Bulwark Report: When All You Have Is an Anti-Trump Hammer…

 

I think Jonathan V. Last is a very funny fellow, in a dark and sardonic way. I enjoy him on the Sub-Beacon podcast and wherever else I hear him. He’s an amusing, irreverent, nebbish fellow, and I don’t like saying bad things about him.

But his latest piece at The Bulwark, entitled Donald and Jussie, Birds of a Feather, is trying too hard to fulfill The Bulwark’s mission, which is to spare no expense, grace, or integrity in its effort to besmirch the all-too-readily besmirchable President Trump.

JVL writes:

First, here’s President Donald Trump claiming “complete and total exoneration” of all charges in the Mueller investigation.

[ video clipped ]

And now here’s actor Jussie Smollett claiming that he’d been “truthful and consistent” in the face of charges that he’d committed a hate-crime hoax.

[ video clipped ]

The symmetry here is perfect. Absolutely perfect. The only thing we really know from Bob Mueller’s lips is that on the subject of obstruction: “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That’s eerily similar to the words said by the prosecutor who dismissed the charges against Smollett, saying that he “does not believe [Smollett] is innocent.”

Now you can believe that both of these men have been judged as innocent because the legal system has declined to prosecute them. Or you can believe that both of them can be viewed with suspicion because the official verdict of the legal system is not the last word in actual culpability.

But you cannot claim that one of them must now be treated as totally and completely innocent but that the other is clearly guilty. Which is what most of America seems to be doing.

Do you see what he did there? It’s true that President Trump overstated the case with his “complete and total exoneration” comment. But is it true, as JVL claims, that the “symmetry here is perfect?”

On the one hand, we have a man who has just been definitively cleared of a charge that has hounded him for two years, who knew he was innocent the day the investigation started, who has professed his innocence all along, who could have stopped the investigation at any point but chose not to, and who almost certainly has not obstructed justice and, if he hasn’t, is fully aware that he hasn’t and that the justice department will now agree with him.

On the other hand, we have a man who has just been mysteriously absolved of responsibility for a crime he certainly committed, who has lied since the first moments of his case, and who continues to lie about his innocence now.

What Trump is saying, in essence, is “I didn’t collude with the Russians, and I didn’t obstruct justice in the investigation of a crime I know I didn’t commit. I allowed the investigation to run to its conclusion. I am exonerated.” His mistake was in his failure to add “… or I will be in a few days when the justice department acknowledges that I didn’t obstruct justice,” as it undoubtedly will.

What Smollett is saying is “I am innocent,” when in fact the little fraud is guilty as sin and everyone knows it.

That’s only “symmetric” if you’re tilted as far to one side as the good folks at The Bulwark appear to be.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 249 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Jager (View Comment):

    Fine, if you are going to quote or defend the Bulwark you should expect a reaction as well. Garbage insults to conservatives from the so-called right. 
    https://thebulwark.com/the-age-of-trumpshevism/

    Today they have a fine post up discussing the Trumpshevic (a combination of Trump and Blushevic) co-religonists. With fun insulting comments like on immigration you are “dey tuk er jerbz” (translates to: they took our jobs) and “ayyymnasty” (amnesty). 

    If this is what the Party of Reagan supports then the Party of Reagan is dead. IF this is a principled argument, then these people never actually had any principles what so ever. 

    Thank you for reading that dumpster fire so that we don’t have to.

    How can anyone defend this garbage? 

    • #61
  2. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The Bullwark deals with far more than everything Trump. An example are three recent articles about Democrats who are running for office.

    Sure Molly Jung-Fast has a “great” piece up about Comey. So not exactly Trump.

    She helpfully contrasts the Fox News MAGA hat wearers with the educated elite who read the New York Times. (You can’t be smart and like Trump being a useful view to regain importance on the Right)

    She stipulates that Comey in his personal life is a good man but is still annoying as [redacted]. The high brow site Bullwark does not redact that word, it is printed.  She also draws important and classy analogies like “Mueller is more likely to bang Stormy than to get on Twitter”

    Very high brow stuff, truly the stuff of the classy party of Reagan. 

