STARTING TOMORROW: Under the Big Top!

MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2022

A vast nation, coming undone:  The new arrival on the front has choked off all other conversation.

The conversation about this arrival sketches the shape of a very large nation in serious disarray.

The conceptual chaos is general! On CNN's State of the Union, manifest nonsense like this was treated as if it made sense:

JENNINGS (8/14/22): I mean, I sort of felt this week like we're at the circus now. We're all under the Big Top. 

And this can only end one of two ways: He's got to be indicted, or Merrick Garland has to resign. 

You can't raid the president's house, the former president, and possible future candidate, say to the American people, "We think he's violating three different laws," and then do nothing.

So this has—to me—

KEILAR: Was it justified?

JENNINGS: Well, yes. If you think there are classified documents—and I totally get, if you have got top-secret information—which we don't know what it is, by the way—but if you got these documents, and they're not supposed to be out in the open, absolutely. 

But this cannot end in any—in any other way. I mean, how could it possibly end with just, "Well, OK, we got them back, and it's over now?" That—there's no going back now.

Scott Jennings is CNN's resident conservative commentator. CNN turns to Jennings for conservative reaction from someone who isn't out of his mind.

In fairness, Jennings was certainly right on one score. He was right when he said that we, the conceptually scattered American people, are all under the Big Top now.

Scott Jennings was certainly right when he said that our world's a circus! But in his own turn in the center ring, Jennings offered this:

He said the search of Mar-a-Lago was justified—but also, he said that Merrick Garland may have to resign!

Jennings said Garland will have to resign if Donald Trump isn't indicted. Please don't make us run through the various ways this reasoning doesn't make sense.

Now that you've let that cup pass from our lips, we'll outline one such possibility. In some world, it could turn out that Trump was being misinformed by his Florida lawyers, at least one of whom is a fairly obvious nut.

It could turn out that Donald J. Trump actually didn't know that there were top-secret documents on his property, among his possessions. This is one of the three million possibilities which could turn out to be true.

On the other hand, was Trump knowingly holding those top-secret documents? We have no way of knowing, but that's an obvious possibility too! Indeed, here's how far NBC's Ken Delanian was willing to go as he imagined some possibilities on yesterday's Meet the Press:

DILANIAN (8/14/22): There's so much we don't know because we haven't seen that affidavit of probable cause where the FBI lays out the justification [for conducting the search]. 

There's a couple of possibilities here. One is that this was just about getting the documents back. The FBI has their documents. That's the end of it. 

Another is that there were crimes committed here about the mishandling of information, and we'll see a case go forward. 

And then the third, most ominous possibility is it's something even worse than that. It's about: What was Donald Trump doing with those documents? Why did he have them there? Some of these documents would be worth billions of dollars to our adversaries, Andrea.

Speaking with guest host Andrea Mitchell, Dilanian floated the possibility that the documents in question could have been worth billions of dollars to Trump on the open market. (Stephanie Ruhle had floated the same possibility last Friday night.)

Is it possible that Trump was planning to sell those documents to foreign adversaries? Stating the ominously obvious, that's a possibility too—though that doesn't mean that it's true!

Jennings was right in one basic way, Dilanian in another. Jennings said we're all under the Big Top now. Dilanian stressed the fact that "there's so much we [still] don't know."

What are some of the things we don't know? We still don't know how many top-secret documents were found at Mar-a-Lago.

We're told that Trump had five "sets" of top-secret documents—but how many top-secret documents actually come in a "set?" 

Did Trump have thousands of pages of top-secret materials, lugged away in five large boxes? Or did he possibly have twelve to fifteen sheets of top-secret paper, marbled through a huge array of White House menus, weather maps and letters from Kim-Jong Un?

How many documents is five "sets?" Is it a very large amount, or is it just a little? 

The conceptual weaknesses of us the people is such that we've never so much as seen this question arise. For today, let it represent the three million other things we the former people still don't know.

We the former people have now become we the disconnected tribes. Depending on which tribe we're in, we've heard different claims, and believe different things, about what happened last week.

We're living deep inside a Babel under a three (million)-ring Big Top. The intellectual skills of our upper-end scribes offer us No Way Out.

Hillary's emails are back in this world. So are a wide array of bogus or unfortunate claims, most of them, though not all, from The Other Side.

The chaos was general on C-Span this weekend. Within the upper reaches of cable news, things weren't ginormously better.

Meanwhile, there was George Will, making an eye-catching claim about us the American people. We clicked his link, then we clicked and we clicked and we clicked again.

