Did Loudermilk stage a "reconnaissance tour?"


Sherrill pours it on: President Abraham Lincoln had a peculiar idea. 

Peculiar though his notion was, its premise lies at the heart of a very large nation's ability to function. He stated his idea at the very end of his first inaugural address:

LINCOLN (3/4/61): I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. 

The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Thus spake the newly inaugurated president. This leads us to an ongoing current question:

Did Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) lead a reconnaissance tour of "the Capitol" on January 5, 2021? 

Stated a slightly different way, did Loudermilk, knowingly or unwittingly, help insurrectionists stage their subsequent attack on the Capitol building?

For the record, we don't know the answer to those questions. We'd guess that he didn't knowingly lead such a tour, but we have no way to be certain.

That said, the poisonous relations prevailing in Congress spill out with respect to this matter. In Congress, we're very much enemies at this time. We've long since ceased to be friends.

We can understand why members of Congress might have unusually strong feelings about the January 6 attack. That said, we'll admit that we recoil from the recent press release by Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.):

SHERRILL (6/15/22): I have served our country as a federal prosecutor, and I know how important it is to investigate and collect evidence and to let that process run its course. The video evidence released today by the bipartisan January 6th committee, combined with the constantly shifting narrative and misdirection from Representatives Barry Loudermilk and Rodney Davis, calls into question their dedication to our common oath as Members of Congress.  

I remain committed to supporting this investigation into January 6th, so we ensure it never happens again.

Rep. Sherrill never tires of praising her own past service. Normally, she cites her military service as well as her experience as a federal prosecutor, seeming to say that these experiences provide her a special ability to spot evildoers. 

We were struck by the following aspect of this relatively muted recent statement:

Rep. Sherrill starts by noting the importance of investigating and collecting evidence—the importance of letting that process run its course. From there, she proceeds directly to a poisonous insinuation concerning two of The Others—a poisonous insinuation she didn't bother spelling out.

Did Loudermilk conduct a reconnaissance tour? Back in January 2021, Sherrill and others seemed to say that a very large number of such tours had been conducted on January 5. In part, these self-impressed members said this:

“Many of the Members who signed this letter, including those of us who have served in the military and are trained to recognize suspicious activity, as well as various members of our staff, witnessed an extremely high number of outside groups in the complex on Tuesday, January 5. This is unusual for several reasons, including the fact that access to the Capitol Complex has been restricted since public tours ended in March of last year due to the pandemic."

That was a strikingly sweeping allegation. An amazing seventeen months later, it seems that no one has conducted a serious investigation of that remarkable original charge.

Regarding the statements by Loudermilk and Davis, a fair amount of confusion seems to have infested the limited discussion of this topic, such as it has been. 

In fact, the tour conducted by Loudermilk never entered the Capitol Building itself. Concerning the claim you'll constantly hear on "cable news"—the claim that any such tours were forbidden at that time—a brief search concerning these questions quickly turned up this report:

TULLY-MCMANUS (1/13/21): Visitors, official tour groups and almost anyone without a congressional ID have been barred from the Capitol since mid-March, when the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic led congressional leaders to partially close the usually public building.

But members of Congress have been disregarding those strictures to bring in families and friends for small private tours for months, and Capitol Police stationed at entrances typically don’t challenge lawmakers to enforce rules.

That report appeared in Roll Call, one of the two semi-official newspapers of Capitol Hill. You'll note that the reporter seems to think the charge at issue concerned tours of the Capitol Building itself, not of "the Capitol complex," a later substitute.

It has been an amazing seventeen months since Sherrill, later joined by others, launched her remarkable charge. That remarkable charge may even be true—but seventeen months later, we see no sign that anyone, in any journalistic or governmental agency, has actually tried to investigate the initial sweeping charge.

That said, Sherrill stepped forward last week with a new dose of partisan poison. We'll admit that, when we see former prosecutors behaving this way, we sometimes wonder if this helps explain why our prisons and jails seem to be full of innocent people.

Did members of Congress conduct reconnaissance tours of the Capitol building, or perhaps of "the Capitol complex," on January 5? It's certainly possible, but we'll admit that we're tired of hearing Sherrill pretend that her professional experience provides her with a magical ability to assess such remarkable charges.

"We must not be enemies," President Lincoln alleged. In recent years, some Republican members of the House have made it hard to adopt such a stance, thanks to their crazy behavior.

Has the effort been abandoned? Earlier this year, when this same matter briefly boiled up again, Rep. Pelosi's office responded this way to an apparently inaccurate suggestion by Rep. Davis

BEITSCH (2/121): The Capitol Police Board, comprised of the sergeants-at-arms for both chambers and the Architect of the Capitol, oversees the Capitol Police. 

[Rep. Davis'] letter, however, is not addressed to the Capitol Police Board, which retains such footage, but to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who Republicans have increasingly sought to cast as having primary control over Capitol security.

“We’re sorry that Rep. Davis thinks he needs to act like a lunatic in order to win his Republican primary but as he knows the Speaker’s Office does not house the security footage from the U.S. Capitol,” Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, said in a statement to The Hill. 

"We are friends, not enemies," Lincoln once strangely said.

For ourselves, we've found Sherrill's sense of certainty off-putting ever since this matter surfaced. (That doesn't necessarily mean that her claim was wrong.) Mainly, though, we're astonished that the original, sweeping accusation seems to have gone unexamined, even at this late date. 

Relying on her self-admitted exceptional judgment, Sherrill seemed to claim that there was a large number of such tours on January 5. Seventeen months later, she's throwing poison at Loudermilk, but no one seems to have attempted to examine the initial sweeping claim.

Meanwhile, out in the country, can we regular folk find ways to view each other as friends? This morning, on C-Span's Washington Journal, the very first "viewer call" started off like this:

ED FROM GEORGIA (6/18/22): I guess what bothers me the most about today's question is—

Every year, the Democrats like to bring up Watergate. But they never bring us the fact that when the Democrats, during World War II, invented the atomic bomb, they set it off in the United States. 

I mean, that's where they set off the bomb, in the United States. And everybody got cancer.

That was Ed's initial reaction to this morning's question. That question concerned "the Watergate legacy and trust in government."

