Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Trump is not anti-Gay
Trump is not anti-brown immigrant
Trump does not want to control female body parts

Replace Trump with your generalized "republicans" and that's not true either. Sue there are some people that that are...but I think you need to educate yourself on the word "anti" because you have no idea what it means.

Do you ever say anything nice about anyone? You have got to be the most self-absorbed, unfriendly, unkind person I've ever "met." I truly hope you find happiness in something.

---

The GOP opposes civil rights for LGBT people and abortion and wants to limit contraception options to only those approved of by certain conservative religious groups.

Trump is the putative leader of the GOP.

I'm also mystified as to how you can say with a straight face that "Trump is not anti-brown immigrant" when he describes countries populated by brown people at ****hole countries and wants to build a wall, complete with alligator-filled moats, to keep refugees out of the U.S., when he implemented a travel ban that was rejected twice by federal courts for targeting brown people from Muslim countries, and when he wants to eliminate asylum rights we currently grant.

I have posted on this forum as "Jinx" for more than 10 years, but I have a life outside this forum. Believe it or not, I have sing in a church choir, walk my dog twice a day, have 2 grown daughters who have launched their own careers, have friends of all political persuasions (although, since Trump, I don't talk about certain policies with some of them), volunteer with a church ministry that feeds homeless and low-income people in the neighborhood surrounding the church, volunteer on an affordable housing task force with a nonprofit in my city as a policy-writer, and lead a happy and fulfilling life.

I oppose Trump because I want to continue to live in a country where dissent and disagreement over political policies are tolerated. Trump is the least tolerant president we've had during my lifetime of more than 60 years. He's a danger to democracy. So, yes, I'm angry at supporters who think, as one poster said within the past week on this forum, that democracy is overrated, and who want to hold Trump above/outside/beyond the laws that have applied to every other president and public official since I've been a voting adult. IMO, the rule of law, upholding the constitution and accountability are key to our system of government. Those of you who defend Trump regardless of how low he stoops and how obvious it is that he's engaged in criminal or even just sketchy behavior are, IMO, unAmerican.

---

The GOP has no interest in limiting contraception options. They are interested in defending religious people who object to providing certain options. In any reasonable view this would be considered "tolerating dissent and disagreement." In your view it's establishing a theocracy. It's hard to compromise when one side demands not just tolerance, but active support of its agenda.

---

"Defending religious people" would involve making sure they are able to choose for themselves whether or not to use ocntraception and what forms to use without government intterference.

It does not involve limiting the options of EVERYONE's options, including those whose religious beliefs don't preclude those options and those who have no religious beliefs and those whose church has a position on the use of contraception with which they disagree. THAT is theocracy, period, end of story.

You certainly have the right to believe as you wish and make personal choices based on your beliefs.

What you should not have, in a country with separation of church and state, is the right to impose your beliefs one all U.S. citizens with the force of law.

Your logic reminds me of the logic of the teacher of a class on Islam I took in 2005. It was offered at a divinity school, but I quickly discovered the div school was just providing the classroom, and that the class was like learning about Christianity from a hard-core member of the Church of Christ. The teacher couldn't understand why anyone would object to Sharia law becuase, in his view, it was God's law, there was therefore no higher law, and Go'd law was good for everybody. For him, God's law easily trumped democracy, and what constitued God's law wasn't up to debate; it was clearly laid out int he Qu'ran. It was an intractable circular argument. At least I learned about the 5 pllars but I didn't finish the class, the purpose of which appeared to be indoctrination.

How does the basis for your position re: contraception differ from the basis for his position re: Sharia?

---

HuMcK said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

By the way, the President just came out and asked two foreign countries to help him win an election. He's just taking the illegal stuff he did behind doors (and said he didn't do) and put it in the open. That's what he does. He does something horrible and then normalizes it when he gets caught.

He's literally trying to make it an unfair election.

Y'all still cool with this?

---

Yup. I'm totally cool with Durham and Barr investigating.

---

Don't y'all think it's a little strange that Barr is so hands on with this? Isn't Durham supposed to be an independent and impartial arbiter of what happenned? Sure seems like Barr is seeking to launder his own conclusions into Durham's
forthcoming report by using Durham's positive reputation. I almost wonder if those reports of Durham interviewing Steele and finding him to be credible (causing a delay in the release of the report, at one point it was supposed to come out months ago) were the impetus for Barr to step in and start guiding things a little more forcefully.