We were swirled around and around, in a brain-dead circle. Such is our discourse now.

Tomorrow: Where to begin?


87 comments:

  1. "So are a wide array of bogus or unfortunate claims, most of them, though not all, from The Other Side."

    Here comes the "some lady who watches 'The View'" on the Left, and the entire Republican Party on the Right. So, you know, both sides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say most are not on "the other side." The entire Democrat party wants to castrate and sterilize children, denies the reality of sex and gender, thinks men can give birth, and tries to convince that a group of humans aren't humans and murdering them is fine (like Hitler).

      Delete
    2. anon 12:45, a large chunk of the Western world apparently, according to your logic, wants to "murder" a group of humans, apparently those who haven't been born yet. Even Ireland voted to legalize abortion. It's like Hitler!!?? Seems you're a bit of a religious zealot, or at least a zealot.

      Delete
    3. 1245,
      You're getting played by the Democrats.
      While they have you focussed on things no one cares about, they're doing things behind the scenes that might benefit minorities. It's a way to depress the Republican vote.
      Don't fall for it.

      Delete
    4. 12:45,
      We only want to sterilize MAGAT children after we take away all your AR-15s,and send armed IRS agents to your house to confiscate your property. Don't exaggerate so much.

      Delete
    5. "A giant country murders and imprisons subhuman Uyghurs. Nazis murdered millions and lots of people agreed with it. Get with the times!" Zombie Democrats think this way.

      Delete
    6. If you want to force men to cross their legs, just mention sterilization and castration in the same sentence. Fear is, of course, the point of all Republican propaganda. The people who worry about this the most are probably the ones who feel most insecure about their manhood, just as those who persecute women the most are the ones who are most sexually inadequate. It is no coincidence that men are the strongest proponents of anti-abortion laws and efforts to strip women of their rights. This is Misogyny 101.

      Delete
  2. How about Jennings resigning.

    ReplyDelete

  3. "The conceptual chaos is general!"

    What? What chaos, dear Bob?

    Meh. We don't see any chaos. What we do see is the usual:
    Orange Man Bad

    ...as for the circus and clown shows, just think about it, dear Bob: this is only mid-August! Two and a half months to go. The most exciting clown shows are still ahead, dear Bob.

    ...oh yeah: and please understand, dear Bob, that if all your tribe's clown shows fail, the WWIII option is always on the table. So, let us hope that your liberal death-cult achieves its scummy objectives before destroying the planet...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you suggesting Trump can't be charged because bigots love him?

      Delete
  4. On a positive note, Bob, Joe and Mika featured Peter Strzok defending the integrity of the FBI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. De-fund the police!

      Delete
    2. Cecraplia sees no problem with invading people's privacy as long as they aren't Donald Trump stealing classified documents.

      Delete
    3. Right, Anonymouse 5:08pm. It’s a privacy issue.

      Delete
    4. Strzok is not a buzz word here, Ceclia, not everybody here are dopes who will wet their pants when you say "Soros."

      Delete
    5. Cecraplia, it was Trump's job to protect those documents by keeping them secure. He failed in numerous ways. That is called dereliction of duty. Look up the word dereliction before replying. You should probably also look up duty. Trump took an oath. So, this is not a privacy issue. It is a matter of treason, incompetence, or corruption, but not privacy (because those documents didn't belong to Trump).

      The mistaken notion that everything in the country belongs to the king, may be why Trump thought it was OK to take home White House paintings and steal foreign gifts to the nation from the State Department.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 5:29pm, I appreciate all the anonymice efforts to run everything up the flagpole and ask me to salute it.

      It’s as compelling as the your usual endless appeals to some authority or another, that no one should question.

      When I feel you’re right about something, I’ll agree with you. That’s the best I can give you, so move on with the sterling recommendations and generous assurances on behalf of the people and processes you support.

      Delete
    7. I posted Trump's presidential oath of office and Section II, Article 3 of the Constitution where his responsibilities and powers are described, to show Cecelia that Trump was required to uphold the laws of our nation and not authorized to modify them or break them.

      Somerby deleted that comment. I don't know why, but it seems to me that every citizen should know what Trump's job required him to do.

      Those documents belong to the American people and they are required to be archived, not stored in a basement at his private club. All of the papers of his presidency are part of the record that needs to be preserved, not just for transparency but for the historical record. This is true whether they tend to incriminate him or not.

      There should be no argument about this. It is clear because it is in our Constitution and required by Trump's oath of office, which he swore on a Bible.

