Reason Roundup

Bolton Book Claims Barr Was Worried About Trump's Deals With Dictators. The Justice Department Says Bolton's Projecting.

Plus: milk protectionism, arguments for school choice, and more...


President Donald Trump must be having second thoughts about firing national security adviser John Bolton last September. (Though thank goodness he did.) Bolton—who was particularly salty that Trump wouldn't let him bomb Iran—is now dishing about the president in an upcoming book, a draft copy of which was leaked by an unknown source to The New York Times.

In addition to "dozens of pages" on the Ukraine situation that's now at the center of Trump impeachment proceedings, the book also mentions that Bolton had concerns about the president's relationship with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Chinese president Xi Jinping, and that he had reported these concerns to Attorney General William Barr.

The manuscript for Bolton's book—titled The Room Where It Happened—was submitted to the White House in December for a national security review.

In the manuscript, Bolton alleges that Barr had been concerned certain Trump comments to Erdogan and Xi would jeopardize Department of Justice cases against Chinese telecommunications company ZTE and state-owned Turkish bank Halkbank. Barr "said he was worried that Mr. Trump had created the appearance that he had undue influence over what would typically be independent inquiries," according to the Times. More here.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) replied in a statement late last night that it had not yet reviewed Bolton's book manuscript but considered the Times article to have "grossly mischaracterize[d] what Attorney General Barr and Mr. Bolton discussed."

"There was no discussion of 'personal favors' or 'undue influence' on investigations, nor did…Barr stat[e] that the President's conversations with foreign leaders was improper," the DOJ statement continues. And:

If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written, then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own current views—views with which Attorney General Barr does not agree.

The leaked manuscript provides more fodder for those saying Bolton should be called to testify in the Senate impeachment proceedings.

On yesterday's Reason Roundtable podcast, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch talked about whether Bolton would or should be called to testify and discussed whether anything he said could "change the way people interpret the Trump administration's 2019 actions vis-a-vis Ukraine."

"A week into the trial, most lawmakers say the chances of 51 senators agreeing to call witnesses are dwindling, not growing," write Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt. (Bolton has said that he would testify if it came to that.)

Here's how Trump responded on Monday to Bolton book allegations that he had indeed tied Ukrainian aid to the country doing his investigatory bidding:

But "if investigating Joe Biden was perfectly legitimate," as Trump and his allies claim, then "why deny a quid pro quo?" Jacob Sullum asks.


Reason is celebrating National School Choice Week by publishing a series of stories on K-12 educational options. So far, that includes:


More dairy industry protectionism and crony capitalism from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D–Wisc.), who has found an ally in Idaho Republican Sen. Jim Risch:


NEXT: We Chose Our Child's School. More Parents Should Be Given That Choice for Their Kids

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Justice Department Says Bolton's Projecting.

    Well, so long as someone there was worried.

    1. Hello.

    2. Well he couldn't drop enough bombs, so he settled for a bombshell.

  2. How worried should you be about the coronavirus?

    (Let's see if this version of my previous attempt gets me anything):

    I like my coronavirus with a slice of Lyme in it.

    1. Boo!

    2. Virus before bacterium; never been sicker.

      1. Virus before bacterium: Results in delirium.
        Bacterium first: That's even worse!

    3. Funnier the third time, it will be.

  3. The #BoltonBombshell marks a tipping point. The walls are closing in. It's the beginning of the end.


  4. Atari-themed hotels are slated to be built...

    The rooms cost 8 bit a night.

  5. "Atari-themed hotels are slated to be built in Austin, Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle."

    Do you get chased through the halls by a carnivorous yellow monster and when you're eaten, get a chance to return to your room and regenerate?

    1. Uh...some old guy told me to post that joke, I don't know what it means, honest.

      1. This hotel plan certainly has a Pitfall.

        1. Staying at one will be quite an Adventure.

        2. You must be kidding, this is certain to be a Breakout success.

      2. I can't wait for the disappointment over the "E.T" rooms.

      3. It means you have Pac-Man fever.

        1. Sounds like you're combining the Atari-themed hotels with the coronavirus story. If it's intentional, good job! If it's unintentional, I want to commend you on not getting in the way of the muse.

  6. As far as I know, the media doesn't know what the Bolton book claims. All they have is an anonymous source telling them what the book says without actually showing them the book. If the media had any journalistic standards, they would have told the source to either give them a copy of the book or make his statement on the record. As it is, there hasn't been any fact checking of this. And since the source is not on the record, there is no risk associated with them lying. Until someone goes on the record saying the book says this or someone produces the draft, there isn't a story here. It is just a rumor and likely a lie.

    1. A source in the White House told Breitbart that Lt. Colonel Yevgeny Vindman is a senior ethics lawyer who vets materials for classified information, such as books and articles, before they're allowed to be published. Breitbart reports that Vindman vetted Bolton's book in December.

      Vindman ... Vindman... why does that name seem so familiar?

      The last time you heard of a guy named Vindman he was testifying against the president of the United States at the House impeachment inquiry. His beef? He didn't like President Trump's Ukraine policy.

      At the time, you learned Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman had worked with the man largely thought to be the impeachment whistleblower who was working over at the CIA. We also learned that Vindman had a twin brother who worked on the NSC staff. His name is Yevgeny.

      1. How is it that two fat LTCs end up in such important positions? WTF? It shows how little control the President has over the executive. Both of them should have been sent packing to a do nothing job in the middle of nowhere. Instead, they both continue to hold important and sensitive jobs. Unbelievable.

        1. The Deep State isn't a conspiracy; it is a self aware social class of people related by blood or marriage, or from graduating the same small handful of schools at the same time.

          1. It absolutely is. And it is clearly not a meritocracy. If there is one thing that defines it besides inbreeding it is complete incompetence. In fact, I don't think competent people are allowed into it.

            1. John, it's not mentally healthy to project so much onto a group of people you don't know.

              1. Having sock puppets doesn't make your low IQ and ignorance sound any better dude.

                1. His original name isnt any more indicative.

        2. There's a 3rd Vindman who runs Tungsten Capital Advisors with "expertise is predominantly in Central Eastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia region" Let's take a look at their tax records.

          1. I’m hoping when the impeachment bs is over Trump goes after all these people (assuming Barr isn’t already having all these people investigated).

      2. Oh, so this anonymous source in the White House you believe without proof, because they are making a claim that you want to believe.

        1. And fucking lefty ignoramuses like you would be happy to credit a random cloud arrangement as proof, so long as it spelled out 'orange man bad'.
          Seek help.