    • #62
  3. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Both Trump and Smollett lied and are liars. Smollett’s one lie is much worse than any of Trump’s

    So this pretty much undermines your point that the comparison was “perfect”.

    More to the point, what Gary did is replace Last’s claim with a different one. Last was talking about two specific events: the President’s response to the Mueller report, and Smollett’s response to the nullification of charges against him. Those events, and not the overall character of the two men, are what he was declaring perfectly symmetric.

    I think there’s a tendency in staunchly anti-Trump circles to use “Trump is bad” as a meta-argument to be invoked in every instance, and I think that’s what’s happening here. Last made a specific claim about a specific instance — a silly claim, in my opinion — and Gary’s response is to point out that Trump is bad, as if other dishonest comments of Trump’s somehow reflect on the particular thing he said in this instance. It’s a kind of ad hominem attack. I think it’s also one of the things that makes it hard for staunchly anti-Trump people to judge the man fairly in any particular instance.

    • #63
  4. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t have been mad either – IF they had dropped it after the election. Things are said during campaigns and then we move on. Except they didn’t move on. As in the Bronx Tale: “now you’s can’t leave”. Now it has to be hashed out. The HRC infractions I suspect this was all designed to cover up; the weaponization of the federal government against a political opponent;the fake news; and last HRC’S and known collusion with foreign agents including Russian ones in order to influence the election. Either this is treason for all or its not treason at all. I always said it’s not treason, but if a meeting where nothing happened and a funny campaign joke are amounting to treason then HRC is the h-bomb to Trump’s grenade and hers is a much bigger threat.

    I think we have to put Hillary’s betrayal in its full context (sorry for going OT). She was Secretary of State! She never once used her secure government account. All her communications — every last one — went through her unsecured private server. I am as sure as I am of anything that she exposed American secrets to hostile foreign governments’ (plural) intelligence gathering operations. And she knew it all along.

    It is possible, if not likely, American assets were damaged, if not destroyed, by her actions.  By which I mean, she probably got Americans killed — without remorse and as Secretary of State.

    I can think of no other better example of the two-tiered justice system than Hillary walking around a free woman. There are the rules for powerful Democrats, and then there are the rules for the rest of us. This will not end well, and is a much greater threat to our republic than whatever threat Gary thinks Trump is to Reaganism.

    • #64
  5. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I think that they have proved that Obama knew she had a private server, too. Thug government. Get yours.

    • #65
  6. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I think that they have proved that Obama knew she had a private server, too. Thug government. Get yours.

    Absolutely. He communicated with her on it via a pseudonymous account. Why would he do that if he didn’t know? The corruption goes straight to the top.

    • #66
  7. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Bulwark appears to be driving their train wreck of a magazine from irrelevance to inanity.

    They wanted to create a new political movement and all they got is a very exclusive members only coffee clutch.

    The Bulwark has 500 contributors like me who help fund the effort, and chipped in without being asked. Their daily traffic for the podcast and down of articles is increasing. As I have said, The Bulwark is second only to Ricochet.

    There is another aspect that must be mentioned. My parents divorced when I was in college. And I love both of my parents. I love both Ricochet and The Bulwark. The folks at The Bulwark have never attacked Ricochet. But some folks at Ricochet will attack The Bulwark. This feels not unlike my sainted mother saying negative stuff about my father; I don’t like it. I want to be able to love both of my parents, and I want to be able to love both Ricochet and The Bulwark.

    My point is Bulwark is free to say whatever they feel is the right thing to say.

    But at some point as you try to start your parade you may want to take a look back and take notice that only a scant few are following along. From there Bulwark may want to do some introspection and alter their tactics.

    As of now Bulwark has garnered a very niche market, which in politics will garner you irrelevance.

