Speaking Generally: Bill Barr on “One Damn Thing”

Even if it doesn’t normally win popularity contests, we like to keep things candid (but fun!) on the Ricochet podcast. And even if it cost US attorney general Bill Barr some popularity points, we still want to hang out with him! He’s just published his memoir One Damn Thing After Anotherand the gang do what they can to get at all the damn things. Barr proves still-adept at handling himself when things are coming in from all directions.

Rob also talks Ukraine and reassess the way history repeats itself; Peter applauds Elon Musk’s latest undertaking; and James wonders about the “groomer” conversation. Plus, shoutouts to Saint Augustine and Jenna Stocker–just cuz they’re awesome Ricochet members!

Music from this week’s podcast: You’ve Got to Stand for Somethin’ by John Mellencamp

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

Boll & Branch

Use Code: RICOCHET

ExpressVPN

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 459 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Concretevol (View Comment):
    ZERO court cases won alleging fraud

    Factually incorrect, as we’ve been over numerous times in multiple posts. 

    • #91
  2. davenr321 Coolidge
    davenr321
    @davenr321

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    I don’t understand any of the criticism of what Barr said. In this and other interviews he strikes me as frank, unapologetic, and disinterested in whatever political fallout there may be. He compliments Trump where he feels appropriate and he criticizes him using the same standard. I know there are many who will tolerate zero dissent from the Dear Leader but perhaps someone who was there, worked with Trump and was on his side through all this possibly knows more about it than you (or some random schmuck on youtube) does. The man does not have an axe to grind and is not looking for another job so is probably one of the more credible voices out there in my opinion.

    His explanation of the antifa and BLM riot prosecutions makes perfect sense. They many times wore masks, were throwing rocks through windows, acted at night, etc….. The Jan 6th rioters were in a super camera heavy environment, did not disguise themselves, and were in broad daylight. He also pointed out that there were many arrests and prosecutions (depending on local prosecutors in some cases) but that an eventual conviction of arson or vandalism was not usually followed up on or did not make the news.

    Great interview, thanks guys.

    That’s almost all there is to say, and almost exactly what I got out of this very good podcast. “Almost” in that I am thankful I did not hear Rob brag about loathing Trump…

     

    • #92
  3. Quickz Member
    Quickz
    @Quickz

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    https://www.theamistadproject.org/who-we-are

    I like this, and to add for anyone interested in learning more – Cleta Mitchel’s “Who’s Counting?” podcast and her Election Integrity Network has the doses of optimism needed for those embittered about 2020. Yes frustrating details of what happened and what was pushed aside and who did it, but you need to know, and even more so you need to hear what is being done! So much in so many states, it is a blast of energy each and every episode.

    Once I found it I went back and listened to many of the earlier episodes and it was great. I can’t recommend enough listening to this entire series.

     

    • #93
  4. Quickz Member
    Quickz
    @Quickz

    I wanted to apply the “history rhymes” to the administration-succession scenario that Barr laid out. He referenced feeble Carter through Reagan domination to hand-off to H.W., and then I felt it was offered as a “let’s get history to repeat itself” thought. That’s fine. But I like the “History Rhymes” more than repeats so let’s apply to this:

    Reagan’s win across states is just not likely to be repeated in 2024 no matter who the candidate because of how much national politics has changed and how much the electorate/states have self-selected. A resounding win electorally is still likely and that is a concrete hope for the GOP.

    But on the fresh-face v. Trump I have to disagree. The Trump phenomenon as it relates to the GOP is both a catalyst toward bringing in a massive new coalition, and a turn towards a different (I think better) direction for the GOP’s platform. Gone is the GOP of old, and I welcome this realignment. The best thing for this realignment in my mind would be Trump on the ticket for 2024 – it would continue to drive the new coalition together, and more likely than not usher in 4 years of a long-needed purge of sclerotic GOPe control of the party to the younger, fresher minds that see the realignment and will carry it forward.

    Upon winning (I’m just going to take that for granted for this), 45&7 can push for all the big changes and big ideas, taking all the energy out of the press while the congress (hopefully with that fresh leadership) passes bill after bill – ramming through what can be and holding up as campaign examples what cannot as the emblems of what the future of the party is about eventually passing (like platform policy – what an active party trying to win would do!)

    When the four years are up, and the country is again doing better than ever, the baton will be passed to the (hopefully) fabulous VP pick that 45&7 has in place for the next eight years.

    It’s like what Barr spoke of – but it rhymes instead of repeating itself. You still get the minimum 12 years of executive dominance, but you also get the best way to fully capture the new GOP voter/coalition and continue the healthy realignment of the GOP into a party that will dominate politics and policy for the 21th century – just like the opposing party did for the 20th – one could say that… rhymes.. 

