Trump: Accusers Have Done “Evil” and “Treasonous Things”

It would seem that being cleared of collusion and obstruction allegations might be an opportune moment for Donald Trump to take the high road and declare an intent to move the country past the divisive politics of the last two years. Instead, Trump declared that those people who accused him were responsible for “treasonous things” and said they “will certainly be looked at.” Since I was one of those people who denounced others for alleging treason against Trump, it is disconcerting to now hear Trump himself using the same irresponsible rhetoric. Those peddling unsupported theories of criminality over the last two years were also irresponsible and reckless, but their voicing such views was not treasonous. Trump added that his critics were “evil”

Trump did not specify who he was referring to or who would be investigating his critics for treason. He simply said “There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, very bad things. I would say treasonous things against our country. I’ve been looking at them for a long time.”

It is baffling why Trump tends to step on his own good media. Rather than basking in the findings of the Special Counsel, Trump immediately cut short the discussion with a new sensational and disturbing comment.

As with calling the media “the enemy of people,” the labeling of his critics and accusers as traitors is the signature of authoritarian countries. It was wrong for Trump’s critics and it is wrong for Trump.

361 thoughts on “Trump: Accusers Have Done “Evil” and “Treasonous Things””

  1. My sense is that P Hill should stop deflecting off on other subjects & be in the middle of writing up his Affidavit of Fact as to his involvement in aiding & abetting the Bush’s/Clinton’s/Obma’s in the criminal/Treason, Sedition, Espionage activity.

    1. BTW: To whom it concern:

      I’m not a lawyer & I an not giving P Hill or anyone legal advice. If you have a legal issue go hire a Lawyer!



    The administration staked out its new position in a lawsuit that was filed by Republican attorneys general in Texas and other states after Congress failed in 2017 to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but later reduced the law’s tax penalty for people who do not have insurance to zero. The suit contended that the absence of the real tax penalty rendered the law’s “individual mandate” — the requirement that most Americans have insurance — unconstitutional.

    Without a requirement to purchase insurance, they argued, the law could not then insist that insurance companies cover pre-existing medical conditions and a suite of other “essential health benefits,” such as maternity care and prescription drugs.

    A judge in Texas agreed and invalidated the entire law, including its expansion of Medicaid and subsidies to help many low- and middle-income people buy insurance. The Justice Department initially said that only parts of the law, including its protections for pre-existing conditions, should be struck down. But on Monday, it expanded its attack to say the whole law should be invalidated.

    The Justice Department’s move caught both parties by surprise, and put Republicans in a very awkward position.

    The Democratic offensive came the morning after the Justice Department asked a federal court to strike down the law in its entirety.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
    Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader, at first said, “I haven’t read through what they — was it last night?” He then added, “I think the president has always been very clear that he wanted to repeal Obamacare, and to put a system in that actually lowers the cost and protects individuals’ pre-existing conditions.”

    But Mr. Trump wholeheartedly embraced the new position on Tuesday, both on Twitter and in the Capitol, shortly before joining Senate Republicans at a closed-door luncheon. “The Republican Party will soon become the party of health care,” he told a throng of reporters and photographers, echoing what he had already written on social media.

    The president used the closed-door meeting in the Capitol for a rambling, unscripted recitation of his legislative priorities, and repeated his intention to make the subject of health care a major issue over the next two years. That pronouncement elicited a muted response, according to a person in the room.

    In the nine years since it was signed by President Barack Obama, the Affordable Care Act has become deeply ingrained in the nation’s health care system. It revamped the way Medicare pays doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. It unleashed innovation in the delivery of health care. Since its passage, the health insurance industry has invented a new business model selling coverage to anyone who applies, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.

    The law also includes dozens of other less known provisions. Chain restaurants are now required to print nutrition labeling and calorie counts on standard menu items. Certain employers must now provide “reasonable break time” and a private space for nursing mothers to pump breast milk. The law also improved prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries, and created a new pathway for the approval of less expensive versions of advanced “biologic” medicines made from living cells.

    Lawyers and other experts say that uprooting the law could have “dire consequences for millions of people,” in the words of Abbe R. Gluck, a law professor at Yale who has closely followed the litigation. It would also raise legal and practical questions.

    “The Justice Department’s position is mind-boggling,” said Timothy S. Jost, an emeritus professor of health law at Washington and Lee University. “The Affordable Care Act affects the whole health care system, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Food and Drug Administration, the Indian Health Service and much more. The administration is asking the appeals court to invalidate the entire law without really knowing exactly what that would mean. It’s reckless.”

    But Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas who led the group of Republican state officials who challenged the Affordable Care Act, said he welcomed the Trump administration’s latest expression of support for a lawsuit that had already prompted a district court judge in Texas to strike down the health law. That judge’s ruling in December has been on hold as the matter winds its way through the court system.

    In addition to inciting a furor on Capitol Hill, the administration’s new position is also certain to take center stage as an issue in the 2020 elections. Democrats have been saying that Mr. Trump still wants to abolish the law, and they can now point to the Justice Department’s filing as proof.

    At Tuesday’s news conference, Democrats were eager to remind reporters that Mr. Trump said in the 2018 campaign that “Republicans will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions.”

    “We will remind the American people time and time again of that broken promise,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat.

    Edited from: “Democrats Pivot Hard To Health Care After Trump Moves To Strike Down Affordable Care Act”

    This evening’s NEW YORK TIMES

    1. RE ABOVE:

      This is the real Donald Trump. He thinks he won a huge victory with Barr’s summary of The Mueller Report. So immediately Trump dives off the deep end and moves strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. That means ‘all’ provisions including pre-existing conditions coverage and coverage for college aged youths under their parents plans.

      It’s hard to understand how Trump thinks he can win on this. The results of last fall’s midterm elections seemed to indicate voters are deeply concerned about healthcare and coverage for pre-existing conditions has overwhelming support.

    2. Obamacare was a lousy law. That is why there are so many problems. In great part it was only a shell of a plan in part due to the desire to quickly pass a bad bill rather than create legislation that would see to it that those needing help got it while maintaining a free marketplace. Though people like Peter don’t realize it the free marketplace is what is permitting him to own a computer and have the ability to write nonsense. If computers were originally controlled in the fashion he likes we wouldn’t have the computer of our choice just like under Obamacare we lost the doctor of our choice.

  3. “Since I was one of those people who denounced others for alleging treason against Trump, it is disconcerting to now hear Trump himself using the same irresponsible rhetoric. Those peddling unsupported theories of criminality over the last two years were also irresponsible and reckless, but their voicing such views was not treasonous. Trump added that his critics were “evil”
    Maybe Trump simply read Atlas Shrugged:

    “𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒, 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑏𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 – 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑠, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑠 – 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑟𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑦 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 – 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓-𝑠𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 – 𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑑.”

    ― 𝐴𝑦𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑑 (1957)

    Or maybe just a little St. Paul:

    22 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠 …

    29 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝑤𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑, 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑙; 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑣𝑦, 𝑚𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑒, 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑡, 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒; 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑝𝑠, 30 𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑠, ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑜𝑑, 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑡, 𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑓𝑢𝑙, 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑙, 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 31 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑦, 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑢𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑢𝑙; 32 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑜𝑑, 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚.

    Tell me, how would you describe men who would subvert democracy, undermine elected leaders and who arrogantly seek to force their own countrymen to bow to their will? Isn’t this the text book definition of “evil”? If not, what is?

    1. Article 1, Section 8

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

      To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

      1. Congress has the power to tax merely for “…general Welfare…” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare.

      General welfare means “all, well, proceed” and consists of roads, water, sewer, post office (commo 1789), utilities, etc.

      2. Congress has the power to regulate merely the commerce, trade or exchange “…among the several states to preclude favor or bias by one state over another.

      Government has no power regulate any other aspect of any commodities, products or services.

      Under the U.S. Constitution, government exists merely to facilitate the freedom and free enterprise of individuals.

      1. The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional. Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    2. Mespo said, “Tell me, how would you describe men who would subvert democracy, undermine elected leaders and who arrogantly seek to force their own countrymen to bow to their will? Isn’t this the text book definition of “evil”? If not, what is?”

      Insufficient evidence to return a superceding indictment alleging a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference activities is NOT an accusation at all, let alone a false accusation. Investigating the Russian effort at subverting our democracy is NOT a subversion of our democracy. It is our patriotic duty to investigate Russia’s effort at subverting our democracy. Suppressing evidence while claiming that there is no evidence for the sake of investigating the investigators whose evidence is thereby being suppressed would only be evil if the investigators were indicted for . . . what? Doing their jobs?

      The minute that happens, all of the evidence that is being suppressed becomes discoverable as exculpatory evidence for those defendants under both The Brady Rule and Rule 6(E). If the supposed traitors of your phantasm truly were evil men, by definition, then they would not hesitate but to leak all of the suppressed evidence to The Washington Post and The New York Times.

      One might otherwise expect that a lawyer such as Mespo would understand that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Thus, if the investigators were to be accused of treason, then the burden of proof would be on the people leveling that accusation against those investigators. Does Mespo seriously think that he can prove a charge of treason against the people who investigated the Russian government’s efforts at interfering in our election? Will Mespo get his evidence from The Crown Prosecutor of the Russian Federation? Will Vladimir Putin, himself, give sworn testimony against the people who investigated the Russian government’s effort at interfering in our election? And what about Trump/ Will Trump testify at the trial of Mueller on a charge of treason? You do know that Trump would be subject to cross-examination. Don’t you, Counselor?