---

Durham reports to Barr just like Mueller did when Barr was appointed. Chain of command.

---

Sure, but the whole point of appointing both Mueller and (supposedly) Durham was to let them investigate things independently, since they were the ones with reputations for impartiality. In this case Barr seems to be way more involved than is usual or proper, he's actually out there investigating things in foreign countries (as if the USAG doesn't have more important things to do domestically...), and not that Trump fans care at it all but that gives a strong appearance if impropriety and throws doubt on how truly impartial Durham's report will be.

---

Barr has an excellent reputation for impartiality and I recall hearing high praise from all corners because an adult had finally been brought into the Trump administration....or at least until he started investigating the origins of Russian meddling into the 2016 election.

So you don't want the highest law enforcement officer in the land actively participating? Don't know about you, but with an activity of this magnitude, I'm glad he's hands-on and getting into details.

---

No he doesn't, not outside of the Republican propaganda eco-system. I'm genuinely impressed by the amount of gall it takes for you to post that unironically. Barr is most known for being the one to recommend pardons in the Iran/Contra scandal as a way to make it go away, his unofficial interview for the AG job was when he interviewed to be on Trump's defense team (which he bolstered by writing an unsolicited legal memo pre-emptively laying out his theory for why Trump didn't commit obstruction), and his 2nd tenure as AG is going to be known for it's blatant coverups in support of Trump. Hell, Mueller straight up called him out in public for misrepresenting the Mueller Report with his "memo" summary to transparently set-up a counter-narrative before the full report was released.

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sure, but the whole point of appointing both Mueller and (supposedly) Durham was to let them investigate things independently, since they were the ones with reputations for impartiality. In this case Barr seems to be way more involved than is usual or proper, he's actually out there investigating things in foreign countries (as if the USAG doesn't have more important things to do domestically...), and not that Trump fans care at it all but that gives a strong appearance if impropriety and throws doubt on how truly impartial Durham's report will be.

---

Barr has an excellent reputation for impartiality and I recall hearing high praise from all corners because an adult had finally been brought into the Trump administration....or at least until he started investigating the origins of Russian meddling into the 2016 election.

So you don't want the highest law enforcement officer in the land actively participating? Don't know about you, but with an activity of this magnitude, I'm glad he's hands-on and getting into details.

---

No he doesn't, not outside of the Republican propaganda eco-system. I'm genuinely impressed by the amount of gall it takes for you to post that unironically. Barr is most known for being the one to recommend pardons in the Iran/Contra scandal as a way to make it go away, his unofficial interview for the AG job was when he interviewed to be on Trump's defense team (which he bolstered by writing an unsolicited legal memo pre-emptively laying out his theory for why Trump didn't commit obstruction), and his 2nd tenure as AG is going to be known for it's blatant coverups in support of Trump. Hell, Mueller straight up called him out in public for misrepresenting the Mueller Report with his "memo" summary to transparently set-up a counter-narrative before the full report was released.

---

So you don't want the highest law enforcement officer in the land actively participating in an investigation. Got it.

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

By the way, the President just came out and asked two foreign countries to help him win an election. He's just taking the illegal stuff he did behind doors (and said he didn't do) and put it in the open. That's what he does. He does something horrible and then normalizes it when he gets caught.

He's literally trying to make it an unfair election.

Y'all still cool with this?

---

Yup. I'm totally cool with Durham and Barr investigating.

---

Don't y'all think it's a little strange that Barr is so hands on with this? Isn't Durham supposed to be an independent and impartial arbiter of what happenned? Sure seems like Barr is seeking to launder his own conclusions into Durham's
forthcoming report by using Durham's positive reputation. I almost wonder if those reports of Durham interviewing Steele and finding him to be credible (causing a delay in the release of the report, at one point it was supposed to come out months ago) were the impetus for Barr to step in and start guiding things a little more forcefully.

---

Durham reports to Barr just like Mueller did when Barr was appointed. Chain of command.

---

HuMcK said:

---

Only a Trump fan could be dumb enough to believe the USIC was out to get Trump in 2016, an election that he won in part because the FBI director publicly put Hillary's investigation on blast whle keeping Trump'sa closely guarded secret. You never stopped to think about how stupid it is to believe Obama, the Dems, and Hillary hatched a scheme to defeat themselves in 2016?