          1. Troll made fun of John's unconditional love for Trump, so ergo troll must be a lefty. Nice logic, dumb-ass.

            America's Mayor ain't no lefty, fuck-face!

    2. Reminds of Kramer going in to settle with a coffee company with Jackie Chiles.

      Exec: "We're prepared to offer...."

      Kramer: "I'll take it!"

    3. It's amazing. We are seeing in real time a propaganda push to basically negate team Trumps defense. The media are unapologetically carrying the water of someone with either a blatant political agenda or monetary interest with secondhand(probably third-hand anonymous accounts. And they've done this many times only to have in proven false months later, and they wonder people don't trust them or trust Trump the same as them.

      1. I bet it is not true. If it were true, they would have made a copy of the manuscript and just leaked it. The fact that they didn't and refuse to go on record is pretty solid evidence they are lying.

        1. It doesn't matter if what they are reporting about Bolton's book is true or not. Bolton is a known liar who is hostile to Trump. Unless he can produce corroborating witnesses to the things he claims to have seen or heard, who cares what he has to say?

          1. Regarding, "who cares what he has to say?" it's obvious the answer is 'all the people who already believe what he's saying.'

            What I find interesting about the whole Ukraine thing is that nobody seems to be accounting for the possibility that Trump actually *believes* that the Bidens were involved in corruption. If he does, then pressuring Ukraine's government to investigate is something he *should* do, especially since Joe Biden is in the running to be president. And if Trump actually did believe that (or if he never plainly said to someone that his motive was to smear Biden), that should absolutely be what his defense team should be focusing on.

            For all the talk of quid pro quo, that's the way diplomacy gets done (even if the quid is 'we won't knock you out of power if you don't give us the quo we're asking for'). If Trump thinks that an investigation is justified, he needs *something* to pressure the Ukrainians with, if they aren't particularly interested in investigating. He probably should have talked to his lawyers (the ones who work for the government, not his personal lawyers) and had them find a quid that wouldn't break the law.

      2. Pretty amazing.

    4. It's OK, John. I know it's hard, after towing the there-are-no-firsthand -witnesses lion for so long, to accept that there are firsthand witnesses. You need to let go of this rationalization, though, and get on with your life.

      1. Dumb ass, first hand witnesses go on the record. They also have "first hand information". This source is neither on the record and there is no evidence they have first hand information.

        I understand you have a very low IQ. But, at some point you are to blame for being as willfully stupid as you appear to be no matter how low your IQ.

        1. John, we've talked about this. Firsthand witnesses cannot go on record because the Republican Senators won't call them as witnesses. The only avenue open is revealing information to the press. It's not good for your emotional health not to accept this.

          Remember, you support the Republicans in not calling witnesses, so it is causing you cognitive dissonance every time you complain that there are no firsthand witnesses.

          Do you see how this Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome is negatively affecting your life?

          1. John, we’ve talked about this. Firsthand witnesses cannot go on record because the Republican Senators won’t call them as witnesses.

            So not being called as a witness means you can't talk to the media and use your name? There is nothing preventing people from going on the record. More importantly, if this true, they could have just leaked a copy of the manuscript anonymously. There is no reason to refuse to go on the record and also not produce the manuscript other than you are lying.

            What you are saying is nonsense. I guess you only deal with other stupid people and you think it is persuasive. It is not. So, why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and go back to whatever Prog swamp you crawled out of where you can talk to people with a similar low IQ and willingness to lie.

            1. John, remember you came to me for help because you felt empty, and had feelings of anger and regret because of the vast amount of time you spend complaining about Democrats instead of doing something fulfilling with your life.

            2. John, we've discussed this. As a trained psychologist, I am very careful not to let my personal politics enter into our sessions. These sessions are to help you.

              1. You're not good at this

                1. You are overestimating him

                2. For someone who isn't good at this, TDSDSC sure got a lot of oh-so-smart dumbasses to respond to him. Who's the dumbass, dumbass?

                  1. You're judgement of intelligence is how many people respond to you? Tulpa is a genius then. And you think john is brilliant.

          2. "...Firsthand witnesses cannot go on record because the Republican Senators won’t call them as witnesses..."

            See? See how 'smart' this new sock is? The only way to "go on record" is to be a witness in a trial!
            My goodness, what a show of brilliance!
            Seek help.

            1. Remember, you came to me for help with your TDSDS.

      2. I know it should be "toeing the line", but the visual of "towing the lion" is much more exciting, even it it doesn't mean anything.

      3. You know what else is hard? Using the phrase "Toeing the Line" correctly. To paraphrase Voltaire "Once a philosopher, twice a sodomite!" Although in your case Voltaire would have called you a sodomite before the counting began.

  7. If it isn't milk, don't say it's milk.

    "There's only one thing I hate more than lying: skim milk, which is water that's lying about being milk."

  8. More dairy industry protectionism and crony capitalism from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D–Wisc.), who has found an ally in Idaho Republican Sen. Jim Risch

    "The state of Wisconsin will not apologize for its dairy!"

    1. Who cut the cheese?

  9. Atari-themed hotels are slated to be built...

    When are they going to make hotels based on the Windows 3D Maze screensaver?

  10. Like I say, the Senate should let it all hang out.

    Subpoena Bolton, subpoena one or preferably both Bidens.

    As for Bolton, presumably Trump's lawyers would ask him how much he's making on the book and how much the impeachment has boosted sales.

    1. #StopSmearingTheBidens

      1. That's my point, they should explain to the Senators how innocent they are and how they're being persecuted by Trump. Their testimony is bound to be a winner for the Democrats.

        1. If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear!

      2. #Wrong!HunterBidenDidNothingAndGotPaidBigBucks.

        1. #There'sNothingWrongWithGettingPaidBigBucksToDoNothingInFactItsMyDreamJob.

    2. Exactly. I don't understand how you can have a trial that doesn't include material witnesses. If Bolton is making this all up, maybe he'll commit perjury can be locked up for a while. Win-win

      1. It is simple, if you have witnesses and call Bolton, you also call Hunter and Joe Biden. As badly as the Democrats would like to hear from Bolton, assuming they actually do, they don't want the Biden boys under oath even more.

        Like I saw above, there is no credible evidence Bolton's book even says this. The reporters writing these stories haven't seen the manuscript and only have the word of an anonymous source about what it says.

        1. We are making progress here with your Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome. You seem to have grown emotionally to be able to accept that it is possible both Trump and Biden are corrupt.

          I really see emotional progress in your life if you can let go of your need to defend Trump's actions.

          Perhaps if you can get past this, you can return to spending more of your time working instead of goofing off on the Internet all day.