Can you imagine seeing Ed as a friend? Before his comments were done, we found that we agreed to a certain extent with one of his basic points. That said, a giant nation can't survive if its citizens are constantly looking for ways to see each other as enemies, not as friends.

Did Loudermilk lead a reconnaissance tour? We have no way of knowing, one way or the other. (Absent overpowering evidence, we would be extremely loath to launch such a claim or suggestion.)

Seventeen months later, has anyone asked Rep. Sherrill to detail her sweeping initial claims? We get the impression that no one has. Not even on cable! 

As President Lincoln might have known, sweeping claims about The Others can be a great deal more fun. But can a giant nation survive a descent into such widespread loathing?

Lincoln endorsed the better angels. Four years later, he was killed.


  1. "Every year, the Democrats like to bring up Watergate."

    Yeah, that's true. Since the scummy shamans of your liberal tribe have nothing good to offer, they can only operate in the environment of a permanent crisis. Fighting their endless wars "to save democracy".

    Let's hope it'll stop this November. If our liberal overlords allow November this year, obviously.

  2. Both sides:


    1. A lot of people who weren't keen on Hillary voted for her anyway because Trump was a much worse alternative. Some, were so sure she would win that they voted for Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders instead, and she lost. In 2020, many of us weren't that keen about Biden, but we were much less keen on Trump, so we voted for Biden anyway -- to make sure Trump was kicked out of office.

      In 2024, I fully expect that if Trump (or DeSantis or Cruz) are on the ballot, that Democrats who aren't that keen on Biden or whatever Democrat is running, will remember what happened in 2016 and will vote Democratic anyway, because the alternative is so much worse.

      This dynamic suggests that the low polling for Biden (which is similar to that of other incumbents who later won reelection) may not be reflective of what will happen at the polls. Many of us are disappointed by one or another aspect of Biden's performance, but we are all going to vote for him anyway. There isn't a chance in hell that disappointment with Biden will cause Democrats to switch to Trump -- because the Democrats are not batshit crazy like the right.

  3. "For the record, we don't know the answer to those questions. We'd guess that he didn't knowingly lead such a tour, but we have no way to be certain."

    Here is a witness who says she saw multiple tours being given:

    "Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) told MSNBC that she saw Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) giving tours of the Capitol “the day before the certification was going to take place” on January 6, 2021.

    Said Dingell: “There was a whole group of visitors. We weren’t even supposed to have visitors inside of the complex… They weren’t wearing masks and I was irritated enough that went over and complained to the police.”

    She added: “There were tours and I was a witness to more than one.”

    From Political Wire: https://politicalwire.com/2022/06/17/debbie-dingell-says-loudermilk-gave-multiple-tours/

    Somerby, of course, says nothing about this. It would interfere with giving Loudermilk the benefit of all possible doubt, including the view that "anything is possible, including the absence of tours despite video evidence."

    1. Bob and his QAnon for beginners site (TDH) strike again.

    2. Did she say they were doing reconnaissance tours? The issue is reconnaissance tours not just tours.

    3. Do you seriously think that if Dingell didn't specify reconnaissance tours, that they weren't reconnaissance tours? You may think this is a clever objection, but that documentary shown on the first hearing day showed the Proud Boys engaged in reconnaissance on the morning of 1/6, before the speeches began, evaluating the site and agreeing on where to breech the buildings. If they did reconnaissance on the outside of the building to figure out how to get in, why wouldn't they also do reconnaissance on the inside of the building to figure out how to get to Pence, Pelosi, and their other list of targets? Again, how do you know they did reconnaissance? Because they are shown on video doing it. That makes it a FACT, not speculation or theory, and FACTS exist separate from your questions. Just because you don't fully understand something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    4. Your original accusation was that we were being shielded by her comments as if the comments contained some sort of enlightening or different information. All she said was that she saw him giving a tour. We already know that he gave a tour.

      I don't think you've really thought this through.

    5. He first denied giving a tour. Somerby continues that denial in the face of witnesses and video evidence.

    6. If I am not mistaken, he denied even knowing who it was he was personally giving a "tour" to.

  4. "In fact, the tour conducted by Loudermilk never entered the Capitol Building itself."

    This is irrelevant. The security footage showed tour members taking photos of stairwells, exits and security checkpoints that were along the route used to evacuate congress members via the Cannon tunnel. During the actual evacuation, rioters were 40 feet from Mike Pence and others whom they had threatened with death, along the corridor involved in the tour. The same person who took photos during the tour was shown on video during the riot itself, issuing threats against Pence and others.

    Somerby cannot make this go away by telling lies, repeating right wing talking points about where the tours went and suggesting that they didn't involve any portion of the Capitol complex relevant to the insurrection. Somerby today writes to excuse the extremists who participated in the coup, and Loudermilk, who helped them.

    We now know who Somerby is. And we now see him telling deliberate lies in order to excuse traitors who participated in a coup to prevent lawful transfer of power from Trump to Biden. Somerby is scum.

    1. Like David in Cal, Somerby is saving his outrage for Elementary school teachers who don’t teach CRT.

    2. What good would a picture of a stairwell be to a rioter?

    3. What good is it to a tourist?

      Unlike Republicans, I am not trained in urban combat, but I know there is no reason on earth for a tourist or family member to be taking pictures of security checkpoints. Maybe the stairwells provide cover? Maybe they are scoping out distance and viewpoints within the likely area where they might intercept Pence? They only missed him by 40 ft.

    4. @5:09 -- no one thinks the 1/6 insurrectionists were just rioters. They are pleading guilty to seditious conspiracy. You can call them picnickers or sightseers or tourists but no one believes that any more.

    5. Why would the people planning the insurrection do reconnaissance less than 24 hours before the insurrection itself?

    6. Perhaps because they are from places outside DC and had travel budget constraints? Ask them. Perhaps to accommodate Loudermilk's schedule?

      The evidence that these people (1) went on a tour, (2) photographed what they are said to have photographed, (3) were part of the insurrection on 1/6, (4) threatened Pence and others by name, is on video and not subject to the kinds of questions you are asking. For whatever reason, this is what they did -- and you can see it with your own eyes.

      That's what people have been saying here about facts that cannot be gaslighted away. Go to any gun store and ask to speak to a militia member, preferably ex-military, and they will answer your logistical questions about why the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers carried out the insurrection as they did. None of the questions/answers can make the FACT of what happened go away.