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Only a Trump fan could be dumb enough to believe the USIC was out to get Trump in 2016, an election that he won in part because the FBI director publicly put Hillary's investigation on blast whle keeping Trump'sa closely guarded secret. You never stopped to think about how stupid it is to believe Obama, the Dems, and Hillary hatched a scheme to defeat themselves in 2016?

---

So when the IG report drops and says high level members of the IC coordinated, lied to courts and spied on President Trump, and they receive indictments. All with supporting documents and facts...you're going to shrug it off and not believe it?

---

Can't wait to check in here and see how butthurt you are when that doesn't happen.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Only a Trump fan could be dumb enough to believe the USIC was out to get Trump in 2016, an election that he won in part because the FBI director publicly put Hillary's investigation on blast whle keeping Trump'sa closely guarded secret. You never stopped to think about how stupid it is to believe Obama, the Dems, and Hillary hatched a scheme to defeat themselves in 2016?

---

So when the IG report drops and says high level members of the IC coordinated, lied to courts and spied on President Trump, and they receive indictments. All with supporting documents and facts...you're going to shrug it off and not believe it?

---

Can't wait to check in here and see how butthurt you are when that doesn't happen.

---

He'll have moved on to 5 different other conspiracy theories by then.

Remember when Michael Flynn was going to be completely exonerated? Doc believed that right up until the moment Flynn completely flopped.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Only a Trump fan could be dumb enough to believe the USIC was out to get Trump in 2016, an election that he won in part because the FBI director publicly put Hillary's investigation on blast whle keeping Trump'sa closely guarded secret. You never stopped to think about how stupid it is to believe Obama, the Dems, and Hillary hatched a scheme to defeat themselves in 2016?

---

So when the IG report drops and says high level members of the IC coordinated, lied to courts and spied on President Trump, and they receive indictments. All with supporting documents and facts...you're going to shrug it off and not believe it?

---

Can't wait to check in here and see how butthurt you are when that doesn't happen.

---

He'll have moved on to 5 different other conspiracy theories by then.

Remember when Michael Flynn was going to be completely exonerated? Doc believed that right up until the moment Flynn completely flopped.

---

Flynn might get his case thrown out. It's still underway.

You guys don't keep up with cases or facts whatsoever.

---

quash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

It's pretty clear at this point that the Republicans are flailing (which is what happens when you have no moral center) from all the different explanations on this.

First, it was a "perfect" call with no pressure. Then it was taken out of context. Then it was about the Clintons. Now they're trying to say it's about "rooting out corruption."

If they're going to take the corruption tack, then could they please show all the other corruption they asked other countries to specifically research?

I'm willing to bet that would be a list with one or two big things in common...

---

Saudi corruption would be a good start.

Nah...

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Trump is not anti-Gay
Trump is not anti-brown immigrant
Trump does not want to control female body parts

Replace Trump with your generalized "republicans" and that's not true either. Sue there are some people that that are...but I think you need to educate yourself on the word "anti" because you have no idea what it means.

Do you ever say anything nice about anyone? You have got to be the most self-absorbed, unfriendly, unkind person I've ever "met." I truly hope you find happiness in something.

---

The GOP opposes civil rights for LGBT people and abortion and wants to limit contraception options to only those approved of by certain conservative religious groups.

Trump is the putative leader of the GOP.

I'm also mystified as to how you can say with a straight face that "Trump is not anti-brown immigrant" when he describes countries populated by brown people at ****hole countries and wants to build a wall, complete with alligator-filled moats, to keep refugees out of the U.S., when he implemented a travel ban that was rejected twice by federal courts for targeting brown people from Muslim countries, and when he wants to eliminate asylum rights we currently grant.

I have posted on this forum as "Jinx" for more than 10 years, but I have a life outside this forum. Believe it or not, I have sing in a church choir, walk my dog twice a day, have 2 grown daughters who have launched their own careers, have friends of all political persuasions (although, since Trump, I don't talk about certain policies with some of them), volunteer with a church ministry that feeds homeless and low-income people in the neighborhood surrounding the church, volunteer on an affordable housing task force with a nonprofit in my city as a policy-writer, and lead a happy and fulfilling life.

I oppose Trump because I want to continue to live in a country where dissent and disagreement over political policies are tolerated. Trump is the least tolerant president we've had during my lifetime of more than 60 years. He's a danger to democracy. So, yes, I'm angry at supporters who think, as one poster said within the past week on this forum, that democracy is overrated, and who want to hold Trump above/outside/beyond the laws that have applied to every other president and public official since I've been a voting adult. IMO, the rule of law, upholding the constitution and accountability are key to our system of government. Those of you who defend Trump regardless of how low he stoops and how obvious it is that he's engaged in criminal or even just sketchy behavior are, IMO, unAmerican.