      Delete
  5. Well, we are back to the "stupidity defense" today, what if
    Trump had no idea laws governed the way he handled documents and he's crazy besides. Bob seems to think this makes hm bullet proof. Bob doesn't seem to know much
    about the law.
    In the meantime we might imagine some accounts where it turns out Trump had no idea that he couldn't take the documents. No reason Bob shouldn't sound even more
    silly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't you just extrapolate one from the other?

      Delete
  6. Oh, look there’s already been stories about what has been found in the search Bob, from helpful sources in the know.

    None of that nutso conspiracy stuff from the riff-raff, but solid gold chatter from solid gold upper echelon g-men and bureaucrats talking to reporters all the way into November.

    Here’s one now where “two federal government sources” told Newsweek that the documents may be so top secret concerning the identities of agents and such, that they may not be able to even hint at what they found or Trump’s role in it. They also pass along the info of all the fine machinations that has engaged the agency.

    Im absolutely certain that official unnamed sources will tell us more very soon and the media will pass those claims right along, no questions asked.

    https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-trump-raid-documents-could-reveal-intel-sources-us-payroll-1733230



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cecelia,
      I'm not ready to judge those stories, until the media tracks down every Republican operative in America's rural diners, and I can hear their takes.

      Delete
    2. Go ahead and hold your breath.

      Delete
    3. If there was anything to it besides the obvious clown show, it would have to be snatching the documents dangerous to various establishment figures and institutions. Surely Strzok and McCabe are not the only ones who can concoct an "insurance policy".

      Yeah. If so, paper shredders are probably working day and night now, getting smokin' hot...

      Delete
    4. Cecraplia, of course the press is asking questions. And notice that they have two sources, which is standard journalistic practice before running with an unattributed story. Somerby demands that named, on-the-record sources be found for every printed story, but no one else does. That's because Somerby's goal is to undermine faith in the mainstream media and press. Everyone else may reserve judgment and wait for more info, which eventually clarifies what happened. Somerby disagrees with the reserve judgment part and instead demands that we all disbelieve everything we read, even when there is sworn testimony presented in a congressional hearing. You are a fool if you take Somerby's advice on this.

      If you want to know whether the documents Trump took were important, look at the effort taken to retrieve them. Look at how much taxpayer money has been spent and how man work hours. Look at the jeopardy Merrick Garland has placed himself in to enforce this law and get back those documents. None of that would happen if these weren't important to our national security and a gross breach procedures that has placed our country in danger. The FBI doesn't get involved in trivialities like trying to retrieve Trump's autograph book or his diary, if it weren't placing our country in peril.

      If the press were in the business of taking dictation and not investigation, it would have dutifully reprinted Trump's ever-changing excuses and left it at that. That is clearly not what has been happening. You can tell by the man-baby's tantrums.

      Somerby is pretending none of us know anything. That isn't true at all. We can be sure that the DOJ found what it was looking for, took it out of Mar a Lago, and is now trying to decide what to do about Trump's theft of highly classified documents.

      Delete
    5. Cebunglia, the reason why there are two sources for an unattributed story is that one source corroborates the other and makes it more likely both sources are providing reliable information. Look up the word corroborate before replying.

      Delete
    6. The order to confiscate all documents, classified or not, between the start of Trump’s presidency until he left office, means they’re focusing on 1/6 as well.

      The other benefit is starting up the unnamed sources leak a day till and for the mid-terms.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 5:23pm, you’re right. That’s such a complex scenario there, no one could ever put any sort of operation having to false leaks and reports over on a scrupulously questioning media.

      Delete
    8. If you believe a false leak has been perpetrated on the media, please describe it (and cite your own sources). Evidence please (look up the word evidence before replying). Simply claiming that everything you don't want to hear must be false is not how the media functions, nor how liberals think, nor how anyone trying to stay in touch with reality functions. You have not done anything like that -- neither has Somerby, who almost never provides evidence for any claim these days.

      Delete
    9. Cebunglia, they are focusing on 1/6 anyway. They didn't have to do this to investigate 1/6. If you suspect that Trump has been protecting those documents in order to stay out of trouble over 1/6, that is possible but it is just another theory, like the others proposed by the various experts who Somerby trashes regularly.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 5:41pm, I said the leak of Trump being under investigation over the Steele Dossier was ginned so the media could report on an unsubstantiated story of the pee tape.

      Anonymices didn’t believe that then, why now? Even after Comey denied that Trump was being investigated for this.