    While the Weekly Standard never grew to the level of National Review, it was a strong and vital voice on the Right. Likewise, while The Bulwark may not be your cup of tea, it is growing too, and has established itself as a vital voice on the Right, and I am one of the 500+ contributors who, without being asked, spontaneously stated sending The Bulwark money.

    I’m not an expert business consultant by any means, but my gut sense tells me if your business model is to insult the vast majority of your potential customer base you will not be a “going concern” for very long.

    • #67
  8. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):
    I’m not an expert business consultant by any means, but my gut sense tells me if your business model is to insult the vast majority of your potential customer base you will not be a “going concern” for very long.

    First rule of business — don’t kill (off) the customer.

    • #68
  9. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Bulwark appears to be driving their train wreck of a magazine from irrelevance to inanity.

    They wanted to create a new political movement and all they got is a very exclusive members only coffee clutch.

    The Bulwark has 500 contributors like me who help fund the effort, and chipped in without being asked. Their daily traffic for the podcast and down of articles is increasing. As I have said, The Bulwark is second only to Ricochet.

    There is another aspect that must be mentioned. My parents divorced when I was in college. And I love both of my parents. I love both Ricochet and The Bulwark. The folks at The Bulwark have never attacked Ricochet. But some folks at Ricochet will attack The Bulwark. This feels not unlike my sainted mother saying negative stuff about my father; I don’t like it. I want to be able to love both of my parents, and I want to be able to love both Ricochet and The Bulwark.

    My point is Bulwark is free to say whatever they feel is the right thing to say.

    But at some point as you try to start your parade you may want to take a look back and take notice that only a scant few are following along. From there Bulwark may want to do some introspection and alter their tactics.

    As of now Bulwark has garnered a very niche market, which in politics will garner you irrelevance.

    While the Weekly Standard never grew to the level of National Review, it was a strong and vital voice on the Right. Likewise, while The Bulwark may not be your cup of tea, it is growing too, and has established itself as a vital voice on the Right, and I am one of the 500+ contributors who, without being asked, spontaneously stated sending The Bulwark money.

    I’m not an expert business consultant by any means, but my gut sense tells me if your business model is to insult the vast majority of your potential customer base you will not be a “going concern” for very long.

    The real business model is a non-profit model that pleases the patron and not the consumer. There are lots of patronage dollars available for this kind of stuff. Just ask Fusion GPS.

    • #69
  10. Jack Hendrix Inactive
    Jack Hendrix
    @JackHendrix

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I think that they have proved that Obama knew she had a private server, too. Thug government. Get yours.

    Absolutely. He communicated with her on it via a pseudonymous account. Why would he do that if he didn’t know? The corruption goes straight to the top.

    I don’t have much to add here, this thread got boring almost immediately. Having strong feelings about political writers is bewildering to me.

    But I want to comment on the email thing. I really used to get hot about it. It seemed reckless and the cover up was blatant. But after the last 3 years, I don’t really care. It’s been a crazy few years and it’s raised my tolerance for political scandal. 

    Using a private server and destroying it? Ok sure not great. But now I don’t get out of bed unless we got treason, the actual kind.

    Paying off porn stars and lying about it? Meh. 

    Lying about secret meetings with Russian agents? Meh. Show me the treason!

    Hiring a lobbyist for Putin stooges to run your campaign? Meh.

    Heck, I don’t even know what all the fuss was with Monica and Bill anymore! Who cares amirite?

    Its been a bit liberating really.

    To prevent (or try to) responses about the FBI and a Coup!! Or reversing the election!! Let me add this: from what I know, the FBI in DC seemed crazy and took action to investigate a president/candidate because they didn’t like him. (Ok Trump was from planet crazy compared to most pols so I kinda get the fear) That’s awful and scary. But I need more before my hair spontaneously combusts.

     

    • #70
  11. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):
    Having strong feelings about political writers is bewildering to me.

    I would like to see your point here, but the issue is these writers tell their readership that they have strong negative feelings about me.

    They send a pro-choice lady to CPAC to send out insulting tweets about Pro-life people.