    Thanks again Ricochet for a great podcast and a great discussion thread!

    Hey do we have an app yet? :)

    • #94
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Capt. Spaulding (View Comment):

    Apparently Justice-designate Jackson is destined to be known as “Brown.” Can I blame Jackson Brown?

    You could, except musician Jackson Brown is actually Jackson Browne.

    • #95
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):
    Not a single question about all of the documented instances of federal election law violations. Not a single acknowledgement of the dozens of legal cases currently pending about them.

    Not a single question about the ZERO court cases won alleging fraud……. if frivolous pending lawsuits were any kind of evidence of anything then Trump himself would be considered guilty since he has had many made against him. Maybe….and here me out……..Barr knows more than we do about if there were election fraud to the extent that the results were changed and concluded there wasn’t. In some people’s world he should still act like there was but in his world apparently not.

    But he couldn’t possibly have known that with any real security, when he said in December of 2020 that there wasn’t significant fraud.  As election audits etc since then, have proven.

    Barr’s approach reminds me of prosecutors etc who, after someone has run around shooting people while yelling “Allahu Akbar,” state that “the motive is unknown.”

    • #96
  7. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):
    AG Barr’s record at Justice was a wanton act of betrayal of not just Trump but the American People

    But of course betraying Trump being the important thing right?

    Barr’s Oath of Office was to the Constitution of the United States, not to Trump.

    In March 16, 1935, after the death of President Hindenburg, German soldiers no longer made an oath to the nation, but to a specific person.  That did not end well for Germany or the rest of the world.

    • #97
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):
    AG Barr’s record at Justice was a wanton act of betrayal of not just Trump but the American People

    But of course betraying Trump being the important thing right?

    Barr’s Oath of Office was to the Constitution of the United States, not to Trump.

    In March 16, 1935, after the death of President Hindenburg, German soldiers no longer made an oath to the nation, but to a specific person. That did not end well for Germany or the rest of the world.

    Do you think Barr’s service to the Deep State etc, was in keeping with his oath to the Constitution?

    Arguably, the oath to the Constitution for his office, was to serve the Constitutional office of the President, whoever it might be.  Doesn’t matter if the President’s name was Trump.

    • #98
  9. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Concretevol (View Comment):
    ZERO court cases won alleging fraud

    Factually incorrect, as we’ve been over numerous times in multiple posts.

    Golly, please cite the case number, the date of the decision, the name of the Judge(s), the location of the Court, e.g. Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, Case No. CV 2020-XXXXXXXX decided on date Y/Y/202Y, or U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case No. 2020- ZZZZZZZZZ decided on date A/A/2002A. 8  I would love to read that specific case.  

    The last time I looked, I there was a parking ticket of mine on line.  A parking ticket!  If you can’t provide me with a specific case name, number and the specific court, I must conclude that this case doesn’t exist in the real world.

    • #99
  10. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    davenr321 (View Comment):

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    I don’t understand any of the criticism of what Barr said. In this and other interviews he strikes me as frank, unapologetic, and disinterested in whatever political fallout there may be. He compliments Trump where he feels appropriate and he criticizes him using the same standard. I know there are many who will tolerate zero dissent from the Dear Leader but perhaps someone who was there, worked with Trump and was on his side through all this possibly knows more about it than you (or some random schmuck on youtube) does. The man does not have an axe to grind and is not looking for another job so is probably one of the more credible voices out there in my opinion.

    His explanation of the antifa and BLM riot prosecutions makes perfect sense. They many times wore masks, were throwing rocks through windows, acted at night, etc….. The Jan 6th rioters were in a super camera heavy environment, did not disguise themselves, and were in broad daylight. He also pointed out that there were many arrests and prosecutions (depending on local prosecutors in some cases) but that an eventual conviction of arson or vandalism was not usually followed up on or did not make the news.

    Great interview, thanks guys.

    That’s almost all there is to say, and almost exactly what I got out of this very good podcast. “Almost” in that I am thankful I did not hear Rob brag about loathing Trump

    Speak for yourself.  That is the best part of the podcasts!  I suspect that I am not alone.

    • #100
  11. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Quickz (View Comment):

    I wanted to apply the “history rhymes” to the administration-succession scenario that Barr laid out. He referenced feeble Carter through Reagan domination to hand-off to H.W., and then I felt it was offered as a “let’s get history to repeat itself” thought. That’s fine. But I like the “History Rhymes” more than repeats so let’s apply to this:

    Reagan’s win across states is just not likely to be repeated in 2024 no matter who the candidate because of how much national politics has changed and how much the electorate/states have self-selected. A resounding win electorally is still likely and that is a concrete hope for the GOP.