      1. L4D:
        I didn’t claim the scum who initiated this fantasy of collusion were treasonous in their attempted coup; i claimed they were evil. Get the charge right. Now a claim of sedition has more than enough probable cause but why go all legal on them. Move up to the greater sin of unbridled ambition, cunning and arrogance. I prefer the ethical and moral indictment. The court of public opinion requires only the evidence it has seen every night ad nauseum from the likes of CNN and MSNBC. It’s like contempt occurring in your presence. You don’t need a witness or documents to prove what your eyes and ears tell you is true. These devils to democracy do have the power to “assume a pleasing shape” as Hamlet might say but they have no power to avoid the biblical truth that “(y)e shall know them by their fruits.” Trump needs to go medieval on this anti-American gang and call them out daily for what they are: a cancer on the body politic, a cabal of power hungry men and enemies of the people. Investigate their tax returns, their speaking fees, their charities, their consulting fees and their political donations. Subpoena them to reveal their resources. Put them to the task of defending themselves with lawyers, accountants and experts. It you want to make law into lawfare, understand it’s a war two can play and he who has the biggest war chest usually wins regardless of the court declared winner. The public’s is always the biggest war chest and Trump holds the keys. I’d start with Nazi-loving Soros and his wobbly henchwoman, Billary.

        1. Please pardon my sarong. Trump is the one who said that there were very bad people who were evil and had done treasonous things. There are so many reverberations in the echo chamber that it can be difficult at times to distinguish one catechist from the next catechist.

          Is the Alien and Sedition Act still on the books? Exactly how atavistic are we supposed to become? Why not just coronate Trump as the second coming of King George The Third of England? Then bring back The Star Chamber. D’oh! No bill of attainder. No corruption of blood. Confounded Constitution. Hoorah!



    President Trump clearly recognizes, at least in the abstract, that providing affordable health care is a political winner. During the 2016 campaign, he embraced his party’s push to repeal the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) but couched it in sweeping, almost Bernie Sanders-ian language.

    On “60 Minutes” in 2015, he declared that he would “take care of everybody . . . much better than they’re taken care of now.” How? He’d make a deal with hospitals, and the government would pay the bill. Up until a few days before his inauguration, his rhetoric was similar: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.”

    As president, though, Trump has taken a different tack. After trying for much of 2017 to develop legislation that could replace Obamacare, he and his party settled for eliminating penalties for not carrying health insurance. The coverage mandate was a central component of the legislation, meant to ensure that healthier people were paying into the system, while at the same time protecting people in the event of a sudden emergency. (Trump has since pointed to that change as an indicator that he functionally repealed Obamacare, as promised. That’s not the case.)

    No replacement legislation that would meet Trump’s lofty goals ensued. Instead, he and his administration last year tried to further undercut the law by supporting a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general from 20 states aimed at finding Obamacare unconstitutional. That forced the question of Obamacare’s benefits into the national spotlight during the 2018 election — and probably not to Trump’s or Republicans’ benefit.

    On Election Day 2018, the importance of health care was revealed in exit polling. Four in 10 voters said that health care was the most important issue, and Democrats won those voters by a 3-to-1 margin. In other words, a full 30 percent of the electorate said that they considered health care to be the most important issue and then voted for a Democrat in their local House race. In contrast, only 17 percent of the electorate viewed immigration as the most important issue — despite Trump’s late-campaign focus on the subject — and then went on to vote for a Republican.

    That lawsuit against the ACA was a key part of Democratic rhetoric. It allowed the party to argue that Republicans wanted to eliminate the mandate that people with preexisting conditions be provided coverage, a politically unpopular position. (And one that would hit red states harder than blue states.)

    The lawsuit wasn’t decided before the election, though, as U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor waited until December to offer his ruling. His decision? The law was unconstitutional. That decision has been stayed pending an appeal.

    In January, the Kaiser Family Foundation asked Americans how they felt about the ruling. By a margin of 51 percent to 41 percent, Americans said they disapproved. Then the pollsters asked those who said they approved whether they still approved after hearing that the decision would eliminate protections for those with preexisting conditions. Suddenly a third of those who said they approved of the decision no longer did, with disapproval rising to 64 percent. When told that those under 25 would be dropped from their parents’ insurance were Obamacare to be invalidated, disapproval rose from 51 percent to 60 percent.

    The aforementioned appeal of O’Connor’s decision is moving forward. On Monday, the Trump administration weighed in on the appeal: It supports throwing out the law entirely.

    It’s hard to overstate what a strange political decision this is for Trump. He’s up for reelection next year and, as he showed in 2016, understands that health-care coverage is an important issue to voters. Yet his Justice Department formally backs throwing out Obamacare — without any replacement legislation ready to go.

    After O’Connor’s ruling, Trump praised the decision, saying that with Obamacare apparently gone, he wants “a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions.” This is precisely the assertion that Trump made during the 2017 effort to overhaul Obamacare. But, at that point, despite controlling both the House and the Senate, Republicans couldn’t come up with a solution that could be passed into law.

    A law that provides great coverage and protects those with preexisting conditions would be very popular. The problem is that crafting such a law is far harder than it seems, and Trump has already shown he can’t get it done. And without that in place, he’s risking a scenario in which millions of people lose much-needed coverage, just as the 2020 election heats up.

    This isn’t even Trump’s only area of vulnerability on health care. After voters in several states passed ballot initiatives expanding Medicaid coverage under a provision of the ACA, Republican lawmakers have sought to weaken or undercut those measures. Trump’s budget proposal for 2020, released earlier this month, includes substantial proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid — funding that in 2016, he also recognized as politically important.

    During the 2017 fight to overhaul Obamacare, Trump at times embraced throwing out the law entirely under the assumption that it would force Democrats, eager to maintain the law’s protections, to come back to the table on more-favorable terms. That may be the bet he’s making now, that he can actually get compromise legislation if the law is declared unconstitutional — and that he can avoid blame for its death. Which is another reason that his administration calling for it to die makes little political sense.

    Trump once said that “nobody knew health care could be so complicated.” In reality, everyone knew it was, which is why President Barack Obama, in pushing for the ACA, embraced a coverage strategy that had been proposed by right-leaning think tanks. His and the Democrats’ long-standing assumption was that Obamacare would eventually be a political winner, even if it was not popular over the short term.

    Edited from: “The Administrations’s Renewed Focus On Eliminating Obamacare Is A Baffling Political Move”

    This evening’s WASHINGTON POST

    Trump’s sudden desire to throw out ‘all’ of Obamacare was breaking news this morning. Since then the Trumpers on this comment thread have all made false claims that Trump would never abolish coverage for pre-existing conditions. That coverage goes if Obamacare goes. This article, and everything else I’ve read today, makes that very clear.

    Trump seems to think that once Obamacare is gone he can make a deal for ‘something better’. We’ve seen that movie before. Trump and the Republicans couldn’t come up with any replacement that still provided healthcare.


      He wants to replace Obamacare and replace it with a better plan that doesn’t screw the working person and doesn’t cause the care to fall to the lowest common denominator. Already people on Obamacare are having difficulty getting a doctor and many physicians and prestigious groups will not accept many of those patients. The experts warned that Obamacare would experience a death spiral and that is what is gradually happening. It is not a sustainable program and is not even a good program. It was a hybrid which is similar to putting the head of an elephant onto the body of a zebra.

      We have already lost our doctor and are paying more for less. The quicker Obamacare disappears the better off our healthcare system can be.

      1. “He wants to replace Obamacare and replace it with a better plan that doesn’t screw the working person and doesn’t cause the care to fall to the lowest common denominator. Already people on Obamacare are Having Difficulty Getting a Doctor and Many Physicians and Prestigious Groups Will Not Accept Many of those Patients. The experts warned that Obamacare would experience a death spiral and that is what is gradually happening. It is not a sustainable program and is not even a good program. It was a hybrid which is similar to putting the head of an elephant onto the body of a zebra.”


        My wife & I paid healthcare insur., premiums for decades & then one day my wife needed it & we were confronted with Obama’s Commie Care Sh*t.

        Only by training & experience did I get her moved to where she needed to go for the best care.

        Out of thousands most do not have my training, I feel sorry they just don’t know how to get the best care their loved one needs.

        These people promoting Obamacare, AKA Commiecare I suggest they watch their mouth in public because of the harm to people others now they are causing.

        1. Oky I agree with you. The ignorant are leading the side supporting Obamacare.

          Obama’s healthcare architect said it right, “stupidity of the American voter” The administration intentionally lied and were not transparent in order to get the bill passed. We could go over the provisions of Obamacare and see how the money for actually treating the sick in need was diluted and wasted. Peter can’t debate Obamacare because he doesn’t know what is in it. Has he missed the fact that there is tremendous consolidation because of Obamacare that leads to less choice, less care and higher prices? Anyone ever try to see their doctor in an emergency at which time they are seen by the PA but when they come in for a check up without problems they are seen by the doctor. No aspersion to the PA but it doesn’t seem logical to send more difficult and serious problems to the one with less training and the wellness check ups to the physician, does it?

          1. Thanks Allen,

            That Gowdy vid was great!

            Gruber still makes me think of Gomer Pyle. Gall-lee shucks. LOL,

            Lil late, I don’t find the short clip of Gomer I was looking 4, but still the same for an MIT gut that’s now a known Failure.

            Not all of them are failures

            BTW: Great job on your writings here. I can’t read everyone’s to stuff but what I’ve seen you’re doing damn good.

            On the other hand, lot Toyko Rose’s around here it seems.

        2. Oky, Trump and the Republicans have had 10 years to replace Obamacare. They can’t get to the right of it and still have a healthcare plan.

          1. They can’t get to the right of it and still have a healthcare plan.

            Besides the fact congress shouldn’t be in the healthcare plan business, the disaster that is the ACA launched the federal government and the insurance marketplace down a path that they shouldn’t be on, nor can they simply step out of it. And as long as there is this flawed belief the federal government has the responsibility to run rather than regulate (within constitutional limits) a market, then the ACA will die of natural causes.

