Now who's pretending to be stupid? Fobbing it off on the USAO for Delaware is shutting it down, without formally shutting it down. If the vice president of the U.S. were accepting bribes, that would be handled by the Public Integrity Section at Main Justice, not a random backwater USAO.

She's already been humiliated once, if she dares pull a stunt like overturning a verdict, she'd likely be humiliated again. I think.

she could be on the 11th Circuit as a reward for her loyalty.

Driven by outrage from right-wing personalities and social media influencers, conservatives across the country began starting confrontations with Target employees, sending in bomb threats, filming themselves vandalizing store displays, and calling for a boycott of the store. In response, Target removed certain items from its shelves and, in many places, made the Pride merchandise less visible in stores. The company instructed managers to take down some featured displays and move Pride products to low-traffic areas. Some Target employees said their stores no longer sold any items referencing transgender identity at all.
[...]
If the product line was never a political asset, why does its rollback still seem like a political threat?
[...]
The de-rainbowification of corporate Pride is another sign of the times, a proof point that shores up a set of hardening facts: that the social stigma against homo- and transphobia has been drastically diminished. That white Christian nationalism and its rigid, punitive gender paradigm are gaining power. That violence and threats against a company’s employees are an effective means of changing a company’s policies, and that a vocal political faction is not afraid to use them.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that Barr is shilling for Biden?

South Burlington (Vt.) police chief Shawn Burke said news outlets in Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York all received the same emailed threat to Target stores over the weekend. It accused the retail chain of betraying the LGBTQ+ community and named the locations of four stores in the three states, including the South Burlington location.

Corporations are not actually progressive allies. They are just money-making entities and risk-averse ones at that. Before it caused waves pride gear made sense, now it might now, and in the future it might again. No mystery and no reason to feel betrayed IMO.

their capitulations have emboldened terrorists and made the world a more dangerous place for me and my people.

Bravely standing up to bigotry is not exactly in Target's wheelhouse. Or really any company for that matter. You should be angry at the terrorists. I mean, be angry with whoever you want, but seriously don't expect much from corporate America.

. . . in favor of some email threats.

Are there good people on both sides, Clapper?

Clapper will never admit that anyone on his side is ever anything but pure and good.

I’m not the one trying to obscure who was responsible for the Target bomb threats - trying to pin it on the other side even.

Bored on a Friday.

I think he was saying that in reality the investigation was effectively shut down (because there was no there there - duh) and the GOP talking point about the continuing investigation is nonsense.

"Stochastic" terrorism? Are you really that dumb?

stochastic terrorism
[ stuh-kas-tik ter-uh-riz-uhm ]SHOW IPA


noun
the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted:
The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism.

Some also describe the 2009 murder of George Tiller to be an example of stochastic terrorism, as many conservative news opinion shows and talk radio shows repeatedly demonized him for his administration of postviability abortions. For example, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, during his evening opinion show The O'Reilly Factor referred to Dr. Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer" on various occasions.

In the wake of escalating attacks on the LGBT community in the early 2020s, including bomb threats on children's hospitals and the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, right-wing activists such as Matt Walsh and Chaiya Raichik of Libs of TikTok have been accused of stochastic terrorism.

sterilize kids, based on their (very likely) temporary dysphoria.

Beginning in the 1850s with the British Raj, colonial authorities deployed various strategies to eradicate hijras, whom they saw as "a breach of public decency."[41] The British viewed hijras as incapable of "moral transformation" and assimilation and therefore subjected them to eliminatory policies. In 1860, hijras became subjected to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which allowed British authorities to prosecute hijras simply for existing. Even though they were already criminalized under Section 377, in 1861, authorities of the North-Western Provinces (NWP) sought to enact a 'special law' against hijras.[11] By 1870, no high-ranking British officials argued against the implementation of special legislation to address the 'hijra problem,' thus solidifying a violent anti-hijra campaign all across the Indian subcontinent.[11]

The only fascists in the USA are the "progressives". No one else is in favor of restricting peoples' rights based on their political opinions.

If you've noticed it's your side that wants to restrict free speech,

get people fired from their jobs for political opinions,

take peoples children away (literally) because they engage in "wrongspeak", sterilize kids, based on their (very likely) temporary dysphoria.

The only fascists in the USA are the "progressives". No one else is in favor of restricting peoples' rights based on their political opinions.

If you've noticed it's your side that wants to restrict free speech, get people fired from their jobs for political opinions, take peoples children away (literally) because they engage in "wrongspeak", sterilize kids, based on their (very likely) temporary dysphoria.

That is some powerful grade projection, that is what that is.

Plus the Trump appointed USA in Delaware

As to the unfounded charges that Smith is some rabid Republican hater, he investigated and indicted Bob Menendez, and investigated and tried (but failed) to charge John Edwards.

Now who's pretending to be stupid? Fobbing it off on the USAO for Delaware is shutting it down, without formally shutting it down. If the vice president of the U.S. were accepting bribes, that would be handled by the Public Integrity Section at Main Justice, not a random backwater USAO.

what Grassley and Comer have learned.

Why did Barr assign Huber and later Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation? Theoretically, that also could have been assigned to the Public Integrity folks but wasn't.

And LOL is right. There is somewhere between 0.0% and 0.00000% chance that if they thought there was anything to an alleged bribe of Joe Biden that they would have shrugged and handed it off to the USAO for