    But on the fresh-face v. Trump I have to disagree. The Trump phenomenon as it relates to the GOP is both a catalyst toward bringing in a massive new coalition, and a turn towards a different (I think better) direction for the GOP’s platform. Gone is the GOP of old, and I welcome this realignment. The best thing for this realignment in my mind would be Trump on the ticket for 2024 – it would continue to drive the new coalition together, and more likely than not usher in 4 years of a long-needed purge of sclerotic GOPe control of the party to the younger, fresher minds that see the realignment and will carry it forward.

    Upon winning (I’m just going to take that for granted for this), 45&7 can push for all the big changes and big ideas, taking all the energy out of the press while the congress (hopefully with that fresh leadership) passes bill after bill – ramming through what can be and holding up as campaign examples what cannot as the emblems of what the future of the party is about eventually passing (like platform policy – what an active party trying to win would do!)

    When the four years are up, and the country is again doing better than ever, the baton will be passed to the (hopefully) fabulous VP pick that 45&7 has in place for the next eight years.

    It’s like what Barr spoke of – but it rhymes instead of repeating itself. You still get the minimum 12 years of executive dominance, but you also get the best way to fully capture the new GOP voter/coalition and continue the healthy realignment of the GOP into a party that will dominate politics and policy for the 21th century – just like the opposing party did for the 20th – one could say that… rhymes..

    Thanks again Ricochet for a great podcast and a great discussion thread!

    Hey do we have an app yet? :)

    I will say it again, I will vote for any Republican other than Trump or DJTJ against any Democrat, and I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ.  I suspect that I am not alone.  

    Nominate Trump, and lose.  Nominate someone else, and win.  It is up to you.

    • #101
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I will say it again, I will vote for any Republican other than Trump or DJTJ against any Democrat, and I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ.  I suspect that I am not alone.

    Nominate Trump, and lose.  Nominate someone else, and win.  It is up to you.

    Says the abuser to the abused…

    “See what you made me do?”

    If you vote for freakin’ Joe Biden AGAIN, that’s on you, and nobody else.

    • #102
  13. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ.

    Everything Moves Towards Communism All Of The Time™

    • #103
  14. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I will say it again, I will vote for any Republican other than Trump or DJTJ against any Democrat, and I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ. I suspect that I am not alone.

    Nominate Trump, and lose. Nominate someone else, and win. It is up to you.

    Says the abuser to the abused…

    “See what you made me do?”

    If you vote for freakin’ Joe Biden AGAIN, that’s on you, and nobody else.

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ.

    Everything Moves Towards Communism All Of The Time™

    Presidents of the United States who lost re-election in the general election but did not try to overthrow the government:  George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, John Adams.

    Presidents of the United States who lost re-election but tried to overthrow the government:  Donald John Trump.

    NeverTrump mean Never.

    • #104
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I will say it again, I will vote for any Republican other than Trump or DJTJ against any Democrat, and I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ. I suspect that I am not alone.

    Nominate Trump, and lose. Nominate someone else, and win. It is up to you.

    Says the abuser to the abused…

    “See what you made me do?”

    If you vote for freakin’ Joe Biden AGAIN, that’s on you, and nobody else.

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ.

    Everything Moves Towards Communism All Of The Time™

    Presidents of the United States who lost re-election in the general election but did not try to overthrow the government: George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, John Adams.

    Presidents of the United States who lost re-election but tried to overthrow the government: Donald John Trump.

    NeverTrump mean Never.

    That may be your interpretation, no matter how false the “evidence” it’s based on, but it’s still on you, not anybody else.

    • #105
  16. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Well, it’s time to un-follow this discussion. It has become too Gary-infested.

    • #106
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Well, it’s time to un-follow this discussion. It has become too Gary-infested.

    At least he hasn’t reposted multi-page “comments” from threads of yore.

    Yet.

    • #107
  18. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Taras (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):
    How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

    So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

    I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

    Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

    Do you have a specific link to that? I do t remember it quite like that and would like to see what I missed.

    @ EHerring — States are “perfectly capable” of looking into election fraud?

    Maybe so; but perfectly willing is another matter. Somehow, I don’t think, say, California or New York will be in a great hurry to look into election fraud if it helps the Democratic Party.

    I agree with you that some states are unwilling, but that is the problem for residents in that state. If blue states overwhelm red states with their fraud, then maybe red states need to address whether the compact is still worth it or whether they should sever ties. The founders anticipated some corruption and gave us the Electoral College system to neutralize it. Once we start thinking the federal government should step in and fix states, we will be no better then the totalitarian left. People can fix their states or move to other states. We are seeing that now.