          1. Perhaps if you can get past this, you can return to spending more of your time working instead of goofing off on the Internet all day.

            I will continue to work, make more money than you, and torture stupid people like you. It is great to multitask. As I have said before, not having any sympathy for stupid people like you is my greatest vice.

        2. Call Hunter and Joe. That's fine. Get it all out there.

          1. I totally agree. But the Democrats don't see it that way. If they are unwilling to call every witness, then they are not serious about what they are doing and can be safely ignored.

            1. Now, John, you know that it is the Republicans who control the Senate, so they are the ones that have the power to decide which witnesses to call.

              1. God you're boring.

              2. Dems controlled the House. They might could have had the witnesses testify there if they were willing to take it to SCOTUS.

                1. Remember all the complaining about the house "trying to run their own impeachment trial before the trial"? Either the house drags it out and goes to the supreme court, where they would have surely won the subpoena question, or they send it to the Senate and hope that the Senate does it's duty.

                  Trump's obstruction of congress, (and the subsequent GOP cover up) will be the end of our system of checks and balances. We are witnesses the end of the Republic and the beginning of the empire. All you people who call yourselves libertarians but support Trump, you just helped further empower the most powerful man on earth. How libertarian of you all.

                  "Courts have held that a legislative demand for information under the oversight power must relate to a “valid legislative purpose.” But the only instances when congressional subpoenas have been held out of bounds for not relating to such a purpose involved demands for information about private persons. The Supreme Court has never found a congressional inquiry into the operations of the government itself or the behavior of government employees in their official capacities to lack a valid legislative purpose."


                  1. ""Trump’s obstruction of congress, (and the subsequent GOP cover up) will be the end of our system of checks and balances. ""

                    No it won't. Trump has a right to claim executive privilege. Just like other presidents have. Congress has a right to challenge that claim. SCOTUS has been the final word.

                    Perhaps the House didn't want to take it to Congress because they might not have won in court which would weaken their obstruction claim.

                2. True. They could have, should have. They didn't.

                  But now Republican Senators, who were secure in knowing the safe move was to not call any witnesses and end the impeachment trial ASAP, aren't sitting so smugly. The ones from purple states, at least, suddenly face re-election risk if they don't call some witnesses.

                  That's what makes Bolton's bombshell a bombshell, not whether what he allegedly said is true or not. There are several witnesses that could be called to either corroborate or contradict Bolton's testimony.

                3. Oh, ya. And back in character: the Democrats aren't calling me because they are afraid of my physical presence.

      2. Because he's not making it up. Every single fucking person who has been brought in to testify to the house corroborated the quid pro quo of aid for Biden investigation. Every one. The only people saying it didn't happen refuse to go under oath.

        The reason GOP senators won't call witnesses is because the truth is devastating to their case.

        1. ""Every single fucking person who has been brought in to testify to the house corroborated the quid pro quo of aid for Biden investigation. Every one.""

          You keep repeating that, but it's not true. You still believe the Sondland headline, but even Sondland had to admit it was just his perception.

    3. "All" includes a lot more than the Bidens.
      Schiff and his entire staff, at the least

      1. Ciamarella, the other Vindman, Devin Archer, Little Heinz-Kerry, etc

  11. J.D. Tuccille on why, after years of homeschooling, his son is now enrolled at a private school.

    Classic story. He had created an anarchist monster that he could no longer contain! (Or maybe not; I didn't read it yet.)


    Charles Koch is already down $1.89 billion this year.

    Koch / Reason libertarianism exists to serve the interests of the richest people on the planet. Well, everyone in the top 15 lost money yesterday — with most of them losing over a billion.

    This. Is. Not. Normal.


  13. I don't see how truth in advertising is crony capitalism. Almond milk isn't milk. It is almond flavored water. Part of a healthy market is consumers knowing what they are buying. And words like "milk" and "butter" do mean something.

    1. What about peanut butter?

      1. Or cocoa butter?
        Coconut milk?

    2. Or milk of magnesia?

      1. Have you ever tried to milk a magnesia? Tough job.

        1. Or a bull. Won’t make that mistake twice.

    3. I know right, once I bought Mothers Milk thinking I'd get a tasty beverage only to find out it was a satanic rock and roll album. Damn kids with their loud music.

    4. Actually, to be a bit of a stickler (and you know I usually agree with you, or at least understand your side), milk in and of itself doesn't automatically imply secretions from a cow's udder.
      First of all, secretions from any animals mammary glands is called milk. So goat's milk, etc. is still milk.
      Second, I believe all of the dairy alternatives (e.g., almond milk) all say prominently say "(X) milk". Not because they are trying to fool people, but because it was the liquid that was milked from almonds (or coconuts, or whatever). In fact, I think most of the dairy alternatives specifically WANT to standout as NOT dairy milk. Isn't that what their whole marketing campaign is based on?

      And i think butter is an even worse example. Peanut butter has been around for ages. Buttering is a verb that is used in many non-dairy (and even non-food) concepts. If there is peanut butter, why not almond butter? Cocoa butter (as someone else mentioned). And these aren't even remotely related to dairy butter.
      I guess the bottom line here is I really don't think people are confused anyway. Are they?

  14. Atari-themed hotels are slated to be built in Austin, Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle.

    Not sure I want to stay in hotel Pitfall. Will there be crocodile pits?

    1. You don't have to worry about it. Pitfall was an Activision game. That would require a separate license. Although, thinking about it, I'm pretty sure Activision would be happy to get it's name in an Atari-themed hotel.

  15. Barr "said he was worried that Mr. Trump had created the appearance that he had undue influence over what would typically be independent inquiries..."

    Don't worry, I'm sure the American people will go back to inserting attorney after attorney into the Oval Office soon enough.

  16. ...whether anything he said could "change the way people interpret the Trump administration's 2019 actions vis-a-vis Ukraine."

    I didn't know it was a comedy podcast.

  17. The first vote of 2020 ends Tuesday, in Texas

    Democrat Eliz Markowitz, an education specialist, faces Republican Gary Gates, a self-funded businessman, in Tuesday’s runoff to replace Rep. John Zerwas, a moderate Republican who stepped down to take a university job. Markowitz, the only Democrat in the race, won 39.1 percent of the vote in the November 2019 general election. Gates received 28.4 percent, while the other three Republicans in the race split the remainder of the vote.

    These Lefties are stupid and delusional.

    The Democrat got 39.1%
    Republicans got 60.9%

    1. Buried underneath the Democrat taint-licking was this gem:

      But despite the Democratic hype around the contest, early voting results from last week did not look good for the party. By Monday, many were were quietly throwing cold water on the idea that Tuesday’s outcome served as a bellwether for 2020, downplaying expectations.