---

The GOP has no interest in limiting contraception options. They are interested in defending religious people who object to providing certain options. In any reasonable view this would be considered "tolerating dissent and disagreement." In your view it's establishing a theocracy. It's hard to compromise when one side demands not just tolerance, but active support of its agenda.

---

"Defending religious people" would involve making sure they are able to choose for themselves whether or not to use ocntraception and what forms to use without government intterference.

It does not involve limiting the options of EVERYONE's options, including those whose religious beliefs don't preclude those options and those who have no religious beliefs and those whose church has a position on the use of contraception with which they disagree. THAT is theocracy, period, end of story.

You certainly have the right to believe as you wish and make personal choices based on your beliefs.

What you should not have, in a country with separation of church and state, is the right to impose your beliefs one all U.S. citizens with the force of law.

Your logic reminds me of the logic of the teacher of a class on Islam I took in 2005. It was offered at a divinity school, but I quickly discovered the div school was just providing the classroom, and that the class was like learning about Christianity from a hard-core member of the Church of Christ. The teacher couldn't understand why anyone would object to Sharia law becuase, in his view, it was God's law, there was therefore no higher law, and Go'd law was good for everybody. For him, God's law easily trumped democracy, and what constitued God's law wasn't up to debate; it was clearly laid out int he Qu'ran. It was an intractable circular argument. At least I learned about the 5 pllars but I didn't finish the class, the purpose of which appeared to be indoctrination.

How does the basis for your position re: contraception differ from the basis for his position re: Sharia?

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Trump does not abort babies!
Vote Red 2020!

---

That's not the issue. Women's Rights is the issue. Vote Blue .

---

Please detail any rights women have lost. Thanks.

---

The Right to their own health decisions

---

How so? Give an example.

---

Are we going to act like bodily autonomy isn't a right?

---

Again, when have women been denied this right to decide what to do with their body? Be specific.

---

If a woman no longer wishes to be pregnant, you would tell her she has no choice.

---

She had a choice. She's already made it.

Using your logic, if someone no longer wanted to be a parent, they could kill their child.

Sorry, I'm just asking women to be more responsible with their choices. Be pro-choice before you act.

---

No. This is bodily autonomy.

Either she has it or she doesn't.

I think every single abortion is a travesty and a tragedy. Every single one. However, banning abortion is robbing women (and only women) of their bodily autonomy. In our society, we allow LIBERTY to make certain choices.

I don't think any woman should ever have an abortion. Ever. But I think it is THEIR choice to make. Not yours. Not mine. Once we get into taking away one's right to bodily autonomy, then we are letting the state invade our very person and force us to do something that, let's just be frank, you have to want to do.

Also, abortion bans don't work. There have always been abortions. There always will be abortions.

If you were REALLY serious about ending abortions, you'd set the conditions needed to keep them from being needed in the first place. Support young mothers to be. Make it easier to adopt. Have comprehensive health education in our schools. Give contraception to absolutely anyone who wants it. Make it free. Allow women to get their tubes tied as easily as men can get vasectomies.

THAT would do much more to end abortion than any ban.

---

"If you were REALLY serious about ending abortions, you'd set the conditions needed to keep them from being needed in the first place. Support young mothers to be. Make it easier to adopt. Have comprehensive health education in our schools. Give contraception to absolutely anyone who wants it. Make it free. Allow women to get their tubes tied as easily as men can get vasectomies."

I support all of this. Not sure what you mean by some of it. Contraception IS free for many, many people and a condom costs 75 cents. Schools already have comprehensive health education. Why can't women get their tubes tied as easy as men?


BUT, if it's her choice to have it or not, then men should not be responsible for helping her financially. After all, it's HER choice. Right?

---

Please try again.

Contraception is NOT free. Not for all (your messiah Trump is attempting to undercut it at every possible turn).
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/court-trump-birth-control.html

Women's rights to get their tubes tied (or access to an IUD) are famously restrictive.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/06/choosing-to-be-child-free-tubes-tied-at-26.html
https://fox2now.com/2017/01/23/trumps-administration-is-already-reshaping-birth-control-in-america/

Comprehensive health education is available on average in blue states. In red states.... not so much. And what is available, is being fought tooth-and-nail by the current Republican party and administration.
Texas is one of 9 states with NO sex education mandate:

• Arizona
• Arkansas
• Colorado
• Florida
• Idaho
• Louisiana
• Massachusetts
• Texas
• Virginia

https://www.thoughtco.com/abstinence-only-sex-education-3533767

And it is her choice to have the child or not. Absolutely. But both are responsible. When men are having to carry the child, they can sue for support as well.