      Why would an 18 year old take an AR-15 to a grade school and kill 19 children and 2 teachers? How on earth would I know, but it is a demonstrable, established fact that this happened. Questions about logistics may appeal to morbid curiosity, but they don't change the FACTS of what happened, in Uvalde or in the Capitol complex.

    7. It's not a demonstrable, established fact that the Loudermilk tour was reconnaissance, is it?

    8. I would say that if a member of Loudermilk's tour was doing reconnaissance by photographing stairwells, exits and security checkpoints, then yes, it is an established fact that the Loudermilk tour was reconnaissance, whether Dingell said it was or not, and no matter what Loudermilk said about it.

      Go look at the video yourself. You can find it online. If you don't believe your own eyes about FACTS, then God help you. You are one of God's special children because you are a born mark (dupe, patsy, chump, Trump donor).

    9. It's not an established fact, though, that the picture taking was reconnaissance, is it?

    10. Yes, the pictures taken were a fact and the subsequent violence is also a fact, both by the same guy.

    11. You're not very smart, are you?

    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    13. https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/jan-6-panel-video-shows-loudermilk-tour-group-photographing-in-capitol-office-buildings/

      The trolls here are conservatives relying on splitting hairs about what happened, in much the same way as Somerby does.

      This sums up the situation pretty well. Loudermilk has refused to talk to the 1/6 commission. The videos show what they show. The Police Chief is defending Loudermilk and himself by refusing to call the tour reconnaissance, but it is what it clearly is. Loudermilk's defensiveness also speaks clearly. If he and the tour were innocent, he could have appeared and explained to the committee charged with investigating what happened. That he will not do that is also evidence that he fears being accused of greater complicity.

      The trolls here are conservatives relying on splitting hairs about what happened, in much the same way as Somerby does.

    14. What? No explicitly calling Bob a paid Russian agent today, Anonymouse10:48am?

      Such restraint.

    15. There's no proof that it was reconnaissance. It's complete speculation. It's guilt by association from a mob of confirmation bias obsessed lunatics.

    16. Lots of stairwell enthusiasts go on tours to photograph them, then make threats at insurrections. It’s what they do.

    17. You'll have to prove the connection. Until then it is a guilt by association logical fallacy and idiotic non-issue manufactured by a desperate, dying political party.

    18. Congress is a cesspool. Corrupt politicians whore for the rich and get rich in return. This reality, which the hearings ignore, is apparent to most of the nation, which is why the hearings will not bolster the flagging fortunes of the ruling political class, desperate to prevent displacement.

    19. Well that makes it ok to hang them then.

    20. Has the USCP questioned this man?

      If they have, as officers who are trained to ascertain reconnaissance, what led them to discount this guy as being benign?

      There are reasons to have an interest in taking pictures of staircases. such as a particular type of architecture, elements such as marble, a picture on the wall, etc.

      Ask him to come in and account for what he was doing.

    21. “ Ask him to come in and account for what he was doing. ” what a great idea! Just like they did with Loudermilk. You see, it would be a great idea if Trump Republicans didn’t routinely ignore congressional requests. Even subpoenas have been ignored. Then, when they’re ignored, you and Somerby can chortle about how the commission just can’t seem to figure anything out.

    22. Have you heard the names Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Peter Navarro?

    23. It most certainly was not a reconnaissance tour. The man with out question was not taking pictures of a stairwell so they could be incorporated later that evening into some sort of PDF file that the rioters could download to their phones and use to find their way around. The whole thing is idiotic fantasy for dumb people who can't control their biases and desire to lock the others up. Nothing at all will come of it. Not one thing. The only possibility is that he will be completely absolved of all of these asinine, nonsensical accusations. That, or it will just be left there hanging for these dingbats to use as a baseless charge without any evidence for years and years. Another fairy tale for the audience of gullible partisans.

    24. I’d like to see the justification for the USCP decision, myself.

    25. https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/220807%20U.%20S.%20Capitol%20Police%20Response%20to%20RM%20Davis%20re%20Jan%205%202021%20Tour.pdf

  5. "For ourselves, we've found Sherrill's sense of certainty off-putting ever since this matter surfaced. (That doesn't necessarily mean that her claim was wrong.) "

    You bet your ass it doesn't mean she was wrong! But Somerby doesn't like her tone? Talk about snowflakes! If a woman says something authoritatively, because she is correct, why shouldn't she express a "sense of certainty"?

    Why doesn't Somerby come right out and tell us he hears his mothers authoritative voice whenever a woman says anything with a sense of certainty, just as so many right wing men all heard their wives screeching tone in Hillary Clinton's voice? Does Somerby actually use a woman's sense of certainty to invalidate the truth of what she is saying? That's what it sounds like he is saying today, and there is no reason or logic involved in that at all. Just misogyny.

  6. Somerby quotes a C-Span caller named Ed:

    "I mean, that's where they set off the bomb, in the United States. And everybody got cancer."

    Then Somerby says:

    "...Can you imagine seeing Ed as a friend? Before his comments were done, we found that we agreed to a certain extent with one of his basic points."

    Somerby doesn't tell us what point Ed made that he agrees with. He doesn't tell us at all what Ed went on to say, or even whether this is the point of agreement. Are we to assume that there is an implied endorsement by Somerby of what he did choose to quote? And no, I am not likely to be friends with Ed on the basis of this extremely vague and only partially true rant, one that is entirely irrelevant to our current crisis and one that does not justify a lack of faith in government. Because, unlike Ed, I know something about the history of atomic testing. Perhaps Somerby does not, and perhaps he is too lazy to look this stuff up somewhere. But I do find it odd that Somerby would endorse a C-Span caller who claims the government nuked America but he won't believe that tours occurred, even when witnessed by several other members of congress and shown on security video.

    Needless to say, everyone didn't get cancer.

  7. "Did Loudermilk lead a reconnaissance tour? We have no way of knowing, one way or the other. (Absent overpowering evidence, we would be extremely loath to launch such a claim or suggestion.)"

    Why are eyewitness statements coupled with video security footage showing not just the tour itself, but members of the tour taking unusual photos of security checkpoints, stairwells and exits, not sufficient evidence for Somerby?