      Followed by the usual refrain:

      “This isn't easy terrain for us in the first place,” said Abhi Rahman, a spokesperson for the Texas Democratic Party. “The fact that it's so close is a win for us already....the fact that Republicans had to spend here already shows how diverse and changing Texas is.”

      This is the same sour grapes shit that came out after Ossoff's failed bid. That Great White Hype hasn't been heard from since. Markowitz's entire appeal for the party seems to hinge on her being a fat lesbian.

    2. Now, we have discussed this. Democrats are about half the people in the country, many of them are your friends and relatives. Projecting evil motivations on such a large group is damaging your emotional health, LC.

      1. I am glad that unreason staff are finally getting unprofessional mental help for their redundant sock troll names.

        1. LOL, like anyone from the Reason staff ever pays any attention to the comments section. That's hilarious.

          1. Says the unreason staff sock troll...

    3. Republican projected to beat Democrat for Texas state House, in race watched for 2020 clues
      Jan. 28, 2020, 8:32 AM EST / Updated Jan. 28, 2020, 11:50 PM EST

      Sure enough, the Republicans won the Texas Special election.
      Gates, Eastman win special election Texas House runoffs
      “Democrats everywhere said this Texas election was a ‘bellwether’ — and that it would set the tone for the entire 2020 election cycle,” Chambers said. “Spoiler alert: they’re right, it was — just not with the outcome Democrats hoped for.”

    1. Dear God, please let this harpy announce her candidacy. Between her and Michael "Dr. Cocteau" Bloomberg trying to buy the nomination, they would cause a total shit-show for the election, and maybe force the Democrats to come to terms with who they really are now, which is a party that actively and openly despises white people.

    2. I want a brokered convention with Hilary becoming the nominee sooooooooo bad. The butthurt.... omg. At the same time that would be so crippling to the party it would be 68 all over again with possible longer term ramifications. I think the DNC ultimatly relents and lets the commies take the nomination and after the landslide loss just purges these people from the party telling them "we told you not to go full retard."

      1. I think the DNC ultimatly relents and lets the commies take the nomination and after the landslide loss just purges these people from the party telling them “we told you not to go full retard.”

        That's not going to happen. There are too many of these types working their way up the ranks right now and gaining positions of influence. They're only being held off for the time being because the New Left Boomers that have run the party since the Clintons took over are still clinging to their sinecures.

        If the Dems actually tried to purge them from the party, the party would be DOA.

    3. Didn’t Biden say he would’ve won in 2016? Egos run amuck!!

      1. Biden might have had a legitimate shot at winning if he had told Hillary to fuck off. He clearly wanted the job, but the party ranks wanted to reward her for being a good soldier for over 20 years.

        He's deteriorated fast in the last 2-3 years, so it's probably a blessing that he didn't run.

        1. He is also the perennial backup quarterback; the fans love him until he gets into the game.

  18. Who will Reason side with today, the warmonger or the bad orange man....

    The clown show rolls on. honk honk.

    1. Unless I missed something, there is no evidence Bolton's book actually says any of this stuff. An anonymous source talking about a document they can't produce is not credible.

      1. Even if it did, would/ should anyone care?

        The fact that he even has a book coming out should be a gigantic red flag.

      2. From the headline, it sounds as if it is speculation regarding a third party's opinion of the 'information' from the anonymous source, so it isn't even THTA 'credible'.

      3. The NY Times received at least excerpts of an advance transcript.

        But please, hold on to this ridiculous excuse for as long as possible. It's fascinating watching all of your shared fantasy world evolve to fit the few facts you can't deny.

        1. They did? Have you seen them? Are they real?

    2. Now, Ryan, we've talked about how projecting your feelings on Reason is a way of avoiding your own issues.


    Gallup: U.S. Satisfaction Surpasses 40% for First Time Since 2005.
    Astounding numbers as US heads into 2020 election season..

    Nation strongly more satisfied re: Economy, Security, Social Issues, Race Relations etc under President Trump/Pence than under President Obama/Biden.

    Race relations are better under the most racist President ever than they were under the light giver black Jesus.

    1. 175,000 people plan to go to the Trump rally. But our betters at Reason know better than to look at polls and rally numbers, the orange man is bad.

  20. Gorsuch Torches ‘Cosmic’ Injunctions

    HAHA. Finally the SCOTUS is swatting down their lower courts to toe the line which is that federal district courts are not as powerful as Lefties would like them to be against Trump.

  21. Man who'd been handcuffed fatally shot by officer in police car

    So a cop puts a person who the cops suspects is on PCP in the front seat of a police cruiser and then shoots the suspect who is in handcuffs?

    No back seat of police car with cage?

    Utterly ridiculous.

    1. Was it a K-9 unit? If there's an attack dog in the back they put the prisoner in the front.

  22. "But "if investigating Joe Biden was perfectly legitimate," as Trump and his allies claim, then "why deny a quid pro quo?" Jacob Sullum asks."

    Good lord. I used to consider this publication to be a reputable source. This failure in basic logic is pathetic.

    1. It's obvious why. Trump denied it because he didn't know what "quid pro quo" meant, so the people who carry water for him have to deny it, so as not to contradict him and/or call him an idiot.

  23. If it isn't milk, don't say it's milk.

    Fraud isn't going to fly even in anarchotopia, Reason

    1. Milk has a broad definition that includes many opaque white liquids. It's not fraud, silly.

      1. Actually it doesn't.

        All those varied types of 'milk' and definitions thereof are called such because a liquid visually resembles the milk of cows, goats or sheep.

        Those 'almond milk' is so named because it is a liquid, made with almonds that--and here's the important part--LOOKS LIKE-- milk.

        It does not ACT like milk. It cooks differently, cannot be churned, cannot be whipped.

        It is a different type of liquid.

        1. Unfortunately for your argument, there are lactation products that aren't like the three milks you mentioned. Rhinoceros milk is the most extreme example, having next to no fat (.2%). On the other end of the spectrum is hooded seal milk, which is about 60% fat. I haven't cooked with either, but I'm reasonably certain that both rhino and hooded seal milk don't cook the same as cow/goat/sheep milk, and if you churn or whip rhino milk, you get shaken up rhino milk.

          And then there's coconut milk, which has been known as such for centuries before any dairy farmer complained about how almond milk and the like shouldn't be called milk because they aren't lactation products. And interestingly, all the rest of those milk products are made pretty much the same way coconut milk is. Baldwin and Risch are trying to "protect" cows milk producers from the non-existent confusion over whether something labeled "almond milk" is a dairy product.