            1. Olly, the free market alone is totally inadequate for the healthcare needs of the masses. That was highly evident before Obamacare.

              1. the free market alone is totally inadequate for the healthcare needs of the masses.

                It wasn’t exactly a free market, now was it? More central planning has simply made it more inadequate, not less. If the masses were truly the concern, then the regulation of the marketplace should be limited to the individual states. This way, as Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said: states may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

              2. Give us your analysis Peter of why the free market is inadequate. If you mean that sometimes some people need help outside of the free market there will likely be no objection. If you mean the free market doesn’t work in healthcare then take note the market really hasn’t been free since WW2. On the other hand almost every time government has intervened and added new policies costs rose due to those new policies. Obamacare made the costs to the middle class unsubsidized persons nearly unaffordable and they frequently lost their doctor.

                I posted Mackey’s list of positive steps needed in healthcare. How come as a news junkie you didn’t bother responding? Why repeat your same statements over and over again without responding to legitimate points made by legitimate people? Are you just trying to promote points without thought or do you want to look for solutions?

          2. Peter, this is one of the few fair statements you have made so I will respond as if we were having a reasonable discussion where you are voicing your own honest opinion. You are right. The Republicans failed, not to replace Obamacare, but to repeal it and they had more than enough time. McCain was the one vote short for Republicans. He put his feelings ahead of what he stated earlier was good for the country. Without discussing his military history, that is not what heros are made of. As a disclaimer, you already know that I do not like the Democratic Party but you should also realize that I have similar feelings towards Republicans. If it were up to me I would change the dynamics so that the system inhibited the idea of professional politicians. Term limits is one way.

            There have been many solutions offered by reasonable people that could have been incorporated into a reasonable plan. The problem is that the provision of free goodies to people that do not need them garners a lot of votes so that instead of concentrating on those that are sick and in need, 5-10%, we focus on the healthy 90-95% where most of the votes are. That is bad policy.

            I can discuss this sector of our economy in greater detail. However, for now think about this, an individual on the left, John Mackey , a founder of Whole Foods, came up with reasonable ideas to promote better healthcare in 2009. This demonstrates that the discussion need not be ideological. His ideas were written in the WSJ which I will copy in full because of a paywall. I am not saying that would be my solution rather the way he presented his ideas (not ideological and not looking for votes) shows that there can be a bipartisan agreement if politics were removed and the proponents of a plan had to stick with economic realities.


              The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

              Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

              Updated Aug. 11, 2009 7:30 p.m. ET
              “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
              of other people’s money.”

              With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

              While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

              •Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

              Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

              •Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

              •Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

              •Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

              •Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

              •Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

              •Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

              •Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

              Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

              Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

              Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

              Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

              At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

              Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

              Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

              Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

              Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

            2. A few corrections:

              – McCain is a hero.
              -The vote did not include a GOP healthcare replacement – they don’t have one, though in their defense it’s only been 9 years.
              – McCain voted no because the bill was rammed through without committee hearings or any Senate deliberation except for a few hours of floor discussion immediately before the vote. Mccain took the floor and expressed his opposition to legislating in this way and voted accordingly.

              None of these facts are secret and if Allan got his news from someplace other than Fox and Rush he’d know them.

              1. McCain is a hero.

                And yet they still required this hero to take an oath as a United States Senator. Why do you suppose that is?

                  1. Huh??? Whaaaaa?????

                    I’m someone that knows that honorable military service is not a lifetime pass as a United States Senator.

                    Next question.

              2. “A few corrections:

                – McCain is a hero.
                -The vote did not include a GOP healthcare replacement – they don’t have one, though in their defense it’s only been 9 years.”

                Anon, the problem with McCain’s vote is not that he didn’t vote for repeal but suddenly changed his stated position at the time of voting seemingly to spite Trump. That is not a hero. All your rationals realistically existed long before the vote and McCain could have stated his objections all thoughout the process.

                You are correct in that if I got my news from the Washington Post we would not be talking about opinion rather what the WP calls a “fact”, but as we know, all we can deliver on this subject is our opinion. Once again Anon you have demonstrated that you do not know the difference between fact and opinion. Your imbicilic arrogance prevents you from ever learning the difference.

                1. In your quote you left out this fact (they do exist you know):

                  “– McCain voted no because the bill was rammed through without committee hearings or any Senate deliberation except for a few hours of floor discussion immediately before the vote. Mccain took the floor and expressed his opposition to legislating in this way and voted accordingly.”

  5. So, we’re just supposed to let folks create havoc in our elections, circumvent the law, break federal law, and walk away…I always thought you upheld our Constitution and the rule of law. BAD exhibit sir, and you can kiss our collective ass. This needs brought our into the light of day and prosecuted fully so as to insure this treason never happens again.

    Respectfully Sir,
    Kiss my Ass
    Scott Sharer

    1. Yes Scott, P Turley has a major problem here with his position yet again. Prez Trump offered over 2 years ago to be magnanimous in victory & allow the criminals, ie: Hillary/Obama/Bush crews a way out. Just walk away!, It was refused. P Turley, like with the Crowd Size, the real vote counts without the fraud & other facts was blind/deaf/dumb to it as it appeared to me at the time & still today.

      Trump knows now what we told him then was true, they will give no quarter so no quarter should be offered.

      Now P Turley is proposing open lawlessness by asking Prez Trump to to turn a blind eye to the open Treason, Sedition, Espionage, etc. etc………

      My suggestion to those working in implementing illegal policies for the Bush’s/Clinton’s/Obama’s, without an immunity deal currently in place right now “Race” to offer up to Trump Administration an affidavit of Fact as to their involvement in aided & abetting the Bush’s/Clinton’s/Obma’s in the criminal/Treason, Sedition, Espionage activity.

      It;’s very late in this game at this point, admissions of guilty are dropping in value very fast I’d bet.

      How many have already turned?

      1. BTW: To whom it concern & others

        I’m not a lawyer & I an not giving anyone legal advice. If you have a legal issue go hire a Lawyer!

        I can only offer opinions to as I feel as a non-lawyer.

    1. The Lindbergh kidnapping? Iran Contra? The Hindenburg? 2000 Election? WW1? WW2? The Iraq War? You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you? Take a deep breath, and turn off FOX NEWS. Do yourself a favor.

      1. Fishtails, in case you didn’t recognize it that statement was a continuation of the other two. Try and keep up. If you miss something you can always ask.

  6. “Armed with this fanciful narrative, Clinton used the phony charges in the make-believe dossier as ammunition against her Republican opponent in their debates. Finally, she thought, she had a winning issue and she pounded it with greater force in each of the three successive debates.

    Trump would be Putin’s “puppet,” she charged. She accused Trump of “encouraging espionage against our people.” She said Putin “very clearly” favored Trump and said that it was an “unprecedented situation” when a “foreign government” is trying to “interfere in our election. …

    From the beginning, the collusion narrative was Clinton’s hoax.”

  7. “It was called “the dossier.”

    The problem was that the dossier was nothing but a collection of lies and misrepresentations masquerading as intelligence.

    To embellish the story, the campaign hired Fusion GPS, a negative research firm, to provide details of the imagined conspiracy. There, Nellie Ohr, wife of Bruce Ohr, the number four person at the Justice Department, worked with Fusion CEO Glenn Simpson and Shearer to embroider the allegations with publicly available circumstantial evidence.

    When their exercise in creative writing was over, they hunted up a source to whom they could attribute the resulting dossier. They hit upon former UK MI-6 agent Christopher Steele. In return for a fee — paid by the Clinton campaign — Steele permitted his byline and credibility to be slapped on the dossier cover page. A well-respected spy in Moscow in the 1990s, Steele seemed the ideal front man.”

            1. Somebody still listens to Dick Morris.

              He provides no links or names sources for his allegation re: Steele’s role which is completely counter to Steele’s version. Suffice it to say Steele’s reputation is far better than that of Morris who has none left.

              1. Anon……Dick Morris has always been a shameless tattle-tale. His “value” is that he discloses information he has been sworn to keep secret……..but he cannot keep a secret.
                If he were a character in an Agatha Christie story, he’d be “knocked off” by the second chapter.

                1. Cindy, all that might be true, but he is the fly on the wall for a lot of Clinton shenanigans. He is not the only one that has stated the Steele dossier was not written or completely written by Steele. Why should we assume it was? It is a whole bunch of different events. Could there be more than one author? It is highly doubtful Steele obtained all the information himself. How about the syntax of the report? We don’t really know, but Anon always assumes that only the opinion of value is that which comes from the left wing talking points. He is unable to grasp more than one thought at a time and has to be told what to think..

                  1. Allan….you’re exactly right….That’s what I was trying to say. Dick Morris doesn’t lie…..he tells things he shouldn’t be telling.

                    Anon would argue with a brick wall!

                    1. “.he tells things he shouldn’t be telling.”

                      Yes, that is one of the things that always bothered me about Dick Morris as well. However, seeing how open all the mouths are in Washington and noting how bad the Clintons really were (despite the fact of how Bill Clinton and the Republicans worked together on the economy) I no longer have those feelings.

                      Anon makes statements he cannot back up. His statements about Andrew Mccarthy were especially grievous but he is repeating (probably a bit innaccurately) what some of the left hit pieces wrote. Fortunately we all have access to the exact words Mccarthy wrote with regard to Anon’s lies so we can quote them making him look like a fool and a libeler. Take note how he didn’t respond to Mccarthy’s words and how he slinked away. People on the right have to set the record straight loudly and clearly so that libelers like Anon/ Jan F. are shown up for what they are.

                    2. “Anon would argue with a brick wall!”

                      Anon replies “And often has to.”. That probably happens when he is on site in a brick building when the hammer hits his finger.