    Trump would not believe anything his own staff, campaign manager, attorneys said to him about the status of the election. He didn't want to believe it and he had other plans to overturn the election. As stated by several witnesses during the hearing, it was very hard to convince Trump of anything he didn't want to hear. Today Somerby demonstrates the same tendency. He doesn't want to believe that Loudermilk lied and that he DID in fact conduct a tour that showed parts of the Capitol complex to people who participated in the insurrection. But, like Trump, Somerby won't hear and certainly won't believe anything he doesn't want to know. He has his fingers in his ears and he is chanting "la la la la, I can't hear you..."

    Who does that? Not liberals and not anyone who is sincerely concerned about the truth of what Trump did and what happened on 1/6. That makes Somerby a unreliable source of facts and opinions on this subject.

  8. "Seventeen months later, has anyone asked Rep. Sherrill to detail her sweeping initial claims? We get the impression that no one has. Not even on cable!"

    Why would they use her claims when there is actual video evidence of such tours?

    Has Somerby perhaps not noticed that the hearings are presenting the most convincing, relevant sources, not minor figures and peripheral witnesses, during this hearing?

    Somerby has yet to explain why Loudermilk lied, changing his story several times and whether there were tours and if so, what happened during them? Instead he tries to distract us with initial claims 17 months ago by Sherill (who is both a Democrat and female, and thus a two-fer on Somerby's personal hate list).

  9. "As President Lincoln might have known, sweeping claims about The Others can be a great deal more fun. "

    It is remotely possible that Lincoln might once have mentioned someone or something he called "The Others" because "anything is possible," but really, how likely is it that Lincoln said any such thing? I find myself wondering whether Lincoln ever wrote a sentence containing the word "fun."

    Dressing his stoopid essays up in Lincoln's gravitas is one of Somerby's favorite tricks. Somerby, I have read Lincoln, and sir, you are no Lincoln! Somerby is not even Soupy Sales, someone who did understand fun. Lincoln would not be arguing against prosecution of today's insurrectionists. He would be helping Liz Cheney carry her briefcase. And he would be weeping at the perfidy of Somerby's use of his name.

  10. Statements need to be evaluated in the context in which they were spoken.

    "LINCOLN (3/4/61): I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies."

    Lincoln was elected in 1860. The confederate states seceded after his election, but before Lincoln took office. These words were spoken before Fort Sumter was fired upon and before military hostilities began. Thus Lincoln was attempting to reconcile sides and prevent active fighting. He is trying to remind the South (the confederacy) that we are all one people. The secessionists obviously didn't listen, since they fired on Fort Sumter and it fell in early April.

    Today, no one on the left is threatening secession. It is the right who is engaging in politically motivated violence -- the whole point of the 1/6 insurrection committee hearings. It is the right that reminds voters continually to hate the left (especially via Fox News and other outlets, but also in speeches by candidates during the midterms). It is the right who obstructs efforts by the president and legislators to govern the country and promote the common good.

    Just as Lincoln's words fell on deaf ears, and just as he was unable to do anything to bring the sides together when it was not the Union who was seceding or threatening war, we are not going to improve our political climate by making nice with Republicans, nor by capitulating to them, nor by ignoring their crimes against the nation and our democracy.

    Our democracy was attacked by Trump's attempted coup, as surely as it was with the secession of the South in 1860. Lincoln didn't ignore the confederacy's actions and we cannot ignore what Trump and his cronies and supporters did either.

    When Somerby preaches to liberals about remembering to be Friends with Republicans, he is lecturing the wrong side. He is also insulting those of us who care about our country, as he pretends that it is we who have driven a wedge between people over the past decades. I think we have been too conciliatory and emboldened the right to become worse than it would have been had we taken stronger action, first against Nixon, then during Iran/Contra, the Iraq War, and the incompetent handling of Katrina. It is finally time for liberals to stand firm -- as Lincoln did when the South attacked Fort Sumter. There must be consequences for wrongdoing.

    The nerve of Somerby when he pretends the left is to blame for our divide is beyond comprehension. He is scum and his self-serving interpretation of Lincoln reveals that clearly. Next he'll be quoting MLK, with a few Dylan quotes to show his liberal cred, and suggesting that we all forgive and forget, while pitying Trump right back into the White House!

    1. "Today, no one on the left is threatening secession. It is the right who is engaging in politically motivated violence -- the whole point of the 1/6 insurrection committee hearings."

      Actually, a point of the 1/6 hearings is to convince people of this false statement. A lot of violence is being committed by the right, but even more by the lest. Enormous amounts of violence have been committed by BLM and Antifa. Someone on the left was just charged with Attempted Murder of a conservative Supreme Court Justice. Jane's Revenge has committed arson at anti-abortion sites and threatens worse. See
      Letter signed by radical abortion group Jane's Revenge declares 'open season' on pro-life pregnancy centers
      The letter from Jane's Revenge says 'increasing drastic measures' might not be 'so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti'

    2. "When protests turn to riots, it isn’t the left any more but opportunists and criminals"

      In logic, this is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

      No "true" leftist would commit violence.

    3. No, this is the result of studies of riots, which show that BLM protesters are not committing the property damage and rioting.

    4. David, for the first time in the history of our country a sitting president refused to accept the results of an election. He planned and executed an attempted coup in order to maintain power.

      You know who I'm talking about, right? You buried your fascist head up his ass. You're not going to play your usual games here by changing the subject. You really got some fucking balls.

      The single purpose of the committee is to establish for the record his multi-pronged plan, who his co-conspirators were, and hopefully wake some of his cult followers up finally.

      No fucking hope for you though.

    5. David doesn't love Trump, because Trump is an outsider. David loves Trump, because Trump is a bigot.
      Don't overthink it.

    6. Jane's Revenge is a group described by Catholics as planning a night of violence if Roe v Wade is overturned. As near as I can tell, it hasn't done anything and may not exist as an organization. It is being touted by the right as a threat.

      There apparently did exist a group in the 1970s that performed abortions, called The Janes.

    7. I believe it was Jane's Revenge who doxxed the Supreme Court justices. Knowing the address enabled someone to attempt to murder Justice Kavenaugh.