  24. Iranian media: CIA agent behind Soleimani killing shot down in Afghanistan

    I cant wait to see unreason never cover this news tidbit.

    1. That's even assuming it's true; Iranian media is notorious for claiming victories that never took place.

      It's a lot more likely that there was a mole on Soleimani's staff that sold him out.

      1. Just a few years ago Iran made a fake small American Aircraft carrier and sank it claiming they destroyed an American ship.. Good times

        1. And they failed miserably at trying to sink it

    2. Middle East media says a lot of shit that isn't true. To put it very lightly.

      The a/c that crashed was an E-11; basically a big business jet (Global Express) outfitted with a bunch of radios, antennas, and computers. It has those so that a lot of widely different people can talk to each other and stay networked even if they're on different sides of a mountain from each other. Probably does liaison or other C3I stuff too, that needs a man in the loop, as otherwise you can pack a drone full of stuff to do the same thing, and have it stay up longer. Accordingly, there were only four of the things made, now three. E-11s can cruise pretty high---the ceiling on the Global Express is officially 51,000 feet, and I wouldn't be surprised if this version had toys to get higher. The mission used to be flown by one of the two 'weather' WB-57Ds NASA has, that basically look like a U2 on steroids. Again, higher is better, and the B-57s could hit 60k no problem.

      Since it flies so friggin high normally---way out of the range of groundfire or man-portable SAMs. Or hell, a lot of mobile SAMS---and it has two engines, I'm wondering what happened to get it to crash. I'm also wondering what happened to the either three people on board? It usually flies with 5, there are two crispy critters the Taliban are dancing next to in videos, which leaves a couple of US personnel missing. I hope they're found.

      Finally, why hasn't a B1 with a bunch of JDAMs turned the crash site into a mountain lake by now, and pulverized what are probably SOTA comms gear?

      1. I saw something that said the E-11 is basically a Wi-Fi in the sky since Afghanistan is so remote and communication so bad.

        Anyone confirm that?

        1. I thought that's basically what I said? It's a communications node. Like your wireless router, only for lots of communications band beyond wifi.


    dunno guys, but feels like if Trump had a son driving around in a new Porsche while pretending he didn’t have money for child support for a baby he lied about fathering with a stripper, the media in general might make a bigger deal of it

    And it is a high crime to even think that the Biden's might be corrupt. What a fucking joke.

    1. Why the fuck would anyone report on Hunter Biden? He's not the president. Of course "the media" would make a bigger deal out of it if it was Trump.

      Again, there isn't some conspiracy at work here, you just don't understand, fundamentally, how the world works.

      1. shot: "Of course “the media” would make a bigger deal out of it if it was Trump."

        chaser: "Again, there isn’t some conspiracy at work here"

        corruption by the political elite is a conspiracy theory...

    2. The sad thing about all of this, trying to look at it from the media's POV, is that Trump was in NYC commercial real estate for the last 40 years or so, and this was the nastiest piece of dirt they could have hung on him? He didn't bribe some mobsters to make his construction projects run smoothly? Or take away his hotels' trash? He didn't hire a slew of illegals to work housekeeping, cook the food, or mow the lawns on his properties? (No wonder he went out of business so often in hospitality....) He didn't bribe building inspectors or fire marshalls? This is it?!

      Cleanest President since Carter?

  26. 'Oh my God, Sanders can win': Democrats grapple with Bernie surge in Iowa

    As I predicted, Communists are taking over the Democrat Party along with SJWs. The non-Communists wont vote for Commies like Sanders, so the exodus from the party of slavery will continue.

    1. I wonder what's better for the DNC, letting Bernie win the primary so their corruption is less apparent, thereby allowing him to lose the general and maintaining their "moderate" position, or stealing Bernie's thunder again, forcing a third party to form.

      1. There's no way Bernie wins the primary. This is a selection, not election, process, and Bernie is the political equivalent of a Jobber To The Stars in pro wrestling. Hillary already gave up the game when she pointed out that no one in the Dem leadership actually likes the guy, and he hasn't accomplished jack shit the whole time he's been a politician.

        What the party can't afford to do is alienate his voters, because he's the only candidate with an identifiable, established, enthusiastic base. The problem is that openly admitting that everyone's taxes are going to go up to pay for MOAR FREE SHIT for these idiots, which is his only real campaign plank, is a long-term loser. So they'll string him along for long enough to let his supporters think he has an actual shot this time, only to come up short at the end to Warren or Biden. Buttigieg will make a good showing and will probably get the VP nod for the IdPol points on the ticket, assuming Stacey Abrams isn't brought on to try and prevent Trump's numbers with the African-American demographic from rising.

        1. The problem with the whole "let the leftists have what they want and lose" argument is that it assumes that they would learn anything from losing. If the party nominates Bernie and he gets crushed, his supporters won't learn anything and decide to be more reasonable. If they were capable of that level of decision making, they wouldn't be leftists in the first place. In that case, they will do what leftists always do which is blame everyone else for the lose and double down on all the things that caused their failure. Instead of the party going centrist in 2024, it likely would end up even more crazy.

          Unless the country decides to go the way of Venezuela, which sadly is not out of the question, I think the future of the Democratic Party is pretty bleak. The Democratic Party has been the party of the center left. And there is no center left anymore. There are variations of right, the lunatic left, and that is it. There just isn't a place in politics left for the kind of party the Democrats were when they were the dominant party in the country.

          1. The irony is that they have a legitimate reason to hate the Dems for deliberately undermining Bernie's campaign in favor of Hillary's in 2016. Any Bernie supporter who would vote for the Democrats after they pulled that shit is just as much of a jobber as he is, only they're not getting the benefit of owning multiple houses and fancy sports cars as a reward for bending over.

          2. "The problem with the whole “let the leftists have what they want and lose” argument is that it assumes that they would learn anything from losing."

            Further, it also assumes they have learned something and can acknowledge reality.
            We have no evidence for either

        2. "This is a selection, not election, process, and Bernie is the political equivalent of a Jobber To The Stars in pro wrestling"

          He thinks this is a damn fight!

        3. I thought the DNC might select Biden and then select Stacey Abrams for VP to control that Black American vote from defecting to Trump.

          This wont work since any Black Americans already voting for Trump as a Republican probably wont vote for a Democrat.

          Plus, voting for Democrats who selected a token Black woman as VP is insulting since Barack was already the first Black man as President.