                  2. It’s been 20 years since Morris was a fly on anybody’s wall. I think he is now a fly on the sidewalk in front Grand Central Station. You know, you’ve probably stepped over him.

                    1. Again Anon libels another without proof. Morris is over 70 years old so it is not surprising that he is not an active advisor to campaigns but he was so less than 20 years ago (that is lie /libel #1). Today he writes op ed columns like so many others do that are copied onto this blog. My understanding is that he lives in Miami in a nice home (Lie #2)

                      Apparently, Anon, your sole claim to debate is as a libeler and a liar.

                      Now let us see if you can rebut my comments. Of course not. Just like with your libel of Andrew Mccarthy you will slither away.

                1. “What is wrong with Allan anyway?”

                  As I said, Anon, don’t get me started. (His comment above — at 8:53 — is just one reason to steer clear.)

                  1. Yes, anonymous you should stay clear. If you ever had anything of interest to say I would like to know.

                  2. If I had that little to say and then said it so poorly I hope I’d know to stuff it.

                    1. Anon, I don’t utilize talking points. You rely on talking points so much you screw up your answers and cannot recognize other facts and other opinions. At the same time you cannot defend your own. However, it is good for you to talk to anonymous. She is on your level.

          1. If you recall Dick Morris was a major advisor to President Clinton. I will leave it to you to post the links. It is time people learn to read and judge based on content or learn alternative opinion.

  8. It did not work so well for Rome when the usurpations of the Praetorian Guard were tolerated. The DOJ and FBI and CIA need to be cleansed of criminals and those criminals made to suffer penalties that will serve to discourage others. A few years ago I supported these organizations and would never have believed the level of institutional disease that is now in clear view to all. They deserve to be humiliated, condemned and jailed now that they have become a bigger danger to America than the evils they were set up to protect us from. We might be safer if we did what Constantine did with the Praetorian Guard–disband them.

  9. I am a little bit surprised by the tit for tat analysis that Trump is wrong. There is this little thingie called EVIDENCE, which justifies Trump saying what he does. Submitting a phony-a$$ dossier to the Feds to start an investigation is wrong. Plus, you have all the Strzok stuff. No, this was an attempted coup by the deep state, and Trump is right to call it what is was.

    I find the author’s comment and analysis very shallow. It is like Little Bobby whomps Little Johnny upside his head with a 2 x 4. Johnny responds by clobbering Bobby. One is an attack, and one is self defense. It would be absurd to say to Johnny, “It was wrong for Booby to hit you, and wrong for you to hit Bobby!” No it isn’t.

    That is what the author is saying in effect about Trump.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Welcome back Squeeky.

      Now that no collusion has been found the crazies are trying a new tactic. But that is always the case. If one one phony attack doesn’t work they try another one. Phony attacks (facts) are unlimited so they can go on forever.

    2. “It was wrong for Booby to hit you, and wrong for you to hit Bobby!” No it isn’t.

      This sort of moral reasoning was the mode among elementary schoolteachers ca. 1971 (at least in the suburban towns in which I was living). A certain sort of bourgeois matron favored it too, mostly the sort who favored the locution ‘uncalled-for’. Of course, there was a certain amount of intersection between these two sets.

    3. They don’t need no stinking evidence; their beliefs and objectives are as good as evidemce.
      Probably superior, in the “mind” of a loon like L4B.

      1. I’m not the one suppressing the evidence. AG Barr is the one suppressing the evidence. The absolute last thing that Ptom Gnash wants is for the evidence that Barr is suppressing to be publicly disclosed. Ptom Gnash needs AG Barr on that stonewall. And Trump is on the verge of tearing his own stonewall down by trying to turn the tables against the United States. Just. Like. Putin. Told. Trump. To. Do.

        1. There is no basis to support L4B’s idiotic interpretation of what I did not say.
          Skimming these comments, I think it was L4D who told someone not to put words in other people’s mouths.
          Since she regards that as her job and her sole right to lie about what others have said, it is understandable that she feels threatened if she perceives that others are doing what she does on a regular basis here.

          1. What you said was, “They don’t need no stinking evidence.” You said that in reply to Fromm’s regurgitation of Ninny Na-Na Nunes’ FISA warrant abuse nincompoopery. Exactly who you think “they” are in you own statement is anyone’s guess. Fromm lodged her complaint against Turley for saying that Trump’s very bad, evil, treasonous people remarks were somehow “wrong.”

            FTR, when I reveal to you the meaning of your own words, I am critiquing the meaning of your own words. To call such criticism by the name of a lie, is prima facie evidence of a closed mind with typing skills that operate in the manner of a check valve that permits fluids or gasses to flow in only one direction. Ha-Ha!

            1. As convoluted as ever in her spin, and I congratulate L4B on her consistency in distorting what others have said.
              There has been a strong tendency for a few people here to promote their beliefs and suspicions about potential wrongdoing as evidence, and I”ve noted that belief, the need to believe certain things, and suspicions are not the same thing as evidence.
              That was the meaning of my “they don’t need no stinkin’ evidence comment that our championship liar, L4D, distorted.
              On the disclosure of the Mueller report, or the degree of disclosure… spite of L4D’s other lie, I haven’t weighed in on this issue.
              I think that the report if Leon Jaworski ( Special Prosecutor in Watergate) was publically released late last year, well over 40 years after he wrote it.
              For whatever reasons, there has not been a history of full, immeduate public release of these kinds of reports.
              I could guess at some of those reasons, and pretend to be knowledgeable about them, but I prefer to leave that pretending and guessing to L4D, who is naturally and strongly inclined to do both.
              So there is no basis for her recent lie that I’ve indicated a desire for the Mueller report to be suppressed; unlike L4D, I have not argued on that point ( of full public release v. partial release v. suppression of the entire report).
              Given her disappointment that the news about tge Mueller report was not damaging to Trump, it’s natural that a vindictive shrew like L4D would now want the full report available to her so she can find or manufacture “something” useful; that is, something extremely damaging to Trump.
              Barr and hopefully Mueller and Rosenstein will have the opportunity to address the disclosure v. non-disclosure pros and cons, and I might comment on that debate after we’ve heard more.
              An Expert on This and Everything Else like L4D does not need to learn anything about elements of the disclosure/non-disclosure debate; as in most areas, she already “knows it all” .
              It’s relatively easy for L4B or any other lying sack of **** to distort what others say, and in L4D’s case, that habit is so engrained that she probably won’t quit doing it.
              There’s nothing really to stop her from doing that, just as there is nothing to stop me from observing that she is a loon and a liar.

              1. I neglected to mention L4D’s amazing psychic powers when I noted the consistency and frequency of her lying.
                Her post a few minutes ago is an indication that she knows exactly what others are thinking.
                Not everyone like L4B can convince themselves that they have that power.
                In some cases it’s pretty hard to miss the point of a comment, or what the person is thinking( e.g., my opinion of L4B).
                But even without a comment or anything elsw to go on, L4B can confidently tell us what others are thinking.

        2. AG Barr is the one suppressing the evidence.

          Wow, that’s some real deep thinking you have going on there.

          Ya think perhaps ole Bob Mueller should have sent the report directly to the NYT for publication; cc AG Barr? Hell, had he sent it to Podesta and Clinton, it would have been available worldwide. Or just maybe, Barr doesn’t wipe his feet on matters of national security and he is following the law. And unless Mueller and his army of attorneys that put the report together were whisked away to a black site in whereverstan, there is absolutely NO WAY AG Barr would be able to suppress evidence Mueller and company know should have been made public.

  10. The Democratic Party members and its mainstream media functionaries have been diligently adhering to the propaganda techniques set forth by one of the most horrific authoritarian figures in history:

    “But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.” — Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.

    But now that their lies have been exposed, Professor Turley, in effect, argues that there should be no consequences for their relentless and knowing big lies, and that they should, instead, be permitted to simply move on to their next set of big lies, also, of course, without consequences. The consequences of lying, apparently, should only exist for persons that Professor Turley disagrees with.

    1. Hitler was just saying what every entry level advertising salesman working for the phone book tells the customer. Relax. Of course they repeat their lies and again otherwise nobody would even notice. And things are sooner forgotten than ever these days amid the din of electronic communications.

  11. Wasn’t it Trump who said “There was an election. You lost. Get over it?” Oh wait, that was Obama.

    Hillary and Peter: There was an election. There was an investigation. You lost BOTH times. Get over it.

      1. Pelosi and her pets won. Let’s see what they can do to help MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. waiting!

  12. As with calling the media “the enemy of people,” the labeling of his critics and accusers as traitors is the signature of authoritarian countries.

    President Trump calling the media or labeling of his critics is no different than your calling and labeling of the President Trump. Are you an authoritarian JT?

    B. The Meaning of Authoritarianism
    Authoritarianism has at least two different meanings: one simply of
    unquestioning obedience to authority, and one of obedience combined with
    the use of authority to repress, punish and oppress human beings.

    Obedience to authority itself might best be described as formal authoritarianism -it is solely concerned with the process of identifying authoritative commands or directions and then following them. Substantive authoritarianism, on the other hand, not only entails the process of obeying commands or rules, but also involves oppression and punishment.

    1. Olly, Trump’s use of these terms has already validated the worst fears of his critics. All the coverage this week will center on Trump’s schemes to plot revenge. And Trump will look like the out-of-control bully that he is.

      1. Trump’s use of these terms has already validated the worst fears of his critics.

        It’s difficult to keep up with what those worst fears are. Just so we’re clear, what are those worst fears?

        All the coverage this week will center on Trump’s schemes to plot revenge. And Trump will look like the out-of-control bully that he is.

        Given your track record on predicting the future, I’ll take your hyperbole and raise you another nothingburger.