    I think the “States’ Rights” argument was lost in the 1950s so, in the language of hyperbole, we are already “no better than the totalitarian left.” Corrupt State and local politicians, for example, are routinely prosecuted by the Federal government.

    It’s not like they are going to prosecute themselves, after all!

    The constitution still exists. Just take back the language from the left.

    • #108
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I will say it again, I will vote for any Republican other than Trump or DJTJ against any Democrat, and I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ. I suspect that I am not alone.

    Nominate Trump, and lose. Nominate someone else, and win. It is up to you.

    Says the abuser to the abused…

    “See what you made me do?”

    If you vote for freakin’ Joe Biden AGAIN, that’s on you, and nobody else.

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ.

    Everything Moves Towards Communism All Of The Time™

    Presidents of the United States who lost re-election in the general election but did not try to overthrow the government: George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, John Adams.

    Presidents of the United States who lost re-election but tried to overthrow the government: Donald John Trump.

    NeverTrump mean Never.

    Everything Moves Towards Communism All Of The Time™

    • #109
  20. Vince Guerra Inactive
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Concretevol (View Comment):
    ZERO court cases won alleging fraud

    Factually incorrect, as we’ve been over numerous times in multiple posts.

    Golly, please cite the case number, the date of the decision, the name of the Judge(s), the location of the Court, e.g. Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, Case No. CV 2020-XXXXXXXX decided on date Y/Y/202Y, or U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case No. 2020- ZZZZZZZZZ decided on date A/A/2002A. 8 I would love to read that specific case.

    The last time I looked, I there was a parking ticket of mine on line. A parking ticket! If you can’t provide me with a specific case name, number and the specific court, I must conclude that this case doesn’t exist in the real world.

    Gary, I have literally given you the breakdown no less than three times on three separate posts. Time to up the Vitamin B dosage. 

    • #110
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    For what it’s worth, I just figured something out. I just got into an argument on Twitter and I found out the hard way that there is absolutely no main stream media accurate reporting on Zuckerberg and the lack of ballot controls. They can send you links from nominal objective media like AP that will explain that Zuckerberg actually did a good thing and some BS about ballot control forms. I got all of my analysis from Breitbart and Citizens United and so forth.

    So I’m not even going into any controversial area and you still lose because the MSM is captured. 

    I got this from another member and it’s true. Vote anti-communist. Figure out how to put all of your voting and resources into that. 

    Look at the border. There are plenty of people like Ricochet’s Leading Never Trumper™ that thinks this nets out.

    Every institution is captured against libertarians and conservatives. What do you do?

     

    • #111
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Vote Democrat

     

     

     

    • #112
  23. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):
    How much federal snooping do you want in our states during elections? …knowing the Dems like they do…they would abuse that, in fact they already do.

    So the answer is to NOT look into election fraud? How does that help?

    I didn’t say don’t look into election fraud. States are perfectly capable of doing that. I specifically addressed federal overreach. States run their elections per the Constitution. You also forget Barr would not have been able to get very far before he left office and Garland and gang would have tube it anyway. We are a year and a half later and how many convictions have taken place. You have unrealistic expectations.

    Barr and others also tried to block state investigations, claiming they were federal purview and/or just claiming that the election couldn’t be questioned because that might cause people to question the election.

    Do you have a specific link to that? I do t remember it quite like that and would like to see what I missed.

    @ EHerring — States are “perfectly capable” of looking into election fraud?

    Maybe so; but perfectly willing is another matter. Somehow, I don’t think, say, California or New York will be in a great hurry to look into election fraud if it helps the Democratic Party.

    I think both sides are guilty of election fraud, which explains the lack of enthusiasm to get things correct.

    If the left thought any fraud on our side would turn an election, they would want more secure elections. Instead, they use lawyers often the fact and preplan how to get ballots thrown out.

    • #113
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    This is a principles first time that fills up my Twitter feed like this. lol 

     

     

     

     

    • #114
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I’ve heard explanations of how the GOP can impeach Biden based on his border policy. It sounds like a slam dunk to me, but of course you have to get the whole public on board as we have seen. 

    Some thing I always forget to mention that popped into my head, is why they want to let so many illegals in. They go to Democrat localities on balance. They get counted in the census so it gives them an electoral advantage.

    • #115
  26. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    For what it’s worth, I just figured something out. I just got into an argument on Twitter and I found out the hard way that there is absolutely no main stream media accurate reporting on Zuckerberg and the lack of ballot controls. They can send you links from nominal objective media like AP that will explain that Zuckerberg actually did a good thing and some BS about ballot control forms. I got all of my analysis from Breitbart and Citizens United and so forth.