      2. What's better for the DNC is to let Bernie win so we can settle the question of whether we're still Americans or not. If Bernie doesn't get the nod to go up against Trump, it's going to be AOC next time claiming the only reason the Dems lost is because they weren't Stalinist enough. Not that this would stop them from claiming after Bernie lost the general that he wasn't a "true" socialist, but the DNC as a whole might conclude from a Bernie smackdown that maybe there is such a thing as too far left. And in the event Bernie doesn't get the smackdown, some of us will accept that it's time to start looking for a new country to call home.

        1. Bernie fans will be disappointed when all those expensive ideas they think he will make happen are a dead letter in Congress.

        2. AOC is definitely going to try to run for President in 2024.

          Two major problems for her. He birthday is Oct 1989, so she wont be 35 years old until a month before the election, so as of Primaries, she would not Constitutionally qualify.

          Second, if Bernie does win the Democrat nomination (he did very well in states vs Hillary, until Super Delegates went for Hillary) Trump is going to pound his Commie ass in the ground with a EC landslide. This might make the Socialist AOC get a TIP about how Americans dont want her brand of Socialism.

          1. The age problem isn't actually a problem. The qualification in the Constitution is to *be* president, not to *run for* president. There have been a number of people who have run for president who not only weren't qualified to be president at the time of the election, but who also wouldn't qualify during their term (or ever, in the case of at least one I vaguely remember who wasn't even a US citizen, or maybe was a naturalized citizen, and maybe was running for VP - I told you it was a vague memory).

            1. you'll need a citation.

    2. I think the SJW's don't like Sanders. He stays pretty far from the SJW stuff, compared to the other candidates.

      1. Like what?

      2. They don't like him because he is a straight white male who doesn't hate himself

  27. I am starting to think the whole "Bolton bombshell" is a set up. I think the Trump people leaked it knowing the media will believe anything and would run with it. All this "bombshell" does is increase the pressure on the Democrats to agree to call witnesses in the Senate. If they don't call Bolton, they have to explain to their supporters why they didn't call the guy who finally had the goods on Trump. If they do, the price of that will be the Republicans calling the Bidens. Meanwhile, if they do call Bolton, ten bucks says he will say his book never said any such thing. And him saying that will come at the price of the Bidens having to answer questions under oath.

    1. I wouldn't put it past anyone. However I don't think it was the Trump people because the White house was never sent a Manuscipt according to Bolton and the Whit house. I think we'll find out this is all a dud in a month but they don't care they are trying to just get Trump damn the consequences.

      1. You are probably right about that. And it shows how amazingly incompetent they are. This isn't helping the Democrats. All it is doing is putting more pressure on them to agree to call witnesses which means calling the Bidens.

        Moreover, it is almost certainly untrue. If it were true, they would have just leaked the manuscript. So, eventually the story is either going to die or they are going to have to come up with the goods and if it is a lie, it will make things worse.

        It is astounding how stupid these people are.

    2. I'm starting to think I may never understand 7-D Wizard Chess and Trump's brilliance in hiring John Bolton in the first place. It would be nice if some of you 7-D Wizard Chess masters would explain to the rest of us retarded fucking morons just a little of Trump's grand stategery.

      1. The point is not to never make a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. The point is to turn the mistakes you do make to your advantage. Hiring Bolton was a mistake. Notice two things. Trump didn't send good money after bad by pretending it wasn't a mistake and fired Bolton. Second, he is turning that mistake to his advantage.

        it isn't seven D chess. It is just smart leadership. The problem for people like you is that you have invested so much of your personal sense of worth in believing that Trump and more importantly his supporters are intellectually inferior to you that you are unable to see things for what they are.

        1. The MSM Propagandists treat Trump like an enemy when the media is actually the enemy.

          So, we will never get an accurate report of what is happening in the White House. I am fine with that since the end results acted on by Trump are 9/10 fantastic and exactly what I want him to do in whatever situation. Trump is clearly getting the advantage that his plans are not being spilled to Iran and other enemies of the USA.

          As Sun Tzu says:
          All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

          1. We won't get an accurate report (or more accurately, we won't know an accurate report if we actually see one), because the only people who can give an accurate report are the people who were in the White House when it happened. Those who are in Trump's good graces and service have an interest in making him look good, or at least not criminal (and by extension, themselves). And we can't know whether those who aren't still on Trump's Christmas card list have a motive other than getting the truth out. Trump didn't follow Bolton's advice and fired him, and Bolton has a book coming out. He'll sell more books if he looks like he's dishing the dirt on Trump. As long as he doesn't say anything that there's hard evidence against, he can lie or spin the facts to suit selling books, since anyone trying to dispute him will be making a he-said-she-said argument. Likewise with anyone else who isn't still a Trump ally.

      2. One reason can be that Trump likes to hear other strategies and then pick one.

        Another reason can be that if Bolton is working for the Trump Administration he cannot be doing harm somewhere else. (version of keeping your enemies closer)

        Another reason could be to scare the shit out of Iran. Iran could have reasonably expected Bolton to advocate bombing and invasion. Maybe Trump used Bolton to get Iran to do what they have been doing in the hopes that Trump would take Bolton's advice and attack Iran. Trump knew this and went the other way.

        I'm not privy to Trump strategy meetings but clearly he is the luckiest mutherfucker in US History to end up as the best President or he actually is very smart and savvy with weighing advice and acting on that advice in an outside-the-box type of manner.

        I mean Trump owns Lefties. They don't stand a chance.

  28. Coronavirus news – live:

    In the USA, Influenza season 2017-2018 killed 78,000 people.

    1. But this one is from China , so you know it’s bad!

      1. Can't we just put a yuuuge tariff on it so that nobody wants to import it here?

        1. Leo FOR TARIFFS!?!

    2. Smart Britton wants to bring Brittons in China back to Britton what a smart way to insure faster spreading of a virus than by gathering up a bunch of people into a small spaces and making them travel together on an enclosed craft that will ensure the spread to everyone on board. Do they not remember how the Spanish flue was spread during WWI, by loading everyone onto trains and boats to get them from point A to point B. leaving them there may be the safest policy for everyone

  29. Impeachment is a political process, because the voters are watching and can vote the impeachers out of office, but it's also interesting to see how the impeachment process is impacting the presidential race--particularly with Biden. For instance, even if there are witnesses called, it's unlikely that the Democrats will get the 22 or so Republican and independent senators necessary to remove President Trump from office, but if witnesses are called, it may spell the end of Joe Biden's campaign. The latest polls are showing Sanders pull ahead at the expense of Biden. and the implications of his involvement in the impeachment proceedings aren't helping him any. If he actually needs to go on prime time television and testify in the impeachment proceedings, there's no way that's a plus for Biden. Joe Biden may be the only man in American who doesn't want witnesses in the impeachment trial more than Donald Trump.