    8. So did owning a gun.

    9. Anonymous4:43pm, neither of you can assume that killing Kavanaugh was the group’s objective rather than protesting outside of his home.

      What should have gone down is that the AG arrested these people as per the law.

    10. The 1st Amendment is now against the law?

    11. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/protest-justice-home-illegal/

    12. That law is unConstitutional. There is no right to privacy for Supreme Court members in the Constitution.

    13. The law has been a bit more nuanced than your assertion.


    14. The above is from me. I got signed out somehow.

    15. “Ironically enough, the relevant case law includes a previous Supreme Court decision that protected an abortion doctor against pro-life protesters.”


  11. There is an article in the NY Times today that says that truth was not up for debate during the Watergate hearings:


    Today, we see Somerby attempting to gaslight his readers by suggesting that (1) Sherill was wrong in her complaints about the tours she witnessed occurring, (2) Loudermilk's various lies were correct because we weren't there and anything is possible and who can say for sure what happened, (3) the video showing a tour member taking photos of stairwells, exits and security checkpoints means nothing because the Capitol police said they didn't see anything suspiciou, (4) there is no reason to be concerned that a tour member showed up the next day participating in violence and issuing threats against Mike Pence, (5) it means nothing that the insurgents were 40 ft down the same corridor down which Mike Pence and staff were being evacuated, because the tour didn't involve the same buildings where the insurrection took place (even though it DID involve the Cannon tunnel where Pence was being evacuated), and (6) we should all be Friends not Enemie, presumably by overlooking what happened and letting Trump be president again?

    This is all gaslighting because Somerby ignores the truth about what happened and offers lies and statements such as "I don't know" and "I cannot know what actually happened" to assert that the opposite of what evidence supports can be true. He essentially says that if no one can know what happened, then it is OK to believe your favorite version of events, and for Somerby, that happens to be the right-wing version in which Loudermilk either didn't conduct a tour at all or he showed family members around, and anyway they didn't go into any important buildings. Meanwhile, he doesn't tell his readers all the facts.

    This is the corrupt way in which Somerby tries to further muddy the water, confuse readers, and obscure the truth. Because the truth is whatever Donald Trump says it is, and the minor figures in this situation, such as Loudermilk, have learned from Trump's exmaple, to just keep telling lies until there are so many version floating around that you can claim that the truth is unknowable -- as Somerby does today and most days.

    1. If you wish to defend democracy you must also defend truth. That is one important function of the 1/6 hearings.

  12. Via Lawyers Guns & Money blog:

    "Luttig’s opening statement for the Thursday hearing shows why. The line making news is Luttig’s claim that Trump developed a “well developed plan” to cling to power illegitimately. He aptly says this would have “plunged” our country into a “paralyzing constitutional crisis.”

    But there’s something more important in Luttig’s testimony. He indicts the Republican Party as a whole, not just for 2020, but also for going all in on a future in which election losses will henceforth be treated as inherently illegitimate and subject to subversion.

    Much of the GOP, Luttig will suggest, is still wedded to the idea that reversing the 2020 election might in some sense have been a legitimate or at least understandable mission. Many Republicans, he will say, have adopted the principle that a future overturned election might be needed “to accomplish that which the previous revolt failed to accomplish.”

    Luttig warns this portends an era of dangerous democratic instability. He says only Republicans can end this madness: “Only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.”

    1. Sounds like liberal retards got themselves a new God.

      Reincarnated from Michael Avenatti's body?

    2. Luttig is retired and has an established reputation and eminent career (in Republican circles). That's why Pence sought his advice about his responsibilities as VP. Trolls will throw anyone under the bus to defend Trump.

    3. For the past couple of decades, it’s been so reasonable of Democrats to never suspect and raise doubts about the results of an election that they lost and to never question the legitimacy of an elected Republican.

    4. It is legal to "question the legitimacy" of an elected Republican by analyzing the results and what contributed to the outcome, even by investigation of foreign influence, as occurred when Trump won. The Democrats never took it further than that, to illegal activities, such as the coup plotted and executed by Trump and his supporters, attempting to remain in office despite a legal election that withstood the legal challenges to it.

      If Obama had refused to leave the White House, you might have a point about Democratic activities. He did nothing like that -- he cooperated with the transition, such as it was (Trump blew off the transition team) and was gracious in welcoming the Trumps to the White House, which is a lot more than anyone can say about Trump and Melania.

      Al Gore, in contrast to Trump, did not even pursue all of his remedies when the race was close in FL, the state that would have tipped the election to him instead of Bush. He conceded the election. A later audit conducted by the media (not Democrats) showed that Gore should have won FL. Even then, Gore didn't hang around challenging Bush or criticizing him -- he moved on to other, non-political activities. Those of us who were disappointed by his actions have talked about it, but Gore did not continue speaking and railing against the result, as Trump has been doing.

      So, you are telling lies here Cecelia. Which is very typical of Republicans these days.

    5. Can you tell me how it’s a lie to point out that for the last 20 years, long before 1/6, Democratic big wigs from Hillary Clinton to Stacy Abrams have repeatedly claimed that Republicans stole elections?

    6. Hillary and Stacey Abrams are contemporaries. Hillary goes back 20 years, but to my knowledge she has only talked about her own loss in 2016. Her book, What Happened, analyzes both her own contributions to her loss and those from other sources (Comey, Russians). I don't believe she has ever claimed the 2016 election was "stolen," although I myself believe it was. Nor has anyone said that about Gore's loss (Hillary or Abrams). This idea that Democrats are always claiming that elections were stolen is a right wing invention, in my experience. I don't even have liberal friends who go around saying that.

      We DO talk about vote suppression and effots to disenfranchise minorities by putting into place measures that disproportionately affect their ability to vote in elections at all levels. We DO talk about the abandonment of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court. We do believe that the intent behind right wing efforts to suppress votes is to win more elections. We also talk about the recent redistricting, including Republican gerrymandering, which everyone agrees favors Republicans more than Democrats. This happens every 10 years and was worse 10 years ago, so I suppose you could say that goes back 20 years. To my knowledge, Republicans are not denying any of these initiatives, which have the effect of swinging elections their way. These are legal (even if morally questionable), so they don't fit the definition of stealing elections, in my opinion and I don't hear people on the left calling them that. We call them "vote suppression."