        1. Olly, you need to cover more than just Fox News. All the coverage I’m seeing this morning involves Trump’s schemes for revenge and the TOTAL repeal of Obamacare. These stories will dominate mainstream coverage.

              1. After a billion posts on this blog, he’s not amazing at all. He may be a junkie though I’m not confident it has anything to do with the news.

              2. In fairness, as a Soros and Brock employee, he has certain obligations with respect to the content and volume HHHNN.
                I respect that loyalty and dedication in an employee.

                1. I don’t think Peter is smart enough for them to hire. He can’t defend any of his positions and knows almost no history pertaining to the prime discussions on this blog.

      2. If he were a real bully then people would have some accidents like a lot of the Clintons’ former enemies did. Like Seth Rich. the leaker who got this started and is now taking a dirt nap.

        Just a lot of coincidences I am sure like those boys who saw the planes offloading drugs from central america at Mena Arkansas, when Bill was gov’nor, and then decided to kill themselves by laying their heads down on tracks in front of a freight train. Some way to go, huh?

      3. P. Hill— Of course the MSM will focus on accusing Trump of something. All that proves is that the effort to take down President Trump continues unabated. Do you think they would spend a minute of their time discussing their own miserable failings? I have yet to hear one of the talking heads say he or she was wrong. When I do, I might begin to take them seriously.

        1. Honestlawyer, I don’t know which media source you think has failed. Robert Mueller’s probe scored 34 total indictments. And we discovered that Manafort and Cohen were shameless hustlers. To suggest the media has any ‘failings’ to admit to is based on ‘what’..??

          Trump is still totally toxic and he is hard at work in becoming more toxic yet.

          1. Robert Mueller’s probe scored 34 total indictments.

            Russian internet trolls and Russian security officials in regard to which he’ll never have to prove any charges (and in regard to which he almost certainly never expected to prove any charges), a clutch of people who pled to process crimes arising out of the investigation itself, and the business interests and tax problems of Cohen, Gates, and Manafort. These last were irrelevant to Trump and the campaign and could have been handled by the criminal division, the tax division, and the three U.S. Attorney’s offices in question (who had, previously, passed on prosecuting Manafort).

            IOW, show indictments, harassment charges crucially dependent on the FBI’s policy of not recording interviews, and matters that would never had fallen within the purview of a meticulously drafted commission. We’ve been over this a dozen times Peter. You keep repeating this ‘dozens of indictments’ tripe because childish.

            1. Tabby, no Special Counsel scores that many charges and convictions on a nothing case. Trump surrounded himself with hustlers on the make. Paul Manafort could be a poster boy for everything wrong with politics.

              1. One can only laugh at Peter because DSS has responded on this issue so many times but Peter starts from the beginning everytime and never responds to the correct responses by DSS. That is how such ignorance is maintained.

              2. you say that like there have been a ton of special counsels. there havent.

                you’re doing great at pinning people down. notice how peter does it. new content all the time. that’s what pro trump people should do. gin up new content here and mostly just ignore peter like peter ignores you. my compliment to peter not for truth but for skill.

                i have started projecting my time out to farther reach on the internet. i won’t be pinned down by peter and nuthatch-anon as much anymore.

      4. The ” worst fear of his critics” is that Trump will be re-elected and that their candidate will lose.
        Anyone who has observed the 2+ years of unprecedented whining should watch how the more psychotic liberals react if Trump is elected to a second term.

        1. Tom,
          I believe their fears are rooted in their ideology. They believe in a massive and weaponized administrative state. They believe in legislating from the bench. They believe the constitution is a suggestion and not a requirement, supported by a weak Congress and activist bench. So when they lose control of the executive branch and lose majorities on courts, they now believe the opposition party will wield power in the manner they would. They deserve that fear, but the conservatives won’t accept progressivism from any party.

        2. Tom, if it’s just “psychotic liberals” how come Trump’s approval rating has never been above 42%..?? If it’s just ‘psychotic liberals’, Trump should have easily won the Popular Vote. He didn’t.

          Trump is stil toxic and Barr’s summary won’t mean anything until the whole report is released.

          1. if it’s just “psychotic liberals” how come Trump’s approval rating has never been above 42%

            That happens to be about the same percentage of the electorate that can pass a civics exam. Check out the Interscholastic Studies Institute for details.🤣

            1. You need to check the demographics on Trump voters by education.

              They aren’t.

              1. Yeah, because what, really educated people aren’t civically illiterate? LOL!

            2. Rasmussen shows the approval ratings of Trump and Obama at the same time period to be quite close with them alternating who had the higher approval rating.

              Polls, however, mean very little. Trump was supposed to lose the election and he won despite all the negative media.

              1. Rasmussen polls by land lines.

                Land lines!


                Gee I wonder how they come up with polls reflecting the opinion of old white people.

                1. “Rasmussen polls by land lines. Land lines! Hellooooo?Gee I wonder how they come up with polls reflecting the opinion of old white people.”

                  This response by Anon isn’t libelous. It is just plain stupid.

          2. It is not just psychotic liberals who oppose Trump; I don’t think I suggested that, or that all liberals are psychotic.
            If the comment threads here are representative of , and reflect the views of, the general population, it may only be a small majority of liberals who are psychotic.
            Those who became psychotic after Trump’s stunning upset victory may lose their right to vote.
            I was surprised to learn that, in certain cases, psychotics can be prevented from voting.
            Trump’s level of trash-talking is unprecedented for U.S. presidents; he’s probably not inclined by nature😉 to behave like that, but he may be trying to thin down the ranks of those who will vote against him by continuing to drive them crazy, thus potentially taking away their right to vote.
            A calculated strategy🤔 by Trump, after observing over 2 years of increasingly unhinged rants against him.

            1. You read these threads, you’ll notice among the portside crew about 5 nosepicking adolescents, 1 Dunning-Kruger exemplar lost in witless conspiracy theories (he’s an oecumenical admirer or all of them), 3 miscellaneous head cases (not clinically paranoid like the Dunning-Kruger exemplar); 1 quite unintelligent woman who (unlike most unintelligent people) has opinions about things (1) abstract from her daily life and (2) not in the realm of harmless diversions; 1 woman who despises Jews and wants to go down on Tulsi Gabbard; 1 red-haze hag who reads like someone whose daily fare is the most malicious and fanciful articles you could find in back issues of The Nation, Mother Jones, and NACLA Report on the Americas; 1 Correct-the-Record employee, and 1 fellow in a chronic snit. Among this set are two people who pretend to be lawyers and a third who says he owns his own construction business and hangs out with DoJ employees. I think there are two leftoid posters who are roughly normal human beings. Roughly.

                1. I wanted to claim that I was on one of the Apollo missions to the moon.
                  Then I realized that by using my real name, a claim like that could come back to haunt me.
                  I need to transition away from posting under my own name, come up with an Brand X username, then tell of my Apollo mission, my Olympic Gold Medal, and several Nobel prizes I’ve been awarded.

              1. Triply Absurd nattered, “1 quite unintelligent woman who (unlike most unintelligent people) has opinions about things (1) abstract from her daily life and (2) not in the realm of harmless diversions . . .”

                Fromm is not a member of the portside crew.

            2. Mr. Onion Head said, “I was surprised to learn that, in certain cases, psychotics can be prevented from voting.”

              Then you admit that you never read one word of Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Guess what? Neither did Trump.

              1. I would expect that L4D became aware of the potential lose of voting rights for psychotics far earlier than most people.
                She’d have reason to be interested in and concerned about that potential threat to her ability to vote.

                1. They say that practicing psychiatry without a license is against the law. But I wouldn’t worry too much about An Onion Head like you getting busted for politically satirical psychiatry. Putin will no doubt tell Trump to send all politically satirical psychiatrist to the gulag. Just. Like. Putin. Does.

  13. So this is where we are, the group that watched Republicans with glee, get years and years of hearings, closed door meetings, investigations, 12 hour TV settings and spent millions of dollars and got nothing, zipp, nada, bumkins on indictments. Believe a 4 page summary written by a political bagman that was hired just for the sole purpose of protecting Trump and his RICO crime family. NOW they believe everything, nothing to see here, lets move on with persecuting the other side for tying to find whether or not a hostile nation tried to buy and undermine the presidency. As the saying goes, Houston, we have a problem.

    1. That’s about right. It’s like they’ve been brainwashed of all that darned history and hope we all are..

  14. Jon Turley: you should be ashamed of yourself by making the following false claim: “It would seem that being cleared of collusion and obstruction allegations might be an opportune moment for Donald Trump to take the high road and declare an intent to move the country past the divisive politics of the last two years.:

    You know damn good and well that Trump was not “cleared” of anything, so why do you spin the facts? All we have is BARR’S skewed opinion that the “evidence” doesn’t support collusion, and that while no indictment was recommended, the 4-page summary unequivocally states that Fatty wasn’t NOT exonerated on obstruction of justice. Did you miss that part, or, like Trump, Faux News, Rush and the Republicans, did you simply pretend it wasn’t there? Why do you stretch the truth as to what was stated about collusion: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Barr states: “The Special Counsel defined ‘coordination’ as an ‘agreement–tacit or express–between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.’ “.

    So, how would one go about proving a tacit or express agreement between Trump, his campaign and the Russian government? Russians cannot be forced to come here to testify or produce documents, so that leaves only Trump and his cronies as sources of “evidence”. We know that Manafort, the campaign chairman, lied, refused to cooperate, plus he attempted to tamper with witnesses. We also know that Cohen, Trump’s attorney, is a liar. Who’s going to step up and tell the truth? Trump? pullleeze.

    Also, what is meant by “the Russian government”. There are Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin that also have proven ties to Trump, but they aren’t part of “the Russian government”. Is Barr spinning the facts here?

