lol seriously?

haaaa haaaa haaaaa

damn, son...

i guess you missed the letter where mueller disagreed with barr's interpretation of his report

oh yes! it takes reading more than 280 characters!

lmao

go get some sleep... you have school tomorrow

Let me guess.....tesla and Bytor are wilfully overlooking the facts again?

Mueller absolutely must speak.

Fucking Graham.....history will not be kind to him. Even I sort of admired him once. He used to stand up to Trump's bullshit. (Translation: He stood up to Trump most of the time.) Then suddenly, he became a Trump stooge/flunkie. I guess this is election planning? Anyway.....what a total fucking idiot asshole smelly bastard bitch he has become. He can shout "it's over" all he wants, but, unfortunately for him, there was a midterm election and Dems now own the House. The Dems MUST get Mueller to speak.

I don't know who will suffer in history the most: Graham or Barr.

But Barr has undoubtedly made himself into one of the very worst AGs in history. I'm tempted to research his previous stint as AG. Was he good then? Is he yet another example of someone who fell under the spell/smell of Trump?

History will not be kind to these people.

A couple come to mind that are worse and near worse.

Alberto Gonzales (Shrub)
John Mitchell (Tricky Dick)
Ed Meese (Ron Zombie)
Roseanne Barr (lost his virginity to Poppy Bush)
John Ashcroft (Shrub, again-actual president Dick Cheney sure knew how to pick em)

The Sunlight Foundation’s Web Integrity Project — which documents changes in language on federal websites — finds that the website for HHS’ Office of Civil Rights has been changed to now include religious protections that were not previously outlined. The new language explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, sex, and religion, but notably excludes sexual orientation. Additionally, in multiple other places on the revamped webpage, there are new specifications that HHS will prioritize religious freedom and conscience and moral objections. These changes come amid a nationwide ban on transgender individuals serving in the military as well as multiple measles outbreaks across the country fueled partly by people not vaccinating themselves or their children over religious objection.

Before Trimp and after

Too bad so few will see CNN’s report about TRUMP and the economy.

But it’s CNN, of course viewership will collapse when they hold to and spew the same old stuff:

here teevee guy, watch this instead

https://youtu.be/BrK7X_XlGB8

stephen moore just threw the towel lol

“i’m not pulling out...” hahahahaaaa

So, I’ve had a bit of observational time here of a couple of classic cases Their contributions are appreciated. It is becoming clear to me and a lot of others that this behavior is toxic and pathological. In the great majority of cases this has every indication of being a really bad case of parental care. The misogyny, racism, love of war and cruelty is just fucking pitiful.

Anyone raised properly doesn’t evince this crap.

I think they’ve always been this way, since whatever abusive shit they faced at age 5 or whatever. They are increasingly forward in the presentation of these ideas because of Trimp and his pals rhetoric and the toxic mix of internet “porn” sites, not porn in the way a normal person thinks of it, but more like the reddit, 4chan, anti feminist sites that they and their ilk stew themselves in. And Fux News, for the oldster righties who aren’t able to find the icky sites.

kamala, i love thee

https://wapo.st/2J7U6Lq

Barr's "snitty" remark makes a lot more sense now!! (Although, it is bad enough that he made this remark about a letter that Mueller signed. Would Mueller sign just any old thing without reviewing the wording? We are talking about Mueller here.)

He basically tried to say that Mueller himself did not write the letter which outlines concerns over Barr's summary. But now it is obvious that in previous testimony to Congress, Barr said Mueller had no objections to the summary.

Mueller sent the letter BEFORE that testimony!! Barr is a fucking liar.

And not showing up today helps absolutely nobody on Team Trump.

nancy pelosi’s press conference this morning was great btw.

Make America Great Again!!

ew

but how do you like “barr lied to congress”?

god damn she was fantastic. all gentle and soft spoken and dropping bombs like that haaa haaaa haaa.

Let's be clear though....he did lie to Congress!! Right? That's what my rant above was about.

And then he has the gall to later suggest that the letter was not really written by Mueller. You can see why he did that, right?

yes he did

and yes, reasonable people see it. no matter how many sociopathic lies and distractions the magas spew.

we see it.

I think somewhere in this thread, during Barr confirmation, I'm on record for saying he seems like a good/intelligent guy, so why is he part of Team Trump? And right after that someone (maybe symbols) warned me.

Fuuuuuuck.

When the top cop in the land is clearly a Trump Stooge, this is a big problem. He has to go.

No one who works with Trump is a good person forreal.

nah, it was ilduce who warned ya i think. i knew little of the guy.

i was almost surprised that a bush loyalist would work for the orange garbage but eh, republicans...