      Both Democrats and Republicans know that if all eligible voters cast a vote, Democrats would be more likely to win because there are more of them. So, when Republicans modify the system in their favor, they are doing it to win more votes. No one denies this, to my knowledge.

    7. What you DO invariably claim (what Stacey Abrams has claimed in two elections) casts doubt on the legitimacy of elected Republican candidates.

      U.S. Elections are as sound as the Kuwaiti dinar as long as Republicans don’t win them.

    8. Stacey Abrams is talking about her own election. Due to voter suppression in her state, she has the right to do that. She doesn't speak for all Democrats or about all elections, as you have generalized her remarks here.

      There is no equivalence between what Democrats say about voter suppression and how Republicans talk about rigged elections via mechanisms that have been investigated and shown not to have affected results. Democrats are not telling "The Big Lie" the way Republicans are doing. Both Democrats and Republicans have the same options to pursue recounts and audits and legal remedies.

      Notice that Stacey Abrams did not attempt any kind of coup or insurrection. She accepted defeat and is running again for Gov of Georgia. She also mobilized an impressive get-out-the-vote effort that helped elect Warnock and Ossoff. That is the entirely legal means by which Democrats are fighting Republican vote suppression.

    9. These accusations do have an accumulative effect on the whole of the national psyche and you guys have been pushing these accusations nonstop for decades.

    10. Yes, and unlike Trump's assertion that the election was rigged, the accusations of vote suppression are true. They should affect the national psyche. In fact, the Voting Rights Act should be implemented again to stop the Southern states from reinstating Jim Crow laws. I applaud what Abrams has been doing, but we also need to ensure voting rights for all citizens, not just white ones.

      But it really does sound like you are opposed to politics and are arguing that opposition parties have no right to advocate for what they believe would improve America. I repeat, Abrams didn't organize an insurrection. She accepted defeat and went to work helping other Democratic candidates get elected, by reigstering voters and encouraging them to overcome the obstacles placed in their way by Republican vote suppression measures. Because that is what it means to work within the system. Trump tried to overturn the system, and that is why he is being investigated.

    11. That Stacey Abrams went to work trying to help Democrats win is ancillary to my point.

      Her rhetoric and the rhetoric of Democrats about our elections in general is part of a years long campaign to cast doubt on the validity of any Republican campaign.

      The FBI gave Obama the heads-up on the Clinton campaign bringing them their allegations (bought and paid for) that candidate Trump was colluding with Russia to steal the election.

      In 2020 Bob had a moment of wringing his hands over missing post office boxes and mail trucks.

      You guys have been riling up people for years. After Trump was elected there was rioting and burning in cities.

      You’ve cooked the stew, stirred the pot, pointed the finger, and blamed others that the dish stinks.

    12. Protests after Trump’s election were widespread and peaceful. Trump’s insurrection was not.

    13. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-inauguration-protest-damages-downtown-washington/

      That’s not true. There was violence and burning and smashing.

      The righteous wrath of the people. As usual.

      People had yet to try to separate from the Union, as in autonomous zones, but they certainly made known their contempt for a free election.

    14. Cecelia sez: Don't complain about our cheating and we won't lie about you cheating.

    15. “The line making news is Luttig’s claim that Trump developed a “well developed plan” to cling to power illegitimately. ”

      You need a warning label in saying “well developed plan”.

      Side-stitches from laughing are no fun.

    16. Here is Trump's plan. This is why Trump needs to be prosecuted.

      "1. President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information to the American public claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him.
      2. President Trump corruptly planned to replace the acting attorney general, so that the Department of Justice would support his fake election claims.
      3. President Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the law.
      4. President Trump corruptly pressured state election officials, and state legislators, to change election results.
      5. President Trump’s legal team and other Trump associates instructed Republicans in multiple states to create false electoral slates and transmit those slates to Congress and the National Archives.
      6. President Trump summoned and assembled a violent mob in Washington and directed them to march on the U.S. Capitol.
      7. As the violence was underway, President Trump ignored multiple pleas for assistance and failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol."

    17. Anonymouse4:21pm, show me where I accused Democrats of cheating.

    18. You call that “well-planned”? It is a spectacularly ridiculous and ill-advised Hail Mary that didn’t have a chance in hell of even delaying things.

      I doubt seriously that any of that is prosecutable, but we’ll see.

    19. Sounds like you think a coup is ok if it fails. Sort of like a bank robbery that fails is ok — no harm, no foul, except for the people who died.

    20. I don’t think it was a coup. I think it was idiotic political machinations.

    21. Your definition cannot apply when weapons were involved and people died — and the aim was to overturn an election.

    22. Read the post to which I replied.

    23. show me where I accused Democrats of cheating.

      Cecelia, right you haven't directly, but when you wrote "You’ve cooked the stew, stirred the pot, pointed the finger, and blamed others that the dish stinks.", you seem to be justifying your party's BIG LIE that the 2020 election was stolen and that Trump actually won by a landslide.

      Let me explain something to you that you don't seem to understand. One side protesting the relentless efforts of the other party to suppress votes, is not equivalent to your party making up bullshit in order to justify a coup.

    24. No, cheating in elections would actually be a criminal offense.

      I haven’t accused Democrats of that.

      Yes, you poison the water with constant accusations of malfeasance and have been doing that for years.

      It’s what you do.

    25. I haven’t accused Democrats of that.[criminal offense]

      You do understand that is exactly what the leader of your party has been doing for the past few years, right? Your party has now begun refusing to certify elections based on "gut feeling". Bills are being put forth in many republican controlled states proposing to give state legislatures the legal ability to overrule the vote in their states, taking away the function of certifying the election results from the Secretary of State and giving it to the legislature.

      Again, I will try one more time,
      One side protesting the relentless efforts of the other party to suppress votes, is not equivalent to your party making up bullshit in order to justify a coup.

      One party is working tirelessly and systematically to suppress votes and the other party is working non-stop fighting to make it easier for voters to exercise their rights.

      Is it illegal to make some people have to stand in line for 8 hours to vote while other people can go to their polling station and walk away in 15 minutes in the same state? Is there a valid reason why the Voting Rights Act has been systematically gutted by the Supreme Court?

