I went down that road over the last couple of years but I've had to pull way back after the midterms because it was ruining my life. Be safe!

harris got him to admit he never even bothered to look at the underlying evidence before exonerating trump or read the mueller report - that's something

What the fuck is the deal with Barr? What kind of rat swims ONTO a sinking ship? After Sessions was abused for more than year for being so disloyal as to behave ethically, he must have known what he was getting into. I'd feel sorry for anyone taking such a public beating, but like Hamlet said of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he made love to this employment.

he's the legal equivalent of troughman, i suppose

I would pay good money to see all these fuckers go to jail and I'm not even American.

Unlike Nixon, Trump has no concept of honor. Nixon may not have been honorable, but he knew what it looked like. There’s two things keeping Trump from resigning:

- Because he hasn’t been charged with anything, he can’t be pardoned by Pence like Ford did to Nixon. That means the second he’s out of office, the authorities jump on everything he has. He is going to cling to the office as long as possible. Even if elected out, he’ll declare it invalid and refuse to leave.

- He’s no longer a human being. Trumpism is the party, and the party knows it. Impeachment will stop in the Senate. Trump, the idea, is more important than Trump, the man. There will never be less than 38% in favor of him. As long as they’ve got that minimum bloc, they have freedom to do anything they like, whenever, and jam the system to get it. We’re in the middle of a slow moving civil war and as long as it stays slow, they win.

What concerns me isn't just Trump, it's the entire GOP that's lost all sense of honor.

These are all, to a man, Watergate Babies. They learned that honor doesn’t deliver the ethnostate.

Trump is the emergency. The Republicans are the long term problem, and they created the conditions that made the emergency possible. Trump was an accident. If Trump is the shark, the establishment Republicans are the local goverment from the town in Jaws.

Republicans spent years cultivating the "base", which is how they could get working people to vote for them against their own interests. In 2016 the monster got out of the cage. Much like my shark metaphor seems to have gotten away from me.

The GOP establishment produced 15 or 16 presidential candidates none of them were inspiring. (Ted Cruz came in second) And Trump's ridiculous self promoting stunt candidacy stood out.


I'm not done with this, but I'm going to break off here. And get to the point.


Trump is changing the Republican Party into something far more sinister. than it ever was . And its.been pretty sinister. He got to be stopped now.

America has been told there was no collusion and the fact that they pushed that angle for two years is enough to convince most Americans that anything else that is now coming up:

a) from the Republican point of view will be seen as a conspiracy to overthrow the president in a coup on the part of Democrats

b) from the Democrat point of view there is nothing but a huge cover up and they wouldn't have been happy with the Mueller report unless it confirmed all of their conspiracy theories. Now they have just enough conspiracy to conclude that Trump is Satan and they won't stop until they impeach him.

The result of all this will be that Republicans will double down on thinking Democrats are trying to take over the country illegally and Democrats are and will be convinced that Republicans have some sinister and nefarious means of somehow changing the Mueller report in their favor, somehow.

All of this tears our nation apart. I don't give a fuck about any of it. I don't think any of these things are any worse than anything Obama did while he was in office, and that fucker assassinated a 15 year old.

I may not agree with the man-eating shark, and the record shows that I have denounced its bloody attacks on our tourists and local swimmers, publicly, on several occassions. But you cannot argue that he's effective. And maybe some blood in the water is exactly what our sleepy town needed to shake us out of complacency? I don't necessarily agree with that position, but it is an argument that could be made.

Sharks can not be held accountable in a court of law. They are not human and therefore cannot understand human concepts of morality.

Also, what do you want from the shark? How do you find the shark that performed the attacks? Do you try and kill the shark that made the attacks based on the idea that the shark looks guilty? Do you think all sharks look alike or do you think that all sharks should be held liable for what one shark might have possibly done? Do you know that sharks are often endangered and even though they look vicious are being killed off at a much faster rate than they are killing humans, by far?