    Incidentally, the Bidens' attempt to dodge making information public about Hunter Biden's financed became clear on Wednesday, when he settled a paternity suit before it would have been necessary to make his finances public as part of the suit. Hunter Biden's romantic life is a thing to behold!

    The following is gleaned from the story linked below:

    1) Hunter Biden was married for 24 years to Kathleen Biden, with whom he has three children.

    2) After separating from his wife, Biden for several years dated Hallie Biden, the widow of his elder brother Beau.

    3) A paternity test showed that Hunter Biden was almost certainly the father of a child by way of Lunden Alexis Roberts, who claims she had a relationship with Biden at the time that Biden was with his brother's widow. The baby was born in August of 2018.

    4) Hunter Biden married a South African filmmaker in early 2019--six days after he met her.

    Anyway, Hunter Biden came to terms with Lunden Alexix Roberts on a temporary child support amount two days before he was to face a contempt charge for refusing to disclose his financial information to the court. The court has stated that the amount is only temporary, and Hunter Biden needs to come clean about his finances before March 13, 2020, or face another contempt of court finding.

    Now, the baby was born in August of 2018, and Hunter Biden was still working for that Ukrainian company (Burisma’s) board through April of 2019. Apparently, the mother of the child born out of wedlock is arguing that Hunter Biden could have continued to work on BUrsima's board and left voluntarily, perhaps for political purposes, in which case, the child should be entitled to support based on what Hunter Biden's income would have been. Regardless, the baby was born when Hunter Biden was still working for Burisma, and the pressure is on to make him cough up his financial statements.

    Chances are, the mother of his . . . um . . . out of wedlock child is probably just using this as leverage to get Hunter Biden (and whomever pays his bills) to cough up more money on a permanent basis. Regardless, Hunter Biden is willing to go to what seem like extreme measures to avoid making his financial statements public.

    I'm sure that has nothing to do with his father slugging it out for first or second place in Iowa, right?


    If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, Trump will win reelection.

    If Joe Biden and/or his son testify before the impeachment proceedings in the Senate, he will probably lose the primaries.

    The Democrats' push for impeachment isn't just making it unlikely that they'll lose control of the House come November of 2020. They're also making it more likely that President Trump will win reelection.

    1. It also had killed any chance Biden ever is elected President. Had the democrats not lost their minds over the Ukraine call, the media might have been able to keep the fact that the Bidens are just trash covered up enough for him to have a shot at the election. Thanks to the impeachment, that can't happen and I can't see Biden having any chance at winning the Presidency because of it.

      1. If Biden wins the nomination, this would be a cloud over his whole campaign.

        If Biden somehow won election as president, the Republicans will launch an impeachment against him over this if they win the House.

        They're killing themselves.

        1. Yeah, I think you're right about that (both of you). This trial will claim Biden as a casualty, in May or June.

          My preferred outcome is that Team D primary with 3-4 candidates at 15%-20% delegates each throws that party into complete disarray, and that there is a nasty, dragged out fight to determine their nominee. A nasty enough fight to de-motivate Team D, heading into November.

          My attitude is this: I don't know who I want to win, but I damned well know who I want to lose; Team D - bigly. Their policies would be the death of our Republic.

        2. "If Biden somehow won election as president, the Republicans will launch an impeachment against him over this if they win the House."

          And they should. As much FCPA compliance garbage as I have to sit through, and to elect a guy who is the embodiment of an offense...

          Biden needs to pull an Eagleton, endorse whoever, and just go away already.

    2. This clownass actually tried hiding out under his dead brother's name to avoid paying child support.

      Joe's probably too senile to take care of shit at this point, but you'd think someone in the family would have kicked the shit out of Hunter for not only hooking up with Beau's widow shortly after he was in the ground, but for stealing Beau's identity to get out of his financial obligations to his own kid.

    3. Let's not forget Hunter's potential income after the Bidens appear on Jerry Springer and get their own spin-off show "White Trash of Washington".

  30. Sandy Hook denier charged with illegally possessing ID of victim's dad

    Having someone else's arm tattoo number is illegal because only Lefties can Doxx people.

    The article does not say this defendant had an actual ID card but had the Social Security number of a Sandy Hook father.

    1. We have to lock up those who do not always believe what are betters tell us. Note they have also called for the arrest of anyone who doesn't believe in global warming. I used to think the Sandy hook conspiracies were nut cases, i may have to re think that position now that they are trying to silence them. Nothing gives more weight to a conspiracy than a government that actively tries to silence a conspiracy.

    2. Defending the serial stalker of the parents of murdered children?

      Is this as low as you can go, or are we going to have to keep a puke bucket nearby when reading your comments?

      1. How does pointing out an inconsistency between the headline and the fact equate to defending the murderer?

        1. Geez, Vic! Everybody knows that bringing up facts that conflict with the chosen narrative are supporting the person who the falsehoods were about. At least, that's what people tell me every time I do it. Apparently, I support Bernie, Trump, Hillary, AOC, Weld, Biden, Warren, and Tlaib, among others. I support so many people that I don't ever have any spare cash, or free time, because I spend so much of both supporting.

  31. Focus on Avenatti, U.S. judge says, as Trump critic's Nike extortion trial begins

    remember when unreason and Lefties had their hopes pinned to this guy and Stormy to take down Trump?

    1. Back when they thought he was an up and up honest guy?

    2. Trump committed felony campaign finance violations in that case. It's not even disputed at this point. Just ask Michael Cohen who individual-1 is. Trump better win reelection, or he will still have to face that one.

      1. ""It’s not even disputed at this point. ""

        I don't think you know the definition of disputed.

  32. Team Trump puts Hunter Biden, Obama on trial

    HAHAHA. This Democrat House Impeachment is so going to blow up in the Democrat's faces.

    1. Hunter Biden settles child support case, ending legal battle

      Hunter is a deadbeat dad! HAHAHA. This guy is the perfect credible witness for Lefties and Joe Biden.

    2. LC, we've talked about how your obsession with Democrats is an avoidance mechanism for dealing with your self-doubt.

      1. Well, new sock troll. I am excited about this new relationship of paying you nothing and exposing your coders.

  33. "But "if investigating Joe Biden was perfectly legitimate," as Trump and his allies claim, then "why deny a quid pro quo?" Jacob Sullum asks."

    Foreign policy always involves quid pro quos. This is disingenuous. Media like to conflate trading something for personal gain with trading something for legitimate reasons. So yes, of course there was a quid pro quos in his dealings with Ukraine that were perfectly legitimate, but the media do not distinguish between the two.