    They compare Trump voters to Bolsheviks and religious cult members. 

    If these people get to publicly hate me, I am going to publicly (as much as my limited ability) hate them back. 

    • #71
  12. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    Using a private server and destroying it? Ok sure not great. But now I don’t get out of bed unless we got treason, the actual kind.

    Did you miss the part about Americans dying and hostile foreign intelligence operations knowing everything the Secretary State knows about state secrets? Meh??? Really??

    Paying off porn stars and lying about it? Meh. 

    How did that damage America and Americans?

    Lying about secret meetings with Russian agents? Meh. Show me the treason!

    You do know that meeting was a set-up by Fusion GPS, right? That Glenn Simpson met with the Russian operative before and after? But, meh. 

    That Manafort worked for the Ukranians, not Putin?

    Jeeze, dude, I think when the DNC, top agents of government, the media, and foreign actors are conspiring to overturn an election, it’s a little different from paying off a porn star so your wife doesn’t find out what you’ve been up to. Make some distinctions.

     

    • #72
  13. Jack Hendrix Inactive
    Jack Hendrix
    @JackHendrix

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    Using a private server and destroying it? Ok sure not great. But now I don’t get out of bed unless we got treason, the actual kind.

    Did you miss the part about Americans dying and hostile foreign intelligence operations knowing everything the Secretary State knows about state secrets? Meh??? Really??

    Paying off porn stars and lying about it? Meh.

    How did that damage America and Americans?

    Lying about secret meetings with Russian agents? Meh. Show me the treason!

    You do know that meeting was a set-up by Fusion GPS, right? That Glenn Simpson met with the Russian operative before and after? But, meh.

    That Manafort worked for the Ukranians, not Putin?

    Jeeze, dude, I think when the DNC, top agents of government, the media, and foreign actors are conspiring to overturn an election, it’s a little different from paying off a porn star so your wife doesn’t find out what you’ve been up to. Make some distinctions.

    Yeah I don’t get this reaction at all. I think you’re viewing the evidence from a partisan lens, half the country has the exact opposite viewpoints from those you listed.

    Also, your projecting a lot on to me here. It’s ok to not get that invested in DC politics. That’s where I am.

    But again, I’m just not that mad. I got plenty to be mad at, dirty politicians in DC is low on my list.

    • #73
  14. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    This is not a game. Trump and his band of victimly populists have invaded the House of Reagan, and taken it over. Trump has ruled by tweet, silencing Senators like Corker or Flake and forcing politicians like Ryan and McConnell to submit to him.

    Algorithmic delusion. There was no invasion – it’s called an election.

    Corker and Flake haven’t been silenced – they lost reelection bids and remain free to speak all their live long days. Unfortunately for the rest of us.

    Ryan and McConnell forced to submit to Trump? What in the ever loving [redacted] are you talking about? Seriously Gary: what are you even talking about? There’s been no submission let alone forced submission (although I hear if you’re rich they just let you do it).

    • #74
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Corker and Flake haven’t been silenced – they lost reelection bids and remain free to speak all their live long days. Unfortunately for the rest of us.

    Flake is going to be just like Scarborough. His views are going to be driven by money. 

    • #75
  16. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Reagan led by good humor and an appeal to the best in us. Trump leads by force, attack and denigration. Reagan appreciated our support; Trump demands it.

    Taking back the House of Reagan is the highest priority, even more important than the 2020 General Election.

    Let me put it this way. Was it wrong for Reagan to challenge Ford in 1976? And was it wrong for Republicans to force Nixon to retire in 1974. I think the answer to both questions is “no.” Yes, we Had to put up with one term of Carter, after the 1976 election, but then we then had three glorious terms under Reagan and his Vice President in 1980, 1984, and 1988.

    Reagan denigrated and attacked too. Trump uses humor too.

    Trump is not Nixon. Turns out that Trump didn’t do any of the things you seem certain he’s done. Nixon, on the other hand, did do those things. Unnecessarily as it turns out. 

