1. “Because it only happens at Ivy league?”

                So it happens elsewhere? Systematically and pervasively, so much so that “most American Christians” would feel like they are being discriminated against? Again I have a hard time seeing that to be the case. But again if you can provide something along these lines, then please do so.

                “But you clearly don’t give a fuck if they are discriminated against or treated unfarily”

                That’s called “projection”, John. You don’t care if I am treated unfairly, that is for sure.

    2. Times I’ve been discriminated against for being a Christian:

      Marine Corps. Oh, yeah buddy. Officers, SNCOs, NCOs, troops.

      Other than that, it’s only been the rare individual who I’m fairly certain has “discriminated” against me, either within the scope of NAP or outside it.

      I have suspicion there may have been discrimination from college, but no hard evidence, so I’ll discount that suspicion.

      It’s not hard at all to find “discrimination”. An attractive lady who won’t date you due to your religion would be “discrimination”, though I doubt most people would whine about it too much. The problem is how each person is using the word, either in the negative connotation or just the general use.

      1. My suspicion, is that many American Christians are nonplussed with the idea that so many people no longer regard Christianity as the default “correct” or “superior” faith, and instead just regard Christianity as one of many faiths, and respond by calling it “discrimination” in a vague sense.

        But I don’t think it is going to be easy to find specific systematic and pervasive examples of discrimination against Christians based on their faith, especially not as discriminatory as was done against blacks and other minorities in the past.

        1. Your suspicion may indeed have merit, but I live amongst them (average Protestant conservative types), and I talk to them. When they talk about discrimination, they talk about media stories and editorials, evil things colleges and “costal” regions do (California, east coast), and laws that even I admit look really bad even if they aren’t specifically meant to be used against Christians. Remember the “Noah’s Ark museum” complaints that they used tax breaks and all those people whining cause they were Christians? That kind of stuff.

          What I’m saying is they have a point, but they also recognize it’s nothing like the discrimination of minorities in the past, or REAL persecution of Christians in other parts of the world.

  40. Wait. Matthews thinks that the impeachment drive will start with the Barr press conference? Where has he been the last two years?

    1. Several prominent democrats promised impeachment the day after the election.

      1. Who?
        There were a few radical freshman Democrats who did.
        Nobody in the leadership did, IIRC.
        But if I’m wrong, who did?

        1. Tom Steyer for one. He is a pretty important Democrat and one of the biggest financial backers they have

          http://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/democrats-impeach-trump.html

          1. Tom Steyer does not have a vote in Congress, last I checked.

            1. “Tom Steyer does not have a vote in Congress, last I checked.”

              Pretty sure he buys a couple of them.

        2. And to the extent they didn’t talk about it directly, it was because they thought it was a political loser even though that is what their base desparately wants.

          But their preferred strategy of evading the issue has some obvious shortcomings. Their base wants impeachment, Republicans want to talk about impeachment, the media likes impeachment stories, and Trump’s conduct and unfitness for office are obviously the central issues in American politics and can’t just be swept under the rug.

          http://www.vox.com/2018/4/30/17291016/democrats-impeachment-midterms

          We all have Google. Stop lying.

          1. You’re shifting the goalposts.
            Of course many Democratic voters want impeachment.
            Cyto claimed “several prominent democrats promised impeachment the day after the election”. I don’t see how your link either proves or disproves this claim. Especially since it was published well before the election.
            Does Nancy Pelosi privately want impeachment? Probably, sure.
            Has she ever demanded impeachment publicly? I think the answer to that is a pretty clear no.

            1. I posted several examples, with links. Someone thought it would be fun to use the new “flag” system to make sure they didn’t get seen. They are “awaiting moderation”.

              Suffice it to say, it wasn’t a couple of people popping off. There was a coordinated and planned effort underway immediately. It is well documented as they did not feel the need to hide anything… well, other than their funding sources.

              1. The only stories I could find on the matter, were Republicans accusing those Democrats of wanting impeachment on the day after the election.

                1. Then you suck at google.
                  I can’t see your view, so I don’t know if you can get to my post below.

                  Here’s the instructions.

                  Go to google
                  Select “news” from the search options.
                  Select “tools”
                  Put in “Custom Date” – pick the period from the election to the inauguration. I used 8/1/2016 – 2/1/2017 just because it was easy.

                  Put “Trump Impeach” in the search box.

                  Click search.

                  You’ll get 10 pages of hits – those are from news sites. All from before the guy even takes office. They didn’t have a reason yet. No Russia stuff….. just “he’s a racist” or “business dealings”…. but you can read through all that to see that the point was “we are not going to accept the results of the election”.