    26. Again- more nuance than the bombast you got from the WH.

      Poltifact calls the charges too speculative for them to render a verdict.


    27. Cecelia,
      Please, let’s not lose sight of the fact that these Right-wing snowflakes threw a temper tantrum at the United States Capitol because black peoples votes counted in the 2020 Presidential election.

    28. “idiotic political machinations”
      Are you suggesting these were Republican politicians, and not the Righr-wing bigoted snowflakes the media has led us to believe they were?

    29. “idiotic political machinations”

      Cecelia, why don't you tell Ruby Freeman about those political machinations. I'm sure she'll be comforted to know it was just politics.

    30. How about you tell Justice Kavanaugh about the plans for his family to be bound and gagged and murderer for a “great” cause?

    31. How bout you go fuck yourself, Cec.
      You're comparing the President of the US, the most powerful person on the face of the earth, deliberately and maliciously putting a target on the back of a US citizen in furtherance of his desperate efforts to maintain power, with some crazy person who turned himself in.

      You said, "political machinations" in order to discount the unprecedented criminal conspiracy to steal the election. You're fucking nuts.

    32. Right, mm. How could insider leaking of heretofore private information that names names and jacks-up crazies be anything like what happened to Kavanaugh.


    33. https://www.newsweek.com/chuck-schumer-brett-kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-pay-price-comment-1713964?amp=1


    34. Schumer had previously retracted his comments, saying from the Senate floor that he "should not have used the words [he] used" the day before.

      "My point was that there would be political consequences—political consequences—for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman's right to choose."

      "Of course, I didn't intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise," he added.

      You're pathetic, Cecelia.

      This is a great example of the RW Mighty Wurlitzer Media Industrial Complex taking something a dem says out of context and turning it into phony outrage pretext.

      That was 2 years ago, Cec.

      When is Donald J. Chickenshit going to apologize?

  13. Steve M at No More Mister Nice Blog describe what might have happened if those surrounding Trump had decided he was mentally unfit and invoked the 25th Amendment:


    He concludes that it wouldn't have worked, and lays out the reasons why.

  14. Bob you're smart enough to know that you can't fix a political problem with lawsuits.

    Are you also smart enough to realize you can't fix a political problem with prayers, even to the holiest saints?

  15. "Trump launched his social networking platform after receiving a permanent suspension of his account two days after the Jan. 6 insurrection "due to the risk of further incitement of violence."

    The video begins with Trump teeing off while playing golf, wearing his trademark red, "Make America Great Again" hat.

    The video then shows a clip of Biden falling off his bicycle while vacationing in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. The clip was edited to make it appear as if Trump's drive struck the leader of the free world in the head, knocking him off his bike."

    Does this sound like the actions of a contrite or innocent man? Trump apparently has a new defense attorney, but I doubt it was his advice to post this kind of thing. So, Trump is apparently ignoring yet another lawyer.

    1. My heart goes out to a 79-year old who would like to go home on a weekend and take it easy, but his two-years-out-of-university handlers have got him on a speed bike for photo ops.

    2. When you are 79, you can decide for yourself whether you want to ride a bike or lay around on the couch. The point is Trump's hostile and violent modification of the photo of Biden. It is not funny when someone gets hit by a golf ball on any part of their body. This is how Trump incites his followers to commit violence in his name. Should Biden be attacked, Trump will of course insist he was just joking.

      Those who do ride bikes have pointed out how easy it is to fall, as Biden did, due to the clamps on the pedals. There are active 70-somethings all over the country who ride bikes, hike, run, play tennis and other sports and regularly exercise because they wish to stay healthy as long as possible -- because it leads to a better quality of life than lying around does. At 75, I play decent (competitive) tournament bridge, travel the world (sometimes by myself), walk several miles each day and try to stay in shape in order to enjoy those activities. You should too, if you aren't already doing it, because resisting the temptation to do nothing is a better way to enjoy your retirement, should you be fortunate enough to reach those years.

    3. My heart goes out to an overweight, mentally ill grifter who constantly gets caught lying, filing dozens of insane, frivolous lawsuits about an election that wasn’t stolen, who gets caught trying to arm-twist Secretaries of State into “finding” votes to reverse his humiliating defeat after only one term, after the black man got two! Oh and he cheats at golf, so his “funny” fake golf video only serves to remind people of that fact. But he’s so ill he doesn’t even know what he’s doing! It’s amazing his autonomic functions still work.

      On second thought, my heart doesn’t go out to the monstrosity named Trump. Meanwhile, Biden is an avid bicyclist.

    4. I was it funny to do Julius Caesar dressed as Trump as he was being assassinated?

      Was it funny for the NYT to feature a short story about a Secret Service agent handing over his firearm so an assassin could shoot Trump?

      Was a movie about killing George Bush (Death Of A President) cool?

      Yes. All the above.

      These little tidbits weren’t done in fest, but are chillingly malevolent.

      The last one in particular.


    5. No, Cecilia, those weren’t funny either. No one here said they were.

    6. Also, Cecilia, those did not come from Obama or Hillary. Whereas, this golf video came from your President. A slight difference there, I would say.

    7. I’d say that’s tame compared to what liberal bigwigs have tolerated during the Trump term. You saw the receipts.

      It’was certainly amazing to see the low-key reporting on the assassination threat to Justice Kavanaugh after a month of hair-on-fire media and Dem frenzy of demonizing anyone who differed with their gun policy.

      That wasn’t a meme, it was character assignation.

    8. The GOP solution, dear Cecilia, to gun violence is guns, everywhere, always. So you should demand the Supreme Court allow guns in their courtroom. Right now! No gun-free zones! Including, in front of Supreme Court justices’ homes.

      And, funny, there was a fair amount of coverage of the Kavanaugh incident. (How much is enough to satisfy you and your fellow travelers? I’m thinking wall-to-wall, 24-hour coverage, as if it were a story about woke Mr Potato Head.) But do you remember when that fellow traveled with the stated intent to kill Pelosi awhile back? Fix News might have mentioned it, not sure though. That got almost zero press coverage.

    9. No, it wasn’t covered commiserate to the what had just gone down since the school shooting.

      In fact, the whole issue of leaking SCOTUS arguments was barely a blip on the radar of people who call chiding the national media a grave threat to the Constitution.