      But I’ll be glad to call out other bogus nonsense for you too when I see it.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 5:53pm, I believe that we all know that fishing expeditions exist and goodness knows everyone but anonymices is aware that anonymices don’t do coy very well.

      It just comes off as creepy.

      Delete
    12. It cannot be a 'fishing expedition" when the DOJ is recovering material that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump personally.

      If there is incriminating information among Trump's papers documenting his presidency, the people deserve to know about it. There is no law that allows Trump to cover up his crimes while president. If he is innocent, then it won't matter whether the DOJ reads what he stole or not. Only a guilty person has something to fear when his government papers are made public after his presidency.

      Trump behaves like a guilty person. But what else is new?

      Cejagofflia, it should make you shudder to think what Trump might need to hide concerning highly classified nuclear information. Creepy doesn't describe it. Trump was seriously talking about using nukes to break up hurricanes, for God's sake. This is why so many people are concerned about why he is hiding highly classified documents. This is serious stuff and he can do major damage, if he hasn't already. AND, I REPEAT, THOSE DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO TRUMP. They are not his to hide.

      Delete
    13. 5:41. You're gaslighting. Ie. Questioning if intelligence agencies have planted leaks they know they were false is not something anyone trying to stay in touch with reality does.

      Delete
    14. If the documents were serious nuclear secrets, you’d think the Justice Department would have demanded their return as soon as that was known. And if such documents are floating around Mar-a-Lago, why tell the world via a leak in the Washington Post?

      Delete
    15. Sidney Blumenthal was asking the same question.

      Delete
    16. @6:18 -- there is no reason for an intelligence service to plant a false leak, when all they have to do is give the information to the press directly, and it will be better believed and can still be released without identifying the sources themselves. People leak when they know they would get in trouble for releasing the info under their own name, as when Alito leaked his own brief (to nail down Roberts' vote) and when a member of Trunp's staff leaked something he was planning to do, to stop him using public pressure, when asking him not to do it had no impact on Trump's behavior.

      Most of the speculation about Trump's motives and whether he will be charged, is being done by people who have identified themselves, appeared on cable news, issued statements under their own names, on the record. Those are not "leaks."

      Delete
    17. They DOJ DID retrieve the documents promptly after realizing they were still in Trump's possession. They moved quickly, for a bureaucracy needing to go through due process to take possession of them.

      The documents were back in the government's hands by the time the raid was reported in the news. But there is no reason at all that they couldn't have fallen into the wrong hands while in Trump's custody. That is exactly the problem -- that they might be compromised, or that the have been and our national security services don't know the extent of the damage done to our national security.

      This is no joke.

      Delete
    18. Thanks for teaching us all about how leaks work! You are quite the expert.

      Was it 50 FBI agents found to be leaking to journalists re. pre-election investigations in 2016? It was 50 right? Or was it 60?

      https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/21-104.pdf

      Delete
    19. Were those false leaks or true ones?

      Delete
    20. Those were mostly the 100% false leaks re. Trump and Russia and some had to do with Clinton's server.

      Delete
    21. One was a leak to Giuliani that Comey was reopening the case on Clinton right before the election because of Weiner.

      Delete
    22. Don't we all know that the FBI/CIA leaks constantly in order to control the news cycle? The media will run with the story no matter what (if it fits their side's narrative) and it can't be traced back to anyone. It's perfect. Look at Afghanistan. Trump was getting ready to pull us out of Afghanistan and all of a sudden intelligence Services leak that they are bounties being given by Russia. Total b.s. But it accomplished what they wanted, it put an end to the withdraw.

      Delete
    23. Anonymouse 6:18pm, you do a great impersonation of a Soviet Era commissar in your insistence that every document Trump possesses belongs to the U.S. government and any resistance from this notion means he’s hiding some sort of crime.

      Would that apply to the little love notes that couples occasionally write to each other? The letters from a adult child asking for advice for a problem? Documents involving say…attorney-client privilege?

      Try typing in bigger caps. It’s makes your Soviet commissar trip even more dead on.

      Delete
    24. How do you know it is b.s.?

      Delete
    25. Trump wrote highly classified love notes? Wow! Or do you mean his love notes to Kim? Yes, those are presidential papers.

      Delete
    26. Look at this example of what they published based on an anonymous leak. Trump called it fake news and he was right. He was completely correct.

      https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-bounties-led-to-us-troops-deaths-intelligence-officials-believe

      Delete
    27. How do I know the Afghanistan Bounty story is bs? Are you saying that it is not?