If you come and stay the night in my house and light some incense before falling asleep, fine. If you set the house on fire, you're responsible. Yes, I let you stay in my house.

If I am able to put the fire out without damage, great. You're off the hook. But if I can't, you're still on it.

---

1. Contraception IS free. Walk into a public clinic and/or Planned Parenthood and it is free. My sister directs people all the time to those resources. Additionally, there are many, many non-profits that give out free birth control. Just because the government doesn't do it, doesn't mean it's not happening.

2. Your slate article is form 2012 and 2016. Who was president in 2012? and the 2016 article is full of "coulds" and "mights."

3. Texas does have sex ed and it is not abstinence only. Each school district chooses according to it's taxpayers and what they want to use. My kids have attended three schools districts...all of them had sex ed and none were abstinence only. But then again, are you saying that teaching kids to say no isn't an option?

4. Sorry, you don't get to have the abortion argument both ways. It's incredibly unfair to men. Yes, the woman carries the child which is why she must be more responsible...not less. If she wants to kill it, men are not considered responsible...even though you yourself said they both were... BUT if he doesn't want it and she does...suddenly he's responsible.

5. Why are you so dependent on government to do things? Why are you so against holding individuals responsible for their own choices? Homie.

---

Texas has put most PP clinics out of business.

28.004 of the Texas Educ Code says districts are not free to do as they want. And abstinence must be taught as the preferred method if any sex ed is taught.

---

False. Sorry, I've attended my child's classes. Look up the Scott and White program which is taught in many schools. It takes the approach of all the things that can happen if you choose to have sex. Not exactly abstinence based.

I know you want to believe that schools are telling kids to just say no, but they're aren't. They are saying to think carefully before you say yes.

31 of 74 PP clinics closed....that's not most. And since they do far more abortions that anything else, that's a good thing. Additionally, numerous preventative non-profit clinics have sprung up to fill the void of PP. These clinics actually give out free birth control.

I would recommend that you talk to people and look around before you just spout talking points.

---

False? I gave you the statute, read it. If you choose to teach sex ed then abstinence has to be taught as the preferred method. That's the law, homie, not a talking point.

Only 35 PP clinics are still in Texas, so using your 74 that is still most.

Only six perform abortions.

Abortion services are 3.4% of PPT services. Not even close to "far more abortions than anything else".

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Trump is not anti-Gay
Trump is not anti-brown immigrant
Trump does not want to control female body parts

Replace Trump with your generalized "republicans" and that's not true either. Sue there are some people that that are...but I think you need to educate yourself on the word "anti" because you have no idea what it means.

Do you ever say anything nice about anyone? You have got to be the most self-absorbed, unfriendly, unkind person I've ever "met." I truly hope you find happiness in something.

---

The GOP opposes civil rights for LGBT people and abortion and wants to limit contraception options to only those approved of by certain conservative religious groups.

Trump is the putative leader of the GOP.

I'm also mystified as to how you can say with a straight face that "Trump is not anti-brown immigrant" when he describes countries populated by brown people at ****hole countries and wants to build a wall, complete with alligator-filled moats, to keep refugees out of the U.S., when he implemented a travel ban that was rejected twice by federal courts for targeting brown people from Muslim countries, and when he wants to eliminate asylum rights we currently grant.

I have posted on this forum as "Jinx" for more than 10 years, but I have a life outside this forum. Believe it or not, I have sing in a church choir, walk my dog twice a day, have 2 grown daughters who have launched their own careers, have friends of all political persuasions (although, since Trump, I don't talk about certain policies with some of them), volunteer with a church ministry that feeds homeless and low-income people in the neighborhood surrounding the church, volunteer on an affordable housing task force with a nonprofit in my city as a policy-writer, and lead a happy and fulfilling life.