  34. A source in the White House told Breitbart that Lt. Colonel Yevgeny Vindman is a senior ethics lawyer who vets materials for classified information, such as books and articles, before they’re allowed to be published. Breitbart reports that Vindman vetted Bolton’s book in December.

    Vindman … Vindman… why does that name seem so familiar?

    The last time you heard of a guy named Vindman he was testifying against the president of the United States at the House impeachment inquiry. His beef? He didn’t like President Trump’s Ukraine policy.

    At the time, you learned Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman had worked with the man largely thought to be the impeachment whistleblower who was working over at the CIA. We also learned that Vindman had a twin brother who worked on the NSC staff. His name is Yevgeny.

    1. Didn't you write this exact same thing above?

      1. Yes, he did. He thought it was so clever, he reposted it.

        Funny that Ra's will believe an anonymous rumor about Vindman, but be staunchly disbelieving about anonymous sources that make him feel uncomfortable.

  35. Do we even know what is really in Bolton’s manuscript?

    1. Of course not, dumbshit. It's not released to the public yet.

      You know how we could find out what Bolton, Mulvaney, and others have to say about the Ukraine matter?

    2. Releasing info false or otherwise is just a ploy to get us to buy the book to see if its true. I'm not buying

  36. More dairy industry protectionism and crony capitalism from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D–Wisc.), who has found an ally in Idaho Republican Sen. Jim Risch

    Come on you jerk! How can you not understand that people are too retarded to know the difference between real milk and fraud milk?

  37. If it isn't milk, don't say it's milk.

    If you're retarded, don't say you're not retarded. Words literally mean whatever we decide they mean, there is no innate "milkness" to milk. How do you distinguish between cow's milk, goat's milk, the milk of human kindness, milk of magnesia, rubber tree milk, milking a joke and soy milk? You use modifiers to distinguish one milk from another and non-retarded people know not to put milk of magnesia on their corn flakes.

    1. It's the same way people know not to put epsom salt on their fries, that plumber's snakes are non-venomous, that shoe trees don't grow in the forest, that multiplication tables are not sold with a set of multiplication chairs, and that heavyweight boxers aren't fat people who work at the Amazon warehouse.

      1. Bravo. Really, that was spectacularly well done.

    2. I dunno, there seems to be a lot of retards.

  38. "Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.

    He said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none.

    ----New York Times

    Isn't it amazing how often these facts suddenly become available just when they're needed?

    Two days before Donald Trump was to debate Hillary Clinton in the second debate, The Washington Post reported on the tape of a lewd conversation between candidate Donald Trump and Billy Bush.

    Just as the committee was about to wrap up the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh and take a vote, suddenly someone noticed that there was an allegation of sexual assault against him from umpty-ump years ago.

    Now, on the night before they were to take a vote--just as the Senate is about to vote on whether to allow new witnesses--suddenly The New York Times discovers a document that shows that we absolutely need to have witness testimony.

    These revelations were all timed specifically to maximize their impact on the public, and once we've established that the timing of these revelations is all about the political impact, it's reasonable to wonder whether their content has been manipulated for political impact, too.

    1. We also need to consider that Bolton is a known liar who strongly disagrees with Trump on policy (and probably a great many other things). I'd listen to what he has to say and then remember how he lied us into the Iraq War and wants to lie us into an Iran War.

  39. Well, we are out of time for today's session.

    I want you to focus on trying to come up with three ways to have a life outside obsessing and complaining about Democrats, and we'll meet again tomorrow.

    1. Worst TDS counsellor ever.

      1. TDSDS counselor. The TDS counselor is down the hall.

        1. Ah.

    2. I see more laughter than obsessing.

      1. It's a classic spin.

        Like how conservatives are 'snowflakes' for having the temerity to defend themselves, even after taking the high road and multiple body shots.

        Like how Israel is the only country in the world where the notion of 'proportional response' is enforced.

        I see nothing but mocking of people afflicted with this syndrome.

  40. I might be missing something but why is it crony capitalism to demand non-dairy items be called 'milk'? It isn't.

    Please explain to a simpleton like me.

    1. why is it crony capitalism to demand non-dairy items be called ‘milk’?

      Do you see the point when legislators make laws saying that non-dairy items cannot be called milk OR ELSE?

      1. /Blank Homer Mr. Thompson stare.

        But it isn't dairy. Isn't that misleading to consumers in a climate where label is such a hot, nanny mess?

        The 'or else' bit is bull shit I get that but don't they have a point?

        1. Why do you have a problem with Canada making it illegal to use the wrong pronouns for someone?

          1. They're actually making it illegal to use the correct pronouns, in certain cases

        2. No, not really.

        3. "Milk" is not uniquely dairy. The dairy lobby wants to claim that it is, which is as silly as the American Kennel Club complaining about the use of the term "hot dogs". All mammals produce milk, not all mammals are dairy animals. The term "milk" has also long been used to describe milk-like secretions.

          1. ""All mammals produce milk, not all mammals are dairy animals. ""

            Milk comes from teats. Almonds do not have teats.

            1. Not that I really care what the hell they call it. I know almonds don't have teats, and it's not really almond milk. They just call it that.

            2. Lake Titicaca produces neither.

          2. Read. Thanks.

    2. Because plenty of non-dairy items are called milk. If you make the lives of producers of such items hard (and everyone else's too) and punish them to benefit a specific industry, that's cronyism.

  41. a draft copy of which was leaked by an unknown source

    "Hey, look what showed up in the snail-mail this morning: 'A Genuwine Dfart of John Bolden's New Book'! Run with it!"

  42. Let's put Bolton and Barr under oath. The disbarment of William Barr would be a great benefit for modern society.

    1. They should call you. Witless for the prosecution.

    2. Me, too! I wanna be under oath! Don't forget me!

    3. Or you can still make me part of the Trump defense team!

      Or defense team and witness stand! I'd totally do that, too!

      Please! I just want someone to pay attention to me!

  43. The following is a paid advertisement from the Military Industrial Complex:
    Ring Ring
    Bolton: Bomb Bomb Bolton here.
    Trump: Is this Here a Bomb There A Bomb Everywhere A Bomb Bomb Bolton?
    Bolton: Yes speaking.
    Trump: It's a Great Day for Hockey and you're fired.

  44. Brah, don't you Transcript?

  45. Start now earning easily every month extra $15,000 or more just by doing very simple and easy home based onlin work in part time. In previous month i have received $18340 from this easy online work.... Read more

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.