    Barr is conflicted. Obviously for the purpose of being nominated to replace Sessions, Barr volunteered an unsolicited opinion paper that a sitting President cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice. Trump fired Sessions for being ethical, so he could insert his hand-picked successor who would watch his back, and Barr fit the bill nicely. Why would anyone believe that Barr’s evaluation is legally sound? How could any AG who believes that a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office ever find evidence of collusion? Also, how could such a person not have an ethical conflict of interest? It would be impossible to find “evidence” of a crime that Barr doesn’t believe can exist in our system of jurisprudence.

    It cannot be disputed that Russians interfered with the 2016 election, that Donnie, Jr. met with Russians to get dirt on HRC that was illegally hacked, that Trump was trying to work a deal with Russians, despite denying that he knew any Russians, and that Manafort, his campaign manager and Cohen, his attorney, were working with Russians, and that the campaign funneled polling information to Russians for their use in targeting social media campaigns in key precincts in key states, which is how he “won” the Electoral College. Are we supposed to believe that somehow the Russians were doing all of this dirty work to help him “win” and that he and his campaign knew nothing about any of this, that it was being done free, gratis, with no expectations of benefits down the road? No reasonable person believes that. Importantly, Barr’s summary does NOT say there is no evidence.

    This stinks to high heaven. I want to see the Mueller report. We will know just how far Barr went to spin Mueller’s conclusions by how hard the Republicans fight to try to stop the public and Congressional investigators from releasing the full report. Just yesterday, Mitch McConnell blocked a vote to require that the full report be released. What does that tell you?

    1. Natacha said, “This stinks to high heaven. I want to see the Mueller report. We will know just how far Barr went to spin Mueller’s conclusions by how hard the Republicans fight to try to stop the public and Congressional investigators from releasing the full report.”

      Once again, Natacha gets it exactly right. Insufficient evidence to return a superceding indictment against the Trump campaign for conspiracy or for quid pro quo solicitation of a bribe is NOT NO EVIDENCE. It’s just insufficient evidence to return an indictment.

      Keep in mind that neither Paul Manafort nor Donald Trump Jr., nor Michael D. Cohen, ever became public officials capable of committing official acts in any official capacity. But Trump did. As did Jared Kushner and Lt. Gen Michael T. Flynn. Had Manafort truly cooperated (as he agreed to do in exchange for a reduced sentence), those members of the Trump campaign who had been fire-walled off from the quid pro quo solicitation of a bribe, but who were not the sitting president, might have been charged with that crime. Had Kushner and Flynn been on the hook for trading sanctions relief for Russia in exchange for a Trump Tower Moscow deal worth $300 Million to Trump and a bailout for Kushner’s 666 Fifth Avenue albatross, then the case against Trump, himself, would have been overwhelming.

      There’s a pretty good chance that one or more of the investigations that Mueller handed off to various United States Attorneys will put at least Kushner on the hook. Whether Flynn gets back on the hook for bribery, graft and official corruption will depend upon how much actual cooperation Flynn provided to those ongoing investigations. It’s not over until it’s over. And stop saying that there’s no evidence while suppressing the evidence that you say doesn’t exist. If you all close your eyes, the rest of us can still see you.

      1. Why is it not surprising that L4B is impressed with Natacha’s rants, and thinks Natacha is “exactly right”.

        1. For the same reason that it is no surprise that Mr. Onion Head thinks Trump’s remarks about very bad, evil, treasonous people are righteous and worthy of being echoed back like a catechism. Mr. Onion Head has no idea that Trump’s remarks were composed by Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation. Because Putin didn’t tell Trump to tell Mr. Onion Head that Vlad is working The Donald’s stops six ways from Sunday.

          Surprise, surprise, surprise.

            It’s always news to me when a liar like L4B claims that I said something that I never said. I don’t want to be too critical of her; she is in the category of pathalogical liar.
            When someone here mentions to her that she can’t stop lying, he’s probably correct. That habit of lying sack s so deeply engraim d in her that I don’t think L4B’s system could stand the shock if she stopped lying.
            Since she may be unable to control her need to lie, I’ll try to moderate my criticism and be more tactful in calling out that lying sack of **** who posts under the alias Late4Dinner.

  15. Stating someone is evil is a moral evaluation. Nothing more.

    Making up lies about Hillary Putin Trump and the Russians out of whole cloth and still repeating it without proof is stupidly evil

    But then I expect nothing else from an organization which claims Our Democracy in a country that has never been a Democracy.

    Treason has it’s own definition under The Constitution.

    But the winner is people who refuse to take the required Oath of Office or worse take it with their fingers crossed in favor a truly evil foreign ideology. Or worse support human trafficking, trafficking in underage children, or drugs which we now see have killed more in one year than the entire death toll for the Vietnam War.

    Or claim those of us who served The Constitution in the military are a danger to our country is truly evil but they aren’t citizens anyway.

    DINOs or RINOs doesn’t matter.



    A new fight over the future of the Affordable Care Act burst onto the Capitol Hill agenda on Tuesday morning, as Democrats tried to move past the Mueller report and pounce on the Trump administration’s legal motion to have President Barack Obama’s signature health care law invalidated by the federal courts.

    “The Republicans did say during the campaign that they weren’t there to undermine the pre-existing condition benefit, and here they are, right now, saying they’re going to strip the whole Affordable Care Act as the law of the land,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters, just hours before Democrats were to unveil their own plan to lower costs and protect people with pre-existing conditions.

    “This is actually an opportunity for us to speak to the American people with clarity,” Ms. Pelosi went on. “They say one thing and they do another. They say they’re going to protect pre-existing conditions as a benefit, and then they go to court to strip it and strip the whole bill.”

    In 2018, Democrats campaigned — and won — on their pledge to keep the law’s protections for pre-existing medical conditions, and are planning to roll out their own health care agenda with much fanfare at a news conference on Tuesday afternoon. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, promoted the plan on Tuesday morning, while also accusing Republicans of “launching an assault on health care in the United States of America.”

    Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas who led the group of Republican state officials who challenged the Affordable Care Act, said he welcomed the Trump administration’s latest expression of support for a lawsuit that had already prompted a district court judge in Texas to strike down the health law. That judge’s December ruling has been on hold as the matter winds its way through the court system.

    The Democratic offensive came the morning after the Justice Department asked a federal court to strike down the law in its entirety. The administration had previously said that the law’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions should be struck down, but that the rest of the law, including the expansion of Medicaid, should survive.

    If the appeals court accepts the Trump administration’s new arguments, millions of people could lose health insurance, including those who gained coverage through the expansion of Medicaid and those who have private coverage subsidized by the federal government.

    “The Justice Department is no longer asking for partial invalidation of the Affordable Care Act, but says the whole law should be struck down,” Abbe R. Gluck, a law professor at Yale who has closely followed the litigation, said Monday. “Not just some of the insurance provisions, but all of it, including the Medicaid expansion and hundreds of other reforms. That’s a total bombshell, which could have dire consequences for millions of people.”

    In addition to inciting a furor on Capitol Hill, the administration’s new position is also certain to take center stage as an issue in the 2020 elections. Democrats have been saying that Mr. Trump still wants to abolish the law, and they can now point to the Justice Department’s filing to support that contention.

    The Justice Department disclosed its new stance in a two-sentence letter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and will elaborate on its position in a brief to be filed later.

    Edited from: “Democrats Pivot Hard To Healthcare After Trump Moves To Strike Down Affordable Care”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES
    This development validates the point I made on this thread barely more than an hour ago. Whatever goodwill Trump thinks he attained from William Barr’s summary was just a blip in time. Before this week is over Trump will be more toxic than ever.

    One must note this latest move by Trump to repeal Obamacare is exactly that; a move to gut not just protections for pre-existing conditions, but a total rollback of all Medicaid expansion.

    Does Trump think only Democrats benefitted from Medicaid expansion..??? Apparently so. Trump has no inkling that all those disgruntled Whites in shuttered factory towns have benefitted from Obamacare. Which only shows what a stupid, abusive bully Trump really is.

    It would seem that Trump never examined the results of last fall’s midterm elections. If he had Trump would know Americans are still deeply concerned with healthcare. Again, any goodwill Trump thinks he attained from the Mueller Report will have evaporated before this week is over.


      Following a title with multiple paragraphs cut+pasted from from fake news media with more paragraphs of nonsensical bias from Peter.

      1. Thomas, we’ll see how fake this is when Trump eliminates your Medicaid.

        1. Really? Trump is now my state legislature? Is there anything he can’t do?

            1. “Thomas, we’ll see how fake this is when Trump eliminates your Medicaid.”

              The total repeal of Obamacare doesn’t end Medicaid.

            2. Peter, Medicaid was enacted in 1965, and is operated by state governments. No clue why you’ve conflated it with Obamacare, enacted 45 years later.

              1. Tabby, Obamacare expanded under auspices of Medicaid. And when not known as Obamacare, it was highly popular even among Republicans.

                No clue what ‘you’ conflated.

                1. Obamacare expanded under auspices of Medicaid. And when not known as Obamacare, it was highly popular even among Republicans.

                  Peter, you’re not buying Medicaid on the exchanges. No clue what you fancy was ‘highly popular’ among ‘Republicans’.

                  1. Obamacare was invented by the Heritage Foundation – including the mandate – as a way to save private insurance. It was essentially Bob Dole’s platform in 1996.

                    1. That is another talking point of the left. The Heritage Foundation much to their embarrassment was a promoter of the mandate, but the bill known as Obamacare was not invented by the Heritage Foundation. Again you do not know what you are talking about.