I oppose Trump because I want to continue to live in a country where dissent and disagreement over political policies are tolerated. Trump is the least tolerant president we've had during my lifetime of more than 60 years. He's a danger to democracy. So, yes, I'm angry at supporters who think, as one poster said within the past week on this forum, that democracy is overrated, and who want to hold Trump above/outside/beyond the laws that have applied to every other president and public official since I've been a voting adult. IMO, the rule of law, upholding the constitution and accountability are key to our system of government. Those of you who defend Trump regardless of how low he stoops and how obvious it is that he's engaged in criminal or even just sketchy behavior are, IMO, unAmerican.

---

The GOP has no interest in limiting contraception options. They are interested in defending religious people who object to providing certain options. In any reasonable view this would be considered "tolerating dissent and disagreement." In your view it's establishing a theocracy. It's hard to compromise when one side demands not just tolerance, but active support of its agenda.

---

"Defending religious people" would involve making sure they are able to choose for themselves whether or not to use ocntraception and what forms to use without government intterference.

It does not involve limiting the options of EVERYONE's options, including those whose religious beliefs don't preclude those options and those who have no religious beliefs and those whose church has a position on the use of contraception with which they disagree. THAT is theocracy, period, end of story.

You certainly have the right to believe as you wish and make personal choices based on your beliefs.

What you should not have, in a country with separation of church and state, is the right to impose your beliefs one all U.S. citizens with the force of law.

Your logic reminds me of the logic of the teacher of a class on Islam I took in 2005. It was offered at a divinity school, but I quickly discovered the div school was just providing the classroom, and that the class was like learning about Christianity from a hard-core member of the Church of Christ. The teacher couldn't understand why anyone would object to Sharia law becuase, in his view, it was God's law, there was therefore no higher law, and Go'd law was good for everybody. For him, God's law easily trumped democracy, and what constitued God's law wasn't up to debate; it was clearly laid out int he Qu'ran. It was an intractable circular argument. At least I learned about the 5 pllars but I didn't finish the class, the purpose of which appeared to be indoctrination.

How does the basis for your position re: contraception differ from the basis for his position re: Sharia?

---

HuMcK said:

---

Only a Trump fan could be dumb enough to believe the USIC was out to get Trump in 2016, an election that he won in part because the FBI director publicly put Hillary's investigation on blast whle keeping Trump'sa closely guarded secret. You never stopped to think about how stupid it is to believe Obama, the Dems, and Hillary hatched a scheme to defeat themselves in 2016?

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sure, but the whole point of appointing both Mueller and (supposedly) Durham was to let them investigate things independently, since they were the ones with reputations for impartiality. In this case Barr seems to be way more involved than is usual or proper, he's actually out there investigating things in foreign countries (as if the USAG doesn't have more important things to do domestically...), and not that Trump fans care at it all but that gives a strong appearance if impropriety and throws doubt on how truly impartial Durham's report will be.

---

Barr has an excellent reputation for impartiality and I recall hearing high praise from all corners because an adult had finally been brought into the Trump administration....or at least until he started investigating the origins of Russian meddling into the 2016 election.

So you don't want the highest law enforcement officer in the land actively participating? Don't know about you, but with an activity of this magnitude, I'm glad he's hands-on and getting into details.

---

No he doesn't, not outside of the Republican propaganda eco-system. I'm genuinely impressed by the amount of gall it takes for you to post that unironically. Barr is most known for being the one to recommend pardons in the Iran/Contra scandal as a way to make it go away, his unofficial interview for the AG job was when he interviewed to be on Trump's defense team (which he bolstered by writing an unsolicited legal memo pre-emptively laying out his theory for why Trump didn't commit obstruction), and his 2nd tenure as AG is going to be known for it's blatant coverups in support of Trump. Hell, Mueller straight up called him out in public for misrepresenting the Mueller Report with his "memo" summary to transparently set-up a counter-narrative before the full report was released.

---

So you don't want the highest law enforcement officer in the land actively participating in an investigation. Got it.

---

Not if he is obstructing and subverting the law for partisan purposes.

---

fubar said:

---

Romney is acting like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum? Have you been watching your guy?

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

fubar said:

---

Romney is acting like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum? Have you been watching your guy?

---

Trump is under siege EVERY SINGLE DAY. Not from China or Russia. Not from Iran or Afghanistan. The biggest threat to our freedom in the United States of America is the Liberal mainstream news media. Not even close. I don't blame Trump for being pissed. He should be.

---

quash said:

---

I particularly like the way "conservatives" that are melting down over Trump's treatment in the media have complete amnesia for 2016.

Bach when conservative media was full of Never Trumpers. That's where it all started.

Including the Fusion GPS Russian research.

Lulz.

---