    Anyone is free to mount a campaign. It’s not wrong, but it may be dumb. I don’t know if Reagan was wrong or dumb or justified to challenge Ford in ’76. I think there’s probably a plausible case that it didn’t help anyone. There’s also a plausible case that Ford had zero chance of winning after being the the guy appointed once Nixon resigned, and Ford should have realized this (kinda like Jeb should have realized that no one wanted another Bush president).  But again, Trump is not Nixon, Russia Collusion Hoax is not Watergate. 

     

    • #76
  17. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    Rodin (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Bulwark appears to be driving their train wreck of a magazine from irrelevance to inanity.

    They wanted to create a new political movement and all they got is a very exclusive members only coffee clutch.

    The Bulwark has 500 contributors like me who help fund the effort, and chipped in without being asked. Their daily traffic for the podcast and down of articles is increasing. As I have said, The Bulwark is second only to Ricochet.

    There is another aspect that must be mentioned. My parents divorced when I was in college. And I love both of my parents. I love both Ricochet and The Bulwark. The folks at The Bulwark have never attacked Ricochet. But some folks at Ricochet will attack The Bulwark. This feels not unlike my sainted mother saying negative stuff about my father; I don’t like it. I want to be able to love both of my parents, and I want to be able to love both Ricochet and The Bulwark.

    My point is Bulwark is free to say whatever they feel is the right thing to say.

    But at some point as you try to start your parade you may want to take a look back and take notice that only a scant few are following along. From there Bulwark may want to do some introspection and alter their tactics.

    As of now Bulwark has garnered a very niche market, which in politics will garner you irrelevance.

    While the Weekly Standard never grew to the level of National Review, it was a strong and vital voice on the Right. Likewise, while The Bulwark may not be your cup of tea, it is growing too, and has established itself as a vital voice on the Right, and I am one of the 500+ contributors who, without being asked, spontaneously stated sending The Bulwark money.

    I’m not an expert business consultant by any means, but my gut sense tells me if your business model is to insult the vast majority of your potential customer base you will not be a “going concern” for very long.

    The real business model is a non-profit model that pleases the patron and not the consumer. There are lots of patronage dollars available for this kind of stuff. Just ask Fusion GPS.

    I worked for a company that was classified as a “Non-Profit”. When we were tasked with coming up with a Mission Statement, we joked it should be “our name and – putting the ‘non’ in ‘non-profit!”

    • #77
  18. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    “It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

    You keep posting this, but nobody knows if Russia did it.

    They definitely got the United States Secretary of State’s emails, though.

    And even if Russia did the hacking, no one knows that their motive was to help Trump win the presidency. It’s all speculation. Biased speculation at that.

    • #78
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    And even if Russia did the hacking, no one knows that their motive was to help Trump win the presidency. It’s all speculation. Biased speculation at that.

    That’s what I think. Clinton was more of a dove on military spending. She did the stupid reset button. People act like this is locked up one way or the other. It isn’t. They clearly wanted to sew chaos.

    • #79
  20. Jack Hendrix Inactive
    Jack Hendrix
    @JackHendrix

    Jager (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):
    Having strong feelings about political writers is bewildering to me.

    I would like to see your point here, but the issue is these writers tell their readership that they have strong negative feelings about me.

    They send a pro-choice lady to CPAC to send out insulting tweets about Pro-life people.

    They compare Trump voters to Bolsheviks and religious cult members.

    If these people get to publicly hate me, I am going to publicly (as much as my limited ability) hate them back.

    Well, I don’t know if these guys and gals hate you but let’s leave that alone. I don’t see the benefit in hating back. Isn’t that what this site is all about? Civil conversation, not only for its own sake, but to reduce the enmity between people with different views?

    I know, very naive, and probably doesnt apply. But this tit for tat jazz is why Twitter is warped and spreading into the real world. These mobs at Little Red Hen and the like, ye gods it’s hate comments come to life!

    Full disclosure, I recently listened to Arthur Brooks discuss his new book so I’m in a particularly zen state.