      Delete
    28. First of all, Cec, Newsweek is a right wing publication now. Second, you don't have the duke of an idea who these “two federal government sources” are but you seem to have decided they are DoJ/FBI. How did you figure that out? Third, what you quoted is merely pure speculation on somebody's part.

      Finally, if you want to talk about leaks, let's talk about this. One day after some wingnut tried to attack the FBI in Cincinnati, somebody gave a copy of the warrant to Breitbart with the names of the FBI unredacted. And sure as shit, these agents and their families have now become targets of the lunatics on your side. So STFU, sister Cec.

      Delete
    29. I know it's bs because I've trained myself to spot that thing as it happens in real time. People like yourself can know it's bs because Joe Biden told you explicitly:

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-those-russian-bounties-dead-u-s-troops-biden-admin-n1264215

      Delete
    30. Letters written to the pres by the public and the answers are in the archives. Trump has a personal attorney and a white house attorney. His personal attorney should have his privileged documents. The white house attorney works for the people, not Trump. The DOJ knows that.

      Delete
    31. Show me where President Biden said it was bs.

      Delete
    32. “I know it because it happens all the time”how convining.

      Delete
  7. It is frustrating to invest time writing a comment only to have it disappear a few moments after being published. A cowardly way to run a blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is happening to me also more and more frequently.

      Delete
    2. It's never happened to me once.

      Delete
  8. Anonymouse 7:26pm, the warrant was for material classified and unclassified, between 2017 and 2020.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, those are the years he was in office. So?

      Delete
    2. That’s a broad span, huh?

      Delete
    3. He should not have any papers from his presidency because the Records Retention Act requires that they be archived — for his whole presidency.

      Delete
    4. They listed what they were seeking on the warrant. That makes it not fishing.

      Delete
    5. Look at the criteria- the span ofcan entire presidency, classified or NOT classified, and anything that you think looks off or that should be part of the archives.

      Fishing. And they got it.

      Delete
    6. "Go ahead and hold your breath."

      Cecelia,
      I want to live in your world, where the media doesn't need to run everything Democrats do by rural Republican voters in the diners of America's heartland.

      Any room for one more in your fantasyland?

      Delete
  9. Anonymouse7:29pm (aka mm), I didn’t say the government sources for the NewsWeek article were the DoJ or the FBI, just that this scenario is exactly the one we sat thru for over three years when everyone from the Orhs to the McCabe kept up a steady stream of phone calls to the press.

    That’s just one benefit of the timing of this brouhaha, they’ll put out a tidbit a day till November to keep the black cloud rolling. That’s the idea.

    I’m not a fan of doxing names, unless it’s mutually assured destruction, as in the publishing of reporters phone numbers and addresses after a NY paper published the names of locals with gun licenses.

    I was dismayed when the addresses of Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Barrett were published, along with the schools of their children. Same with Tucker Carlson’s address.

    What is it with anonymices telling people on blog boards to shut up. Are Breitbart staffers holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts? If so, please let this poor anonymouse Tourette’s plagued nutcase alone, Breitbart! She’s suffered enough and so have we.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When will you stop calling people mice? You are not a nice person.

      Delete
    2. You’re anonymous. You don’t have an identity and can’t with the same designation as every other anonymous. That’s the way you want it.

      Why would you care?

      Delete
    3. See, no empathy, just like every other conservative. You and Trump deserve each other.

      Delete
    4. Who am I supposed to have empathy for?

      Delete
    5. Other people. Has no one ever explained this to you?

      Delete
    6. Do I call David, Mao, AC/MA , Leroy, mh, or Ilya a mouse?

      Delete
    7. Depends on whether they comment anonymously. Name calling is not part of discussion. Why would you call anyone a mouse? You don’t care about other people.

      Delete
    8. No, you don’t care about having an identity. No one can hold you accountable for what you say from one day to the next.

      You want to be everyone and therefore no one.

      Maybe I should start calling anonymices the Borg.


      Delete
    9. Maybe you should play games somewhere else. Have you noticed that no one defends you here?

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 11pm, consider the playful variations you’ve seen today on the spelling of my name.

      The irony is that everyone knows who’s being addressed because the poster keeps the first two letters of my name in order that people will know who’s being poked fun at.

      If the anonymouse simply called me Dummy, some people might know he/she was referring to me, but others might think it was Mao or even an anonymouse. .

      My consistent name forces the anonymouse to recognize me as an individual. Your designation does not. That’s your choice.