                    2. “…The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a “universal coverage” requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based ‘purchasing groups’.[140] Advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett and Kit Bond.[141][142] Of 1993’s 43 Republican Senators, 20 supported the HEART Act.[133][143]…”


                      “Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:

                      ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

                      GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

                      ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

                      GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

                      ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

                      GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.


                      ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

                      GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation ”


                    3. Anon again talks about the mandate “…The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by …” but that does not mean “Obamacare was invented by the Heritage Foundation”

                      Can Anon not get this straight?

                    4. It was nothing of the kind. A Heritage fellow named Robert Rector floated a plan in 1993 which included a coverage mandate. Somehow in the ‘mind’ of partisan Democrats, this trial balloon by single policy wonk renders every Republican officeholder responsible for a different plan they actually opposed.

                    5. Correct the Record seems to be spreading their largesse around, which is perhaps why Peter seems so frantic.

                      John Chafee is (1) twenty years dead and (2) had a voting record during his 22 years in Congress closer to Harry Reid’s than he did to that of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, much less to that of the median Republican. His son and successor decamped to the Democratic Party. (You can check is lifetime ACU scores against Reid, Collins, and Snowe, such as they were in 1999: Reid, 19; Snowe, 50: Collins, 50; Chafee, 32).

                      So, I get it. We find a 25 year old bill (never enacted) sponsored by Zell Miller, and one of our cock-ups is all your fault.

            1. That’s your civics lesson? Damn, Gruber certainly had you nailed. Take a deep breath and then explain the procedure that must take place to make your nightmare scenario come true.

        2. Trump will not eliminate Medicaid. You inferred Thomas was on Medicaid but I think it more likely that you live off of government largesse. Few people can be so ignorant and actually survive in the private sector unless they dig ditches or something of that nature. Are you angry at Trump because he took your food stamps away?



      Obamacare has made many working families unable to afford healthcare which is becoming more and more limited for those under Obamacare whether subsidized or not.

      Peter Shill is ignorant of economics.

  17. It has been alleged that Hillary Clinton and her supporters at the FBI tried to defraud voters in a Presidential election, with the help of Russia, and then later attempted a soft coup. Did the FBI and Hillary Clinton play into Russia’s hands to destabilize our country?

    These allegations certainly need to be investigated, particularly the wrongdoing in the intelligence community and FISA court.

    That said, “treason” is one of those words with deep meanings. It should not be used lightly.

    All he had to say was that he was deeply troubled by alleged wrongdoing and politicization in multiple agencies, and that there would be independent investigations to clean this up. And then not say another word. Not. One. Word. Until the investigations are complete.

    In the realm of communication,Trump is the polar opposite of sleek, poised Ivanka, who always weighs every word carefully.

    Sadly, my phone never rings with the White House on the line wondering what to do. Pity.

    1. Ignorant HS. Clearly Putin and Hillary hated each other and our intelligence agencies and the FBI agree that Russia intended to help Trump get elected. Like this nonsense, “wrong doing” in the intelligence agencies and the FISA court are alleged by partisan hacks carrying Trump water. If this was some kind of coup, why was Hillary the one who was kneecapped?

      1. Hillary was an idiot so I would suppose Putin would have preferred Hillary in office. What you think is so clear is pure opinion not based on any intelligent thought.

        Hillary was hit one time while Trump was besieged with left wing garbage from the FBI, DOJ and intelligence agencies for about 2.5 years. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

        1. It’s plausible that he preferred Hillary because it’s well known she is a darling of the defense industry, and Russian economy is strained competing with America in the weapons category.

          At the same time, Trump winning was bad for him because it got people back involved in politics who had dropped out and weren’t even voting in a few cycles, like me. He made us feel like we had a voice, which gives the system of democracy here more legitimacy. Putin, as adversary, does not gain from that.

          However, when the Dems and Deep State enacted the post-electoral smear operation against Trump, Putin jumped for joy, as they discredited the election more wildly they ever could have done, not by alleging Russian collusion, but by showing people like me how right I was before to think that there are deeply entrenched American forces ie the Deep State who do try and manipulate the elections and this has discredited the result which had heartened many

          So today, smart people are applauding the end of Meuller’s thing, and Putin is a little sad, hoping that the whole mess would have gotten worse, further income from a very small investment in fake ads on FB that nobody cared about in the first place.

      2. Anon – Putin despised Hillary so much that he paid $500,000, far in excess Bill Clinton’s usual speaking fee, and $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and he got what he wanted – Uranium One. This was after Kazakstahn’s Uranium deal personally brokered by Bill.

        Hillary has low likeability. Putin may not like her personally, but he’s allegedly long paid to play with her and her husband. In addition, his spies allegedly provided false information against Trump to give her campaign a boost.

        In my opinion, the goal was to destabilize the US, and damage our reputation. We have been plunged into chaos. That weakens us as a shield against the spread of Socialism, which must suit Russia very nicely.

        What else would please The Bear of Russia?

        1. Every time AOC and Bernie openly admire Socialism, and garner support from Congresspeople to turn America into a Socialist country. That would make us comrades. Russia is not so far removed from the old ways, and in fact employs various think tanks, whose members include prominent American academics. The goal is to undermine capitalism while promoting socialism. Whenever you hear an ignorant Leftist use “capitalism” or “capitalist” as a curse word, you can thank Putin. HIs reach into academia influences our country far more than some Facebook memes.

        2. Russia fans the flames of divisiveness, posting messages both condemning America as a racist country, and praising America as a non racist country. It gets both sides riled, which weakens the foundation of the country.

        3. The embarrassment of the scandal in the Democrat Party, in which Hillary’s cheating and fraud came to light, further sows discord. Of course, that is Hillary’s fault, not the songbird who sang about it.

        4. Putin must be enormously pleased at the great hits our intelligence community has taken. What a scandal – high ranking FBI officials abusing their authority to try to oust a President, at a time of delicate negotiations with North Korea, China, and Iran. Way to hit one for the other team, Comey.

        5. Finally, our weak position in the UN must please Russia. The UN has its hand out for our money, and sneers in our face at the same time. Some of the worst human rights abusers in existence are on the Human Rights Council, rendering the entire effort a waste of time. The constant undermining of Trump has conceivably left us without support at the UN. I know I found Nikki Haley’s speeches to be rousing, but falling on deaf ears.

        All of these shenanigans have weakened our position as a country. We need to cut it out and move forward, putting on a strong front.

        1. “at a time of delicate negotiations with North Korea, China, and Iran.”

          The left’s active encouragement of illegal activities by our administrative state and active attempt to remove Trump may also have encouraged Putin to send troops to Venezuela. The left is setting in motion tremendous worldwide instability. Does anyone wish to think back to the Cuban missile crisis?

        2. We’ve been through this Karen. You’re posting BS you picked up on some right wing fever site and haven’t bothered to check against reliable sources.

          Bill Clinton charged higher fees than $200,000 – he got $750,00 for a speech in Hong Kong. I linked you the source for that and every thing else I posted.

          Why do you think Putin wanted Trump to win – besides that he might owe him some money. Hillary had been instrumental in Obama’s toughening stance to Russia after the reset ended – we got a SALT treaty out of it and partnership on Iranian nuclear weapons – including sanctions.

          Russia is getting exactly what he wants out of Trump – increased stature and respect because Trump worships him, weakening of the alliance of fellow democracies and our leadership role, and challenging NATO,

          You’re too smart to be parroting propaganda from ideologues. Read a real newspaper sometime.

          1. The above remark is coming from Anon who just libeled Andrew Mccarthy twice in one post. The first libel was outrageously untrue. The second was equally untrue but I decided to provide Anon a quote so he could see where he went wrong hoping he would appologize for his libel.

            That did not happen because Anon doesn’t have the character to appologize for libeling a third party. That was just one small example of all of Anon’s mistruths.

          2. anon deep state Sycophant, so pathetic you are out here repeat broadcasting MIC talking points for free. at least i’m having fun saying my own opinion

    2. Investigations? Farces is more like it. Those claiming anymore are patently guilty of their own impeachable offenses such falsely taking, refusing to take, or administering an oath of office.

    3. Karen, Honey, please stop repeating the slop you heard on Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, et al.. Here are some things are not allegations, but proven facts: 1. Donnie, Jr. met with Russians for the purpose of obtaining Hillary Clinton’s e-mails he knew were hacked illegally. 2. Trump’s campaign funneled polling information to Russians for their use in targeting social media in key precincts in key states; 3. Trump was trying to work a deal with Russians even during the campaign, despite lying about knowing any Russians; 4. Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, has ties to Russian oligarchs and failed to register as a foreign lobbyist. He is a convicted liar and attempted to tamper with witnesses; 5. Trump’s attorney admitted working on the Trump Moscow deal even after Fatty got the nomination. He also is a convicted liar.

      Are we all supposed to believe that the proven Russian interference in the 2016 election happened somehow without Fatty or his campaign knowing anything about it, and without there being any expectation of tit for tat? That defies logic. The person who claims this is the case campaigned to replace AG Sessions by submitting an unsolicited paper criticizing the Mueller investigation and opining that a sitting President cannot be indicted while in office. We don’t know what Mueller actually concluded or what evidence he actually obtained. There can be no denying that Barr’s opinions are likely skewed.

      Stop harping about Hillary Clinton. That is just another Kellyanne Pivot maneuver. Stop harping about the intelligence agencies being unethical or biased. Calling their investigations “wrongdoing” comes straight from Hannity. Trump is stupid and lies. Ivanka is a phony, bleached blonde with rubber boobs who is just plain stupid, and who is married to someone equally stupid. Both of them have access to the most-sensitive confidential information our intelligence community has and they both lack good judgment. Jared wants to borrow money from Middle Easterners because, like his father in law, he also is a deadbeat and no one in this country will loan him any more money. Trump overruled the recommendation that neither of them be given security clearances because of these conflicts, as if a security clearance is some sort of honorary prize to be handed out to people he likes. Neither of them has any skills or track record justifying access to the most-sensitive secrets our country has That should worry everyone. Want to know what’s a pity? Faux News disciples like you who think that it’s cutesy to say “Pity”.