                  And that only catches stuff “the media” felt like covering. You won’t find any of those immediate post-game interviews that were live on TV in the aftermath of the election… because they were not separate stories. They were part of the live coverage and nobody in the press has felt the impulse to go back and say “wait a minute…. Clinton campaign officials were confidently promising impeachment hours after the election and before Clinton spoke to the public”.

                  Yet those people knew about Fusion GPS and “the Dossier”.

                  1. And this is why an edit button would be nice.

                    I thought “Then you suck at Google” sounded funny. But reading it back it probably reads way more confrontational than I expected. Dang.

                  2. Well that is part of the problem, I was looking at articles after the 2018 election.
                    I admit to not being a wizard at Google, but I did know about the time search feature.
                    Republicans were cynically using impeachment talk in 2018 to drum up support for them. “You can’t give power to those crazy libruls, all they talk about is wanting to impeach Trump!” But in reality, there were fewer Democrats talking about impeachment, than there were Republicans talking about Democrats talking about impeachment. It was just a scare tactic.

                    1. “…Immediately after his inauguration, The Independent and The Washington Post each reported on efforts already underway to impeach Trump…”
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

                      Even a cave man can do it…

                    2. Oh, well that’s your problem then! They had already been talking about impeaching Trump for over 2 years at that point.

                      No, the surprising thing is that insiders in the DNC / HRC campaign structure were talking impeachment before the election was even conceded. Several leftist front organizations were already launching impeach Trump campaigns before HRC issued her almost-concession.

                      The guy was still months away from taking office, let alone actually doing anything that could even conceivably disqualify him from office, and they already were not just spouting off about impeachment, but actually spending money to make it happen.

                      So complaining about some republican saying “they want to impeach Trump” seems kinda dumb, particularly over two years later.

                      “Nancy Pelosi has notpublicly endorsed calls for impeachment since taking the office of Speaker of the House” is an awfully narrow box to draw to conclude that “democrats are not calling for impeachment”.

        3. Brad Sherman. Maxine Waters. Al Green. Steve Cohen.

          It hasn’t just been LOLcows like Rashida Tlaib.

          1. The only stories that I could find on those figures, on the day after the election, was about Republicans accusing them of wanting to impeach Trump.

            I didn’t see any articles that those Democrats themselves, on the day after the election, were demanding impeachment.

            But perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong.

            1. “…Immediately after his inauguration, The Independent and The Washington Post each reported on efforts already underway to impeach Trump…”
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

              Even a cave man can do it…

            2. I didn’t see any articles that those Democrats themselves, on the day after the election, were demanding impeachment.

              This shit ain’t hard, man.

              Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, plans to re-introduce articles of impeachment against Trump on the first day of the new Congress, he said Thursday. Sherman was one of three Democrats who introduced resolutions to impeach Trump in 2017, along with Reps. Al Green of Texas and Steve Cohen of Tennessee, part of an effort from a small wing of House Democrats seeking to remove the President from office.

            3. Seriously, it’s easy.

              “While there’s still those that think he’ll never be impeached, you never know,” she said. “So, let me leave you with this: Despite the fact that we haven’t gotten the report yet, and we’re going after it, and it may be subpoenaed, that it is being worked on. I’m still saying impeach 45.”

              That crazy bitch was still harboring impeachment fever dreams as recently as the end of last month.

              1. *on the day after the election*

                1. Why did you think that there would be anything surprising about Democrats talking about impeachment after the 2018 election? They had already been flogging that horse for a couple of years, and had extensively used “Impeach Trump” in their campaign literature and fundraising.

                  Is Pelosi backing away from impeachment upon taking the gavel really the dispositive element for you? Why would you think anyone would even be talking about that moment? They had been running around screaming for impeachment for 2 years by that point…. what is the point of saying “nobody in the democrat leadership…. except people like Maxine Waters… was calling for impeachment during the swearing in ceremony on capital hill”?

                  The salient issue is that the DNC machine was working toward impeachment from the moment the 2016 election results were announced… even long before they became official.

                2. *pretends that this talk hasn’t been going on for the last 2.5 years*

  41. Other Democrats have also been asking Barr to cancel the “inappropriate” press conference and “let the report speak for itself.”

    Translation, let Brian Stelter of CNN speak for it!

  42. “Rex Manning Day”

    nice drop. 😀

  43. Of course the memers union would use the number 69-420.

  44. A group of Instagram users thinks they should somehow be paid for using the free platform to promote themselves.

    They won’t object, of course, if the platform starts charging them a fee for providing a platform.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.