What I know for certain is that our community needs to heal, it needs to come together and not be divided by the bloody attacks, the so-called "eating people," that this shark, or any shark, may have done. If we persecute this shark, if we point fingers and say 'Oh, this shark ate my boy, this shark ate my customers' then we cannot, as a people, heal. And we need to come together and we need to heal. I don't condone the shark attacks which continue even now, but I will not let the bloody deaths of chesty swimmers create a division in this town that I love so much and have served, and continue to serve.

Why were they in the water at night, anyway? Is anyone looking into that?

He was done when he won in 2016.

What if we come together at a beach bonfire and all share the shark for dinner?

>>>> from the Democrat point of view there is nothing but a huge cover up

Not really. Barr lied about what was in the report, and hoped that no one would read it. Pretty small potatoes.

Obstruction of justice doesn't require that an actual crime to be committed, obstructing an investigation would be enough. Yes, yes, a "process crime," and probably not to impeach Trump on yet, but he doesn't have to cover up anything real to obstruct justice. The guy is really paranoid.

Actually, Trump absolutely told an interviewer that he fired Comey because of "the Russia thing." So there's that. I mean, it's hard to prove state of mind, but still.

Otherwise, you're probably right about some of the points you make: this wouldn't fly in a court of law, and they don't have enough yet. Trump knows this when he goes on about "no collusion," which isn't an actual crime anyway. But this isn't a court of law, and impeachment would be a political trial. If Trump acted inappropriately, I don't think he gets to skate because he didn't actually break this-or-that statute for this-or-that reason. The presidency has a slightly higher bar than merely "technically innocent or not prosecutable"

This is QAnon for liberal retards only it has had traction in the mainstream from the likes of Rachel "Could Putin Turn Off The Power in Wisconsin During A Blizzard, Leaving Your Grandmother to Freeze To Death?" Maddow and various ex-FBI/CIA/national security state slimeballs and reporters who acted as mouthpieces of the intel community who are treated as wise, truthful solons on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

It has been seized upon by a corrupt Democratic Party establishment looking to blame anyone but themselves for Meemaw Pantsuit losing the 2016 election, promoting with the glad help of mouthbreathing neocons xenophobic conspiracy theories where even breathing in the same general radius as someone who might be a filthy Russian is TREASON!!!!

Consider the brouhaha, as an example of this insanity, of Martina Butina, who after serving 9 months in solitary confinement gets sentenced to 18 months (with "credit" for time served) for her supposed role in SPYING FOR MAD VLAD PUTINSKY, the NY Times and others reported her as being sentenced for SPYING, when she pleaded guilty to not registering with the Govt., and insists she would have done so if she knew it was a potentially criminal offense - the prosecution and media slandered her as a RUSSIAN SPY SLUT based on nothing and yet, while interviewed by Meuller she appears nowhere in the report nor does he mention her or her supposed spying, but she is a FILTHY RUSSIAN SLORE, LIKE THEY ALL ARE, etc.

https://newrepublic.com/article/153036/maria-butina-profile-wa snt-russian-spy

We've also ping-ponged from nefarious tales of Russian malfeasance, like the EAST COAST POWER GRID HACK that wasn't, and reports of questionable validity from sketchy private security contractors who haven't let the FBI look at their evidence of Russian master hacking, and stories that didn't pan out like the Guardian's tale of PAUL MANAFORT MET WITH JULIAN ASSANGE? that was quietly shoved under the table because there was no evidence at all, and seemingly a dozen other BIG STORIES that were going to break the conspiracy wide open, fizzled out and were quickly ignored and gotten to the point where the stoked RussiaGate believers accuse anyone on any point of the political spectrum who doesn't believing the narrative or, gasp, brings up points against the narrative of being a dirty non-patriot who loves the terrorists and hates AMURRICA.

In the meantime we've gone from "Trump is a treasonous asset of the Kremlin who conspired with Russia over the election" to "Bill Barr manipulated 3 weeks of a news cycle by unfairly conveying the findings of a report he himself released" which says something about the conspiracy theories, and look how quickly people are turning on Meuller, weepily tossing the Meuller votive candles and "It's Mueller Time!" buttons they bought on Etsy into the trash and screeching about how he's "enabled a tyrant" or something.