      Delete
    11. Cecelia, I see you're aggrieved once again and concerned about the impact of the troubles facing the walking talking crime wave you call a former president.

      What you're describing is what was done to Hillary Clinton leading up to the 2016 election. The 6-year long investigation into the leaks coming out of the NY City FBI field office to Rudy, DeGenova and Victoria seems to have been forgotten to death. There were no leaks coming out of the Mueller team, unlike the man who never met a TV camera he didn't like, Kenneth W, Starr.

      This is what the headline in the New York Times was on Oct. 31, 2016:

      Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

      Anonymously sourced, of course. Meanwhile the sanctimonious Comey was busy applying the final coup de grace to Hillary's campaign.

      Yes, we were all concerned when beer bong Brett was not able to finish his dessert at the DC restaurant.

      You see no difference between a man who held the highest office in the land, poised to once again run for that office putting a target on the back of FBI agents and some unknown creep on the dark web?

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. Anonymouse 7:18am, an armed man came to Kavanaugh’s home in order to kill him.

      The addresses to justice’s kid’s schools were published.

      Merrick Garland wouldn’t enforce laws that make it a crime to put judges under such duress. Congress wouldn’t act either.

      Delete
    14. https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/fbi-s-response-to-attacks-on-pregnancy-clinics-undergoes-scrutiny/article_2a8b0528-f7dc-11ec-b233-df46926918cf.amp.html

      “There have been at least 40 violent attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, religious institutions, and other pro-life entities since the Dobbs leak and before the Court even issued its final opinion,” Grassley wrote.”

      Where’s the FBI on that? Hell…where’s the media?

      Delete
    15. Cecelia, the next time you make a good faith intellectually honest comment will be the first time.

      To be fair, Sessions or Barr never arrested Donald J Chickenshit either for putting judges under duress.

      You must be referring to the crazy person who dropped a dime on himself? I deplore anybody putting children at risk. Right now, as we speak, because of the man child you support recklessly releasing the names of the FBI agents who executed the search warrant, these agents and their families are being threatened. You want to read some of the shit the J6 committee members are being harassed with on a daily basis? Your party is currently in the middle of a purge, shouldn't you be working on that now?

      Delete
    16. Anonymouse 10:22am, yes, the armed guy, who was also rigged out with enough rope to bind several people, perceived he was on the verge of being collared, and asked for help.

      The fact that you forgot it happened and then minimized it after being reminded, says it all.

      If you’re anywhere near a “good faith” anything, get the heck outta there. You’re sure to melt.

      Delete
    17. I didn't forget about it, Cecelia. It was well reported in all the media. I think you're embellishing the incident a little.

      Nevertheless, you just refuse to address the difference between some crazy character and the man who was and would be President of the US putting his own FBI at risk.

      Delete
    18. Anonymouse 11:09am, I’m not forgetting that the Trump people put out the entire public document. We don’t know if Trump specifically told them to leave the names in or whether the people working for him at mar-a-lago intentionally or unintentionally or ignorantly did it.

      We do know for certain what specific decisions Garland and the congress made concerning the protests against conservative justices. We know the level of your concern for that. We do know that this is just a “squirrel!” move on your part to tar-and-feather anyone who doesn’t concur with you.

      Delete
    19. Sure, Cecelia, you can't figure out if the same guy who repeatedly and publicly put a target on Ruby Freeman's back approved the leak of the unredacted warrant to Breitbart?

      And what has he done since then besides pouring gasoline on the fire? Has he publicly apologized and repudiated the leak that had to come from his team? No - crickets.

      I promise I won't vote for the anonymous person who doxed beer bong Brett's home address, while your whole party is getting ready to coronate Donald J Chickenshit. You see the difference?

      Delete
    20. No, I don’t see the difference. You’ll vote for powerful people who would not move to stop the chaos outside the justices’ homes or to condemn it.

      Not that I could care even less as to who you vote for.

      You vote your druthers. I’ll vote mine. It’s the American way.

      Delete
    21. The "chaos"? You mean the wine and cheese party organized by beer bong Brett's neighbors? That law is unconstitutional. Aren't you the anti-cancel culture party? it was a protest you asshole. Not endangering the lives of law-enforcement agents you jackass. Understood, you will never admit what a catastrophically stupid mistake you made by handing power to that abomination.

      Delete
    22. I don’t have to guarantee anyone that if Trump isn't on the 2024 ticket, the candidate who is will be “worse than Trump.”

      That guarantee comes straight from you.

      Delete