    • #80
  21. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    We aren’t the Bulwark turncoats. We are the Reagan Republicans who are holding the high watch while the rest of the party has been swept away by Trump. Trump will fail. And after he does, we will be there to rebuild the party with Trump’s former followers.

    Gary, I don’t think that this is correct, and I think that the way that you phrase it is indicative of the problem.

    You are not part of “the Reagan Republicans who are holding the high watch,” because this formulation implies that I am not a Reagan Republican.  I am a Reagan Republican.  I agree that you are, too.

    Most of the Bulwark folks don’t look like Reagan Republicans to me.  They look like Rockefeller Republicans.  I do not say that this applies to all of them, but this is my overall impression.

    From the polling, it appears that most Reagan Republicans are on Trump’s side.  You are not.  Your thesis is that I am — I don’t know, something like Donald Sutherland at the end of Body Snatchers.  I don’t think that this is correct.

    If, hypothetically, I were to concede that the Bulwark folks are Reagan Republicans, then this implies that they — and you — are violating one of Reagan’s core strategies.  You know, the 11th Commandment.

    You can say that Trump started it first.  I think that this is demonstrably incorrect, factually.  McCain attacked Trump first.  National Review attacked Trump first.  Romney attacked Trump first.  Frankly, attacked Trump first, as I strongly opposed him during the primaries, and I agree that there was good reason to do so.  Trump counterattacked with astounding skill and forcefulness.

    The concerns that I had during the primaries, and even through the general election, have been greatly alleviated by the President’s performance in office.  I think that you even agree with this.  I do not understand why you continue your wholehearted opposition.

    I do know that it is not just pride.  You have demonstrated an ability to admit when you were wrong.  So it’s something else.

    • #81
  22. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t have been mad either – IF they had dropped it after the election. Things are said during campaigns and then we move on. Except they didn’t move on. As in the Bronx Tale: “now you’s can’t leave”. Now it has to be hashed out. The HRC infractions I suspect this was all designed to cover up; the weaponization of the federal government against a political opponent;the fake news; and last HRC’S and known collusion with foreign agents including Russian ones in order to influence the election. Either this is treason for all or its not treason at all. I always said it’s not treason, but if a meeting where nothing happened and a funny campaign joke are amounting to treason then HRC is the h-bomb to Trump’s grenade and hers is a much bigger threat.

    I think we have to put Hillary’s betrayal in its full context (sorry for going OT). She was Secretary of State! She never once used her secure government account. All her communications — every last one — went through her unsecured private server. I am as sure as I am of anything that she exposed American secrets to hostile foreign governments’ (plural) intelligence gathering operations. And she knew it all along.

    It is possible, if not likely, American assets were damaged, if not destroyed, by her actions. By which I mean, she probably got Americans killed — without remorse and as Secretary of State.

    I can think of no other better example of the two-tiered justice system than Hillary walking around a free woman. There are the rules for powerful Democrats, and then there are the rules for the rest of us. This will not end well, and is a much greater threat to our republic than whatever threat Gary thinks Trump is to Reaganism.

    I agree with everything you say. It’s just that the principle of peaceful transitions of power and avoiding never ending dualing investigations of political opponents is a big principle. Is it big enough of a principle to just move on after the election satisfied that HRC is out of power and likely will never regain it? That would have been ok with me (and I think Trump too based on some of his post-election overtures). Except that HRC, the Dems, and the press couldn’t move on – they pressed it and pressed it. At a certain point there’s no response except to lock the door and hash it out, but that is a last resort IMO. 

    • #82
  23. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    “It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

    You keep posting this, but nobody knows if Russia did it.

    They definitely got the United States Secretary of State’s emails, though.

    Every one of the U.S. intelligence agencies would beg to differ with you.

    • #83
  24. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Jack Hendrix (View Comment):

    People are still talking about the mueller report?

    Just wait until it is published!

    Gary, do you think Trump colluded with Russia?