THE BEST PEOPLE

/s (not for you, just in case some dense doesn’t get it)

see, these fucking distractions. this here is the real damage:



The worst thing Barr did this week had nothing to do with the Mueller report
Catherine Rampell

The worst thing that Attorney General William P. Barr did this week arguably had nothing to do with possible contempt of Congress or the Mueller report.

It had to do with health care.

On Wednesday, amid the circus over alleged special counsel snittiness, the department that Barr oversees formally asked a federal appeals court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act, jeopardizing access to health care for tens of millions of Americans.

If the Trump administration prevails, everything in the law would be wiped out. And I do mean everything: the protections for people with preexisting conditions, Medicaid expansion, income-based individual-market subsidies, provisions allowing children to remain on their parents’ insurance until age 26, requirements that insurance cover minimum essential benefits such as prescriptions and preventive care, and so on.

The administration’s rationale was laid out in a policy brief supporting a lawsuit challenging Obamacare by 20 red states. Their logic: When Congress, as part of President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, set the penalty for not carrying health insurance to zero, that effectively made it no longer really a “tax,” and therefore made it unconstitutional. Somehow, that rendered the rest of the law unconstitutional, as well — including lots of provisions having nothing to do with the mandate.

This reasoning has been rejected even by conservative legal scholars otherwise opposed to the law. But legal merits (and demerits) aside — which are likely to be ultimately adjudicated by the Supreme Court — it’s also not clear what political upside Republicans could possibly see in mounting yet another overt attack on Obamacare.

The GOP’s November congressional losses were largely motivated by voter rage over the party’s attacks on Obamacare, after all. Trump has, of course, more recently proclaimed the GOP the “party of health care,” and he and other party leaders continue repeating the obvious fiction that they’re cooking up “something terrific” to replace the ACA.

Yet Trump’s party has never been able to come up with (let alone pass) a viable replacement plan, even when it had unified control of government.

There are more productive things Trump and lawmakers could do to improve the health-care system that don’t involve dismantling the ACA. Obamacare, after all, did a lot to expand coverage and not nearly enough to improve affordability.

In fact, if Republicans are looking for more fruitful areas for improvement, they might contemplate a survey focused on employer-sponsored insurance plans that was released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Los Angeles Times.

About half of the U.S. population has employer-based coverage, including 60 percent of nonelderly adults. While most say they are generally satisfied with these health plans, many nonetheless struggle with the financial burden they impose — particularly the high-deductible plans that cover 4 in 10 people with employer-sponsored insurance.

Deductibles in employer-sponsored insurance have been rising since long before the ACA. They have nearly quadrupled over the past 12 years and now average $1,350 for a single-person plan. But separate survey data show that only half of nonelderly, one-person households report having at least $2,000 in savings available.

It’s no wonder, then, that many with “good” health coverage still report trouble paying for care. In fact, half of adults with job-based coverage say they or someone in their household has skipped or delayed getting medical care or filling prescription drugs in the past 12 months because of the cost.

Figuring out how to reduce out-of-pocket costs — including deductibles so high that they’re tantamount to not having insurance at all — turns out to be much more challenging than simply burning down the entire system. After all, requiring employers to spend more on health insurance might just end up hitting workers in the form of lower wages.

Even so, there are promising paths forward.

For instance, the latest version of a plan known as the Medicare for America Act — introduced Wednesday by Reps. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) — would create an expansive public insurance option to compete with the employer-sponsored system. The public option would cap premiums and out-of-pocket costs and have no deductibles. The bill would allow employer-sponsored plans to continue, as long as they covered a minimum average share of enrollees’ health expenses.

Other options might include refundable tax credits to offset out-of-pocket spending, as have been proposed by Democrats before.

Trump administration officials may not like these alternatives. Fine. But if they’re going to persist in trying to blow up the current system — through administrative sabotage, funding cuts and bogus court challenges — the onus remains on them to propose better ways to rebuild it.

"The attorney general of the United States of America was not telling the truth to the Congress. That's a crime," Pelosi said

So the Speaker Of The House is accusing the Attorney General of a crime......on what evidence?

Where did the Real Attorney General lie......what false statement did he make?

What is the crime he committed?

Vomit Pelosi is just spewing FALSE STATEMENTS and as Speaker Of The House, we are forced to endure them.

Please notice how Vomit Pelosi DIDN’T PROVIDE ANY EVIDENTIARY FACTS to base her foolish false claims on.

All Vomit Pelosi did was provide a foolish soundbite. Sadly, so many dogs are returning to lick up foolish vomit.

Why have I been using the word FOOLISH?

The Justice Departments response to Vomit Pelosi: "Speaker Pelosi's baseless attack on the attorney general is reckless, irresponsible, and false."

Of course, Vomit Pelosi has retreated to her San Francisco castle offering NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE......yet the foolish dogs still lick up the vomit??