I have no pre-existing affinity for Bill Barr but he looked reasonable and sane yesterday compared to Democrats pummeling him with nonsensical questions. The Trump/Russia conspiracy theory fulminating consistently makes Dems behave like idiots and their adversaries appear logical by comparison

Dude, what did I do to deserve all that?

>>>>And there's no actual evidence Trump is guilty of anything. Yet. Not that we've seen. Otherwise we'd have heard something by now. You know, something concrete.

Jesus Christ. It's in the report, Brawndo. Mueller assembled a fuckton of evidence.

>>> Do you have proof Trump threatened the family of someone who was going to testify against him? No?

FACEPALM. He did it on Twitter, Brawndo.

>>> This bitching and moaning about interpretation of the Mueller report is agonizing to listen to. Let's just move the hell on.

No, Americans who do not wish to wallow in ignorance are learning what's in the report. And that's going to take a while. Sorry if that going to harsh your mellow.

I'm going to stop berating you here, because this isn't really your fault, but let me tell you, with all the kindness I can muster, that you're about a light year away from the nearest clue.

This is isn't about interpretation, it's about comprehension. The 400 page truth about what's in the Mueller report is complicated, but it's not at all ambiguous or open to interpretation. And it's not all that hard to understand. It's just harder to understand than the four page lies that are being pushed in bad faith, by bad actors.

I don't think that you were involved in this discussion, so you may have missed this video.

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=171393

The video, made by a lawyer, will tell you what you need to know. You don't need to read the report.

>>>Exactly what is Barr supposedly covering up? I don't hear any specifics here other than "you misrepresented the Mueller report by declaring him innocent".

The report didn't declare him innocent, using English words to make that point very explicitly.

Let me try to sum it up.

1. Mueller declares that he's going to follow the justice department guidelines which say that he can't indict a sitting president.

2. Since he can't be indicted, mueller feels it would not be fair to accuse him, because without an indictment. Trump wouldn't be allowed a chance in court to clear his name.

3. Therefore, Mueller argues, even if I thought he was guilty, I would not say so.

4. However, Mueller says, if I could say that I thought he was innocent, I would.

5. I can't.

This is all in the beginning, I've read this part. The part that I'm just getting to is the evidence, which Mueller has assembled for the discretion of congress if it chooses to impeach, or for a prosecutor after Trump leaves office.

>>>>10 episodes of possible obstruction actually ISN'T a crime. Hirono is wrong about that. It's not proven. It's possible. There is a difference.

And where do we prove crimes? In a trial. If there's an impeachment trial, thats where the crimes will be proven or not proven. And so, I have to agree. Thanks for the legal opinion, Judge Obvious.

stars for JHM

BHWW great post

I should add that there is no crime in the letter he wrote where he concluded the Mueller report exonerated Trump. That is not an illegal act. He isn't preventing anyone else from reading the report.

Possible obstruction is NOT the same as a proven crime as Hirono stated. Accusations are not the same thing as a conviction. What country are you living in?

Also, Hirono said Trump threatened to hurt the families of those who testified against him. I laughed out loud when you wrote that it was on Twitter. Are you serious? He threatened someone on Twitter? Really? Let me clutch my pearls. Barr had no idea what she was talking about and she insisted he did without being specific as to when that took place.

She is making statements that are purposefully meant to lead the witness at every point. It's like saying "Don't you agree that President Trump shouldn't murder puppies?" I think we can all agree that Trump should indeed not murder puppies but that line of questioning has nothing to do with reality and is not a reflection upon anything that has ever happened.

>>>>I think we can all agree that Trump should indeed not murder puppies but that line of questioning has nothing to do with reality and is not a reflection upon anything that has ever happened.