    I believe that there was probable cause to believe that Trump colluded with Russia.  Charlie Sykes quoted David Frum as follows:

    “It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

    “It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that agents purporting to represent Putin’s Russia approached the Trump campaign to ask whether help would be welcome, to which Donald Trump Jr. replied, ‘If it’s what you say I love it…’

    “It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Donald Trump publicly welcomed this help: ‘I love WikiLeaks!'”

    https://thebulwark.com/no-collusion-no-exoneration/

    However, Mueller concluded that such suspected collusion could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so I no longer believe that Trump colluded with Russia.  

    • #84
  25. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Taking back the House of Reagan is the highest priority, even more important than the 2020 General Election.

    So 90% of GOP voters are wrong, and you are part of the 10% who are right.

    And, that 10% is going to restore the party to greatness just as soon as Trump is gone? I cannot speak for anyone but me, but I can say that I will never vote for or support any party with the likes of you running it.

    You may feel differently if Trump is defeated, and we lose a half dozen Senators and hundreds more legislators in the 2020 elections.

    Trump’s support, while broad, is not deep.  About 40-45% of Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire would welcome a Republican Primary.

    • #85
  26. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I frankly don’t think that Trump is innocent, just that he isn’t guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the issue of collusion.

    @garyrobbins, I am a little surprised with this comment. Now if you said that you are withholding judgement until more than the Barr summary is released that would be fine. But the Barr summary pointed out that not only was their no collusion but that attempts by the Russians to offer assistance were rebuffed. If Barr is lying or grossly mischaracterizing that is one thing, but if true, that statement underscores why there was a finding of no conspiracy, not just insufficient evidence. Be fair, @garyrobbins.

    All we have is the Barr summary of the 300+ page Mueller report where Barr does not even quote full sentences from the Mueller Report.  I will await the release of the Mueller Report.

    • #86
  27. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Most of the Bulwark folks don’t look like Reagan Republicans to me. They look like Rockefeller Republicans. I do not say that this applies to all of them, but this is my overall impression.

    Perfect. 

    It’s the guys on the Niskinen Center list and that deal that owns The Bulwark. That is a good, general way to think about it.

    • #87
  28. Roderic Fabian Coolidge
    Roderic Fabian
    @rhfabian

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DonG (View Comment):

    Here’s an appropriate logo for the Bulwark turncoats. Their business model is Trolling Trump, so why not a Trump Troll doll??

    We aren’t the Bulwark turncoats. We are the Reagan Republicans who are holding the high watch while the rest of the party has been swept away by Trump. Trump will fail. And after he does, we will be there to rebuild the party with Trump’s former followers.

    Trump has done pretty well so far in the face of implacable, rabid opposition.  I don’t see him failing.

    Scott Adams said that the Trump haters would not change their minds in the face of their complete refutation.  The facts would not affect their opinions.  He was right, but it’s still shocking to hear people like Rep. Schiff talking.

    But here’s the bottom line: Trump will go on being the President and promulgating conservative policies far better than any eGOP pol could have ever done.  That’s a good thing.

    • #88
  29. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    “It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

    You keep posting this, but nobody knows if Russia did it.

    They definitely got the United States Secretary of State’s emails, though.

    Every one of the U.S. intelligence agencies would beg to differ with you.

    You’re still looking at that assessment as something real? Did you read it? I did – pure speculation. Biased speculation. Tortured speculation.

    My counter speculation is that they knew this assessment wouldn’t fly as the basis for their ginned up investigation of a political opponent, so they pinned it all on the ginned up pee-pee dossier instead thinking Trump would lose anyway. 

    Wrong on all accounts. 

    • #89
  30. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I think that they have proved that Obama knew she had a private server, too. Thug government. Get yours.

    Absolutely. He communicated with her on it via a pseudonymous account. Why would he do that if he didn’t know? The corruption goes straight to the top.

    I am not in the defending Hillary business!  She is clearly corrupt.  See Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, and Bill’s speaking fees.  

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.