      1. That is just another Kellyanne Pivot maneuver. Stop harping about the intelligence agencies being unethical or biased. Calling their investigations “wrongdoing” comes straight from Hannity. Trump is stupid and lies. Ivanka is a phony, bleached blonde with rubber boobs who is just plain stupid, and who is married to someone equally stupid.

        I’m wondering which contestant Natacha is

        1. And, just like the fat, lying, narcissistic puxxygrabber you worship, you are incapable of responding to facts or political positions without personal attacks.

          Please, please, cite the proof of “wrongdoing” by the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of this country. Please, please, cite to some evidence that either Ivanka or Jared has any sort of life or educational qualifications to be entrusted with the top secrets of the most-powerful country on earth. Am I lying to say that Jared is looking to borrow money from foreign countries because he has defaulted on loans in the U.S.? It cannot be denied that Ivanka is a bleached blonde with silicone (i.e., rubber) breasts.

          1. Please, please, cite to some evidence that either Ivanka or Jared has any sort of life or educational qualifications to be entrusted with the top secrets of the most-powerful country on earth.

            Well I certainly hope Ivanka and Jared do not have the same credentials as Mr. Not wittingly Clapper or Mr. I don’t know if I received bad information Brennan.

          2. Where is the proof that Hillary can be entrusted with intelligence secrets? I’m waiting for an email to be sure.

          3. “And, just like the fat, lying, narcissistic puxxygrabber you worship, you are incapable of responding to facts or political positions without personal attacks.”

            People have responded to your statements and then you run away.and ask for the proof already given to you over and over again.

          4. you are incapable of responding to facts or political positions without personal attacks.

            I’m trying to imagine what sort of fugue state you must be in when composing your posts.

          1. Specifically, what qualifies Ivanka to have access to the most-confidential top secret intelligence information of the most-powerful country on earth, and how do you Trumpsters justify the decision to give her this access over the vehement objections of intelligence experts? The information she has been provided or has access to could get people killed, could alienate allies or undermine various covert projects or assets. For instance, if we have insiders in Al Quaida, she could find this out. What life experience or education does she have that justifies this level of access? How about Jared? What qualifies either one of them to be “senior advisors” to the POTUS?

            Former CIA Director Brennan had his security clearance revoked after he criticized the Dotard, as a form of punishment. Security clearances are not an honorarium or some sort of prize to be handed out as an award to people you like. The Dotard doesn’t get this. Information on methods and assets could be compromised years from now.

            I’ve heard nothing from you Trumpsters on how or why it is acceptable that Trump doles out access to top secret information to his family over the objections of the intelligence community. This is just one example of how you Trumpsters cannot respond to the merits of points that are raised. Persons in the intelligence community are not partisan. They are looking out for the safety and security of all of us.

            1. Persons in the intelligence community are not partisan. They are looking out for the safety and security of all of us.

              Wow! Turnip, meet ground.

              Get back to us when you are prepared to explain Mr. “Not Wittingly Clapper’s” qualifications for a security clearance.

              1. You’re pivoting again. I’ll repeat: What qualifies Jared and Ivanka to be given top security clearance over the objections of the intelligence community? As to Jared, he amended his application form to obtain security 40 times, because he kept “forgetting” various accounts and relationships with foreign governments and other matters required to be disclosed, under oath. The intelligence agencies kept finding these conflicts. Is Jared stupid or deceitful? Does it matter when it comes to failure to disclose?

                What has Ivanka ever done on her own, and how does that qualify her for access to the most-secret information this country has? Placing her name on clothing designed by someone else counts for little as far as I’m concerned.

                1. Nope, not pivoting at all. It’s called critical-thinking. In this case, you wanted to know what qualifies them to have access. Given the track record of our intel community, I’m not sure what the standards are anymore. Unless the President doesn’t have the authority to grant the clearance; then the answer to your question is whatever criteria the President used to grant it.

                  Since you brought up Brennan, I also brought up Clapper; two prominent and top intel folks who had the highest clearances available. The former blames his poor judgment on bad intel; the latter’s bad judgment is unintentional.

                  How’s your head doing?

                    1. Did you know if you go to the Del Mar Turf Club website you can get their track record as well? You’ll have dig in other sources however to find out how many horses died during their July – September season. You see track records are much more than the wins; you just have to have the intellectual curiosity to dig deeper.

                  1. Ollie: you still cannot come up with any facts to justify granting top security clearances to Ivanka and Jared. Pivoting to attack someone else does not answer this question, which also includes overruling the objections of the intelligence community. Again, treating top security clearances like some kind of prize to be handed out on the basis of how much a president likes someone shows incredibly poor judgment and puts our sources and methods at risk.

                    1. you still cannot come up with any facts to justify granting top security clearances to Ivanka and Jared.

                      I held a Secret clearance during my 20 years in the Navy. Clearances are provided because the information you will be exposed to is deemed classified up to your highest clearance level. An additional layer of security is based on Need to Know. Having a Secret clearance doesn’t provide me access to all information classified up to Secret without that additional Need to Know qualifier.

                      If Jared and Ivanka’s positions within this administration require security clearance access to information at whatever level, then that is the first justification. I’m not privy to the underlying reasons the intel community did not want to grant the clearances other than what has been reported in the news. Those are likely legitimate concerns. However, if the intel community is not the final say and the President has the authority to grant those clearances, then that is the final justification. I have to believe given the microscope that family is under, their actions will be intensely monitored for security purposes. That however should not stop congress from working within their authority to review that process and if necessary, draft legislation intended to further our national security interests.

                      I’ve always believed too many people have active clearances, long after the purposes for which they were granted. They are also not revoked quickly enough when clearly they are being abused. Hence, Clapper, Brennan and Clinton. I have no partisan dog in this fight, I’m sure there are risks across the political spectrum.

                2. You’re pivoting again

                  What because we noticed that you hadn’t any complaints about Ben Rhodes occupying the position he did?

            2. I am in rapturous love with Ivanka. She is a paragon of intelligence of beauty. She represents our nation well. I recommend her as a role model for my daughter. She’s probably going to be the first female president

              IVANKA FOR PRESIDENT 2032

              1. I’ve pondered it before, but now I’m sure: you ARE nuts. What the hell is “intelligence of beauty”? In what matters and by what means does this phony bottle blondie “represent ” the United States? She has an even lower approval rating than the Dotard. Have you heard her breathless little baby girl manner of speaking? Every time she opens her mouth or tweets, she messes up because she is just plain dumb dumb, dumb.

                1. I’m guessing that Kurtz defines “intelligence of beauty” operationally as “every time she opens her mouth she messes up because she is just plain dumb, dumb, dumb.”

                  P. S. Kurtz is deeply interested in women’s fashion, too.

      2. Natcha on an earlier blog I answered 5 of your accusations against Trump. Why didn’t you respond? You can’t. Like a few others on this blog you are shooting blanks and have no insight as to what has occurred.

        1. When and where, Allan? You are the one who has no insight. “What has occurred” is that Barr, who campaigned to become AG after Sessions was fired, gave his partisan take on a report none of us has seen.

          1. You still haven’t answered those responses to you or any of the list of responses made in the past. Don’t play innocent because everyone here knows how you act including those that agree with you.

            “Barr … gave his partisan take on a report none of us has seen.”

            It was the Attorney General’s report, do you realize that?

            Would you have preferred to wait until the report was vetted?

            Do you realize that the report was from Barr and Rosenstein?

            1. It’s NOT Mueller’s report. Barr is compromised. He campaigned for the AG job by saying the kinds of things Trump wanted to hear. The message was clear: “I have your back”. Barr should have recused due to his publicly-stated opposition to the Mueller investigation before he ever saw any of the evidence that had been gathered. Those factors speak volumes about how seriously we should take whatever he says.

              Barr did not conduct the investigation. He does not believe a sitting President can be indicted. That colors his thinking.

              It is not possible that there is “no” evidence of collusion because we already know there is much evidence of contacts between Trump, the campaign and various Russians, plus all of the lying. The question is the extent of it, how much evidence was obtained, from whom it was obtained, the veracity and completeness of the evidence and the standard that is used to measure whether there is evidence of a crime. These questions are not resolved.

              1. Again Natacha you didn’t respond to the questions asked pertaining to your blog entry.

                Here are some more questions:

                Doesn’t every President pick their Attorney General?

                Where did Barr say “I have your back” or was that your imagination going wild?

                “He does not believe a sitting President can be indicted. ” Isn’t that the position of most Constitutional scholars?

                Mueller uncovered rocks to look at the evidence and the conclusion of this investigation is clear:

                No collusion
                No obstruction

                Are you now accusing Mueller of being a trump pawn?

                1. Can you read English? Read my posts supra. No, MOST Constitutional scholars do not agree. Barr campaigned for the AG job by sending an unsolicited memo to Justice setting forth pro-Trump slop. So, how in the hell can he ethically take the lead on an investigation he pre-opined was not valid ? And no, even Barr’s 4-page subjective report does not say no collusion and no obstruction.

                  1. Natacha you may have skirted one issue but there was 6 or 7 questions. Isolate each question and answer it directly copying the question and then supplying your answer.

                    Natacha writes: ” And no, even Barr’s 4-page subjective report does not say no collusion and no obstruction.”

                    “the Special Counsel did not ?nd that the
                    Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian
                    government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-af?liated individuals to assist
                    the Trump campaign.”

Comments are closed.