Agreed. So why the fuck are you substituting this nonsense for a real argument? If you think she's asking irrelevant questions, why is easier to make up a silly hypothetical than to use an example of what
you're talking about.

>>>Possible obstruction is NOT the same as a proven crime as Hirono stated. Accusations are not the same thing as a conviction.

Another historic ruling from Judge Obvious. Remember when he was
saying there was no evidence? He's backed up all the way to."he hasn't been convicted" Brawndo is the Lance Armstrong of back-pedaling.

Fuck you for pretending to be shocked that Senators are asking leading questions in hearings, and at the same time thinking it's a fucking joke that Trump threatens people on Twitter. Trump cruelly threatened to fire James McCabe on Twitter before he got his pension, and then, weeks later, he cruelly fired him two days before he would have gotten his pension.

Anyone who's been on the internet for very long knows that "let me clutch my pearls" is a lazy, fake excuse for a real argument. Are you saying that threats on Twitter aren't actually threats? No, you're not really saying that, that would require an actual argument. So you ask me if I'm serious, implying something without backing it up.

You know, I think Brawndo may be Evil Homer. Which makes me want to try to be nicer to him. Let's see how long that lasts.

>>>BHWW great post

Strawman after strawman.

>>>We've also ping-ponged from nefarious tales of Russian malfeasance, like the EAST COAST POWER GRID HACK that wasn't,

Nothing to do with the Mueller Report

>>>and reports of questionable validity from sketchy private security contractors who haven't let the FBI look at their evidence of Russian master hacking

nothing to do with the Mueller Report,

and stories that didn't pan out like the Guardian's tale of PAUL MANAFORT MET WITH JULIAN ASSANGE?

What?

that was quietly shoved under the table because there was no evidence at all

So you're saying that the media keeps dropping stories where the evidence doesn't pan out, and somehow, you find this to be suspicious? Go on.

>>>>>In the meantime we've gone from "Trump is a treasonous asset of the Kremlin who conspired with Russia over the election"

Who are these people that you're quoting? It feels like you tube comments.

>>>to "Bill Barr manipulated 3 weeks of a news cycle by unfairly conveying the findings of a report he himself released" which says something about the conspiracy theories,

Fuck you. Readers of English can take Mueller's report, and Barr's statement about Mueller's report, and compare them. It's not a very complicated conspiracy theory.

>>>and look how quickly people are turning on Meuller, weepily tossing the Meuller votive candles and "It's Mueller Time!" buttons they bought on Etsy into the trash and screeching about how he's "enabled a tyrant" or something.

And who the fuck are THESE people? They aren't me, that's for fucking sure. During the investigation, I was for the investigation going forward, and against prejudging. As an American, I am PROUD of the work Mueller did. In these dark times, the Mueller Report is was refreshingly Non partisan.

So what's the point of the New Republic link? The New York times got something wrong, therefore... what? Fake News? Witch Hunt? What about her emails? I'm not convinced that this wasn't spying, this about this is about three time zones away from the topic at hat hand.

Hilarious meme, bro!

^^this

At this rate, Hillary will supercede slavery as the American Original Sin.

But collusion isn't a crime, and Mueller didn't even address it, except to say that he was not. The reason why guys like Brawndo think the Democrats "pushed this angle" is because Trump acted like they were pushing the angle. No matter what happened, Trump tweeted "no collusion", day after day, I'm not saying that no one ever mentioned "collusion" as a point of discussion, and I'm sure that early on, some people were confused, including, but the media has been repeatedly telling people that Collusion is not a real charge for months, probably more than a year.

The idea that the Trump campaign was actually participating in Russia's crimes, instead of merely encouraging and rewarding them, needed to be explored, but this was always about obstruction. It was apparent obstruction, i.e. the firing of Jim Comey, apparently to interfere with the FBI's investigation, that led to Mueller being appointed.

>>>It turns out there's a difference between someone who doesn't tell the truth, and it's not that subtle

should have been:

It turns out there's a difference between someone who lies and someone who doesn't tell the truth, and it's not that subtle.

^ this