    So I’m not even going into any controversial area and you still lose because the MSM is captured.

    I got this from another member and it’s true. Vote anti-communist. Figure out how to put all of your voting and resources into that.

    Look at the border. There are plenty of people like Ricochet’s Leading Never Trumper™ that thinks this nets out.

    Every institution is captured against libertarians and conservatives. What do you do?

     

    No surprise. 20th century history showed us how it plays out.

    • #116
  27. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):
    Not a single question about all of the documented instances of federal election law violations. Not a single acknowledgement of the dozens of legal cases currently pending about them.

    Not a single question about the ZERO court cases won alleging fraud……. if frivolous pending lawsuits were any kind of evidence of anything then Trump himself would be considered guilty since he has had many made against him. Maybe….and here me out……..Barr knows more than we do about if there were election fraud to the extent that the results were changed and concluded there wasn’t. In some people’s world he should still act like there was but in his world apparently not.

    But he couldn’t possibly have known that with any real security, whenhe said in December of 2020 that there wasn’t significant fraud. As election audits etc since then, have proven.

    Barr’s approach reminds me of prosecutors etc who, after someone has run around shooting people while yelling “Allahu Akbar,” state that “the motive is unknown.”

    Barr didn’t need to be more like Garland. I am at a loss trying to figure out what you thought Barr could do at that point. I see a lot of attacks on him but no suggestion of things he could have done in the short time he had left. How about creating a list of actions you wanted him to take. Otherwise, all we are hearing are sour grapes.

    • #117
  28. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Concretevol (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):
    AG Barr’s record at Justice was a wanton act of betrayal of not just Trump but the American People

    But of course betraying Trump being the important thing right?

    Barr’s Oath of Office was to the Constitution of the United States, not to Trump.

    In March 16, 1935, after the death of President Hindenburg, German soldiers no longer made an oath to the nation, but to a specific person. That did not end well for Germany or the rest of the world.

    ”Barr’s Oath of Office was to the Constitution of the United States, not to Trump.” Ignoring corruption isn’t part of that oath. Honest people can admit the election system is now run in a manner that enables corruption. It is irrelevant whether you have evidence of it in the immediate aftermath. Corruption can be quite hidden but effective. Lack of investigation doesn’t mean it isn’t there because none was found. Ignoring that is dangerous, more dangerous than Trump or Jan6. 

    • #118
  29. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Quickz (View Comment):

    I wanted to apply the “history rhymes” to the administration-succession scenario that Barr laid out. He referenced feeble Carter through Reagan domination to hand-off to H.W., and then I felt it was offered as a “let’s get history to repeat itself” thought. That’s fine. But I like the “History Rhymes” more than repeats so let’s apply to this:

    [snip]

    Upon winning (I’m just going to take that for granted for this), 45&7 can push for all the big changes and big ideas, taking all the energy out of the press while the congress (hopefully with that fresh leadership) passes bill after bill – ramming through what can be and holding up as campaign examples what cannot as the emblems of what the future of the party is about eventually passing (like platform policy – what an active party trying to win would do!)

    When the four years are up, and the country is again doing better than ever, the baton will be passed to the (hopefully) fabulous VP pick that 45&7 has in place for the next eight years.

    It’s like what Barr spoke of – but it rhymes instead of repeating itself. You still get the minimum 12 years of executive dominance, but you also get the best way to fully capture the new GOP voter/coalition and continue the healthy realignment of the GOP into a party that will dominate politics and policy for the 21th century – just like the opposing party did for the 20th – one could say that… rhymes..

    Thanks again Ricochet for a great podcast and a great discussion thread!

    Hey do we have an app yet? :)

    I will say it again, I will vote for any Republican other than Trump or DJTJ against any Democrat, and I will vote for any Democrat over Trump or DJTJ. I suspect that I am not alone.

    Nominate Trump, and lose. Nominate someone else, and win. It is up to you.

    We know you aren’t alone. We also lump you in with the Democrats as those to be blamed for the mess we are in now. It seems crazy to me that you would brag about it. Your comment comes across as a do it again and I will screw you again, holier than thou bullying. If I had no other reason to vote for Trump, I would do so against Never Trumpers just because they have been so annoying. After all, that is the new bar they set, country be damned. Defend my sensibilities. Attitudes can be contagious.

    • #119
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    If you want a nice summary of what is wrong with this country listen to the beginning of this interview. It will be posted shortly. This guy is a very keen observer of everything. 

     

     

     

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.