      Your over the top rhetoric on gun policy is Exhibit A for what passes as political discussion amongst the left no matter the topic.

    10. You mean commensurate, not commiserate.

      Commisterate = "express or feel sympathy or pity; sympathize"

      Commensurate = "corresponding in size or degree; in proportion"

      If you are using some sort of word helper software, it is not your friend.

    11. I’m not, but you’re my friend.


    12. Poor Brett Kavanaugh. He should have gotten some other job, where the Constitution protects the right to privacy for serial sexual predators. I checked the U.S. Constitution. Alas, Supreme Court justice isn't one of those jobs.

  16. "For the record, we don't know the answer to those questions. We'd guess that he didn't knowingly lead such a tour, but we have no way to be certain."

    One day before the riot, video reveals his group to be taking suspicious photos.


    1. You're asking the wrong question.

  17. “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.”

    And yet, his enemies remained his enemies. Another Lincoln quote that rarely gets printed:

    “For every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed. For every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works, and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war.”

    You can’t force people to be your friend. And there are some things worth fighting for that supersede being friends.

    1. This. Plus: would Bob or the others
      who constantly preach this position,
      ever even SUGGEST a right winger
      has a responsibility to consider the
      viewpoint of others? Their hatred is
      always it’s own justification.

  18. Why won’t Loudermilk cooperate with the committee? Why won’t he testify under oath? Or is that passé for Republicans these days? I’d love to take Loudermilk’s word for it, whatever his word might be today, but we have seen a growing tendency for Republicans, from Trump on down, to make questionable and shifting public statements, so it might be advisable to get them under oath. If they manage to not merely plead the fifth, there would be at least a non-vanishingly small chance that they still take oaths seriously. Though I’m beginning to wonder.

    1. If he testifies, we can. ask him about the military fiascos in the Middle East that cost taxpayers over $8 trillion, the for-profit health care system that gouges the public, or the privatization of institutions of government, including schools, prisons, water treatment, trash collection, parking meters, utilities and even intelligence gathering, to enrich the billionaire class at our expense.

      Oh yeah - I forgot, we don't talk about that. Ever. We spend our time on non-issues like Loudermilk and pictures of stairwells.

    2. Why should Republican voters have to live under a President who only talks about class issues? Even if they were elected by a landslide, why should Republican voters accept the results? "The Others" have just as much a right to not have a President who discusses class issues, as you have a right to have a President who does.

    3. Talking about class issues is a distraction from talking about the grooming of children to be trans in our pre-schools.

    4. Discussions of class issues, is a distraction from the global inflation that is only affecting the United States, because of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

    5. Talking about the rigged economy distracts from the nation's unemployment rate hitting a 50-year low.

    6. Loudermilk and the photos is far from a "non-issue" because it concerns an attempted coup by a president who wished to remain president despite losing reelection. That is a far bigger threat than any of the issues you mention because it concerns our nation as a whole and whether we remain a democracy or become a dictatorship. Other issues cannot be addressed without a government that permits us to address them.

    7. 8:09: I will remind you again: Somerby’s topic is Loudermilk. You are welcome to find a blog that actually discusses economic inequality.

    8. There is nothing substantially new in the accusations. The committee lacks prosecutorial power. No charges have been filed by Attorney General Merrick Garland against former President Donald Trump and none are expected. The choreographed hearings, like the two impeachment trials of Trump, will have no effect on Trump voters, other than to make them feel persecuted. The committee is designed to present inaction as action and substitute role-playing for politics. It is theater for disingenuous, lying trolls like yourself.

    9. "and none are expected"

      Meh. You're, perhaps, a bit naïve. It depends.

      "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime", as they say. Look what's happening to Julian Assange...

    10. 1:38: Take it up with Somerby. He has written almost exclusively about the hearings and about Loudermilk for a while now. My original comment addressed the topic of his post. Yours did not. You are the one exhibiting trolling behavior, bub.

  19. Does Sherrill really never tire of praising
    her past accomplishments? Or does Bob
    just begrudge them? Bob is Tucker lite here.

  20. Assange, 1:50? You mean, the man indicted by the Trump Administration:

    “Assange and his supporters have long speculated that he might be charged in the U.S. under the Espionage Act—a poorly written law that, if applied to his case, would set a precedent that could have a chilling effect on all of journalism. The Obama Administration, concerned about the implications for press freedoms, declined to prosecute him under the act. (It also allowed a hacking investigation against WikiLeaks to stall without bringing charges against the organization.) The indictment issued by Trump’s Department of Justice is instead based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—essentially, for a hacking-related conspiracy)”

    Why didn’t the Commander pardon him?

    1. Is there a relevant point you were trying to make, dear? Outside of the usual TDS rant, that is. It doesn't sound like there is one.

      Do you agree that anyone can be indicted, or not?

      ...and if they do indict The Commander, needless to say it should be done in the most opportune time. If it's this year, then what -- October? Or the day regular goes ten bucks/gallon? Consultants will make their recommendations...

    2. "Is there a relevant point you were trying to make, dear?"
      Here 's the relevant point:
      Dembot, zombie, poo-pooh, cuccka, dembot zombie, dear.

  21. The idea that not every Republican voter is not a bigot, is the worst political take you will read this century.

    1. anon 8:44, could you give it a rest? Really dumb.

    2. It is really dumb and it's an obvious troll, a cry for attention, look at me!

      Question to the 8:44 troll. Is it really true that you don't have a single friend or family member that votes Republican? Or even someone you respect, say at work or school or whatever you do? Not one?

    3. I dropped my racists friends and family from my life decades ago. It’s done wonders for my mental health.

    4. Anyone who isn’t a bigot, or isn’t perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party more than two decades ago.

    5. 9:23,
      Blame Bob for me thinking all Republican voters are bigots. He’s the one who told me to listen to what they say.

    6. Well that's kind of sad. I'm sorry that bigotry exists and had such an impact on you. I would like to give you a virtual hug, no strings attached and no sarcasm intended. Hope you have a nice remainder of the day.

    7. Signed, the horrible guy that posts the "both sides" / defense of Bob stuff that you hate. I genuinely mean the well wishes! Sometimes it's good to take a break from the bickering.