Progressives (Liberals)

Quote:

You gun nuts are ******* evil

I don't see them wishing death on anyone. I have seen you do that. Who is evil?

O really? What do they have in mind for those 8 trillion bullets then?

What we can expect from left major media that puked a false conspiracy narrative for 2.5 years:

1) No firings.

The end.

Thanks for helping this shitty president to get re-elected.

So death. Gotcha

Well how are we to know when they can and can't lie?

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Think of the collateral damage. Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying when the FBI didn't think he lied. Why? Because they were threatening his son and his family. And he lost his house 'cause he couldn't pay for the lawyers. This is how we treat 33 year veterans and war heroes? That fought in combat? That's not the country that I know. He needs to withdraw that guilty plea. I'll start a fund that he gets a lawyer. It's ridiculous.

I’m grinning like a Cheshire Cat, anticipating a legitimate investigation into her crimes around and through the 2016 debacle, including what happened to Seth Rich.

Hannity is moral zero.

Yeah, hands off Sean Hannity, who cares if he's a moral zero.

The Bigs are Getting Played for Chumps
I don’t know if it’s the distance, literal or metaphorical. But from that distance I’ve marvelled at how ingenuous and pliable so many media voices have been in the face of spin that was entirely predictable. The Times has been among the most credulous, more or less taking at face value the Barr/Trump claim of blanket exoneration. Interestingly, Roll Call has been among the most cautious and focused. But most of the mainstream outlets have taken the Barr letter almost entirely at face value, a decision that seemed ill-considered yesterday and even more so today.

The Russia scandal isn’t a story in isolation. It’s part of a larger story about the rise of plutocratic corruption and right wing authoritarianism in the US, something Donald Trump has both embodied and catalyzed. In that sense it’s not separate from the rest of Trump’s scandals or, contrary to the claims of many, the range of right wing policies he and his Republican Party have advanced. With that said, I don’t think even this story – Trump’s relationship with Russia, the 2016 campaign and his efforts to obstruct and coverup – are really close to over.

On the obstruction question, what we have is a unilateral and unexplained decision on the part of an Attorney General recently appointed on the basis of a memo in which he argued that it was essentially impossible, as a matter of law and the constitution, for the President to obstruct justice. In other words, he’s already told us that he doesn’t think there’s any set of facts that could amount to obstruction or, more specifically, that there’s no way that the President could do so by the corrupt use of his legitimate executive powers.

His judgement tells us nothing as a substantive matter and asks us all collectively to pretend we didn’t see what we all saw happen before our eyes. As I wrote when Barr was nominated, he’s a partisan with a record of putting his hands on the scales for the President he serves. I said I thought he would do everything he could – that’s why he was appointed – to protect Trump short of destroying his reputation in Republican DC or breaking the law. This all fits that prediction to a T.

On the question of collusion or coordination, again, Barr’s gloss on the report similarly asks us to believe that none of us saw what we saw with our own eyes – numerous instances of covert communication, offers of assistance, back channels, business deals being secretly negotiated while the President aggressively pushed the Russian line, a campaign manager handing over campaign data to a Russian intelligence asset and planning peace deals and sanctions relief that was Russia’s top foreign policy goal.

The quote from the report says the investigation did not “establish” conspiracy or coordination. I think we need to take this at face value – they did not find sufficient evidence to prove that a crime had occurred. Was there no evidence? Did they not believe it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Were they unable to gain the cooperation of key players?

As I said yesterday, these are questions the report likely answers. Perhaps when we see the report it will turn out that the story is quite different than we thought. But I tend to doubt it. Everything I see here tells me that the Barr letter looked its best on day one and will look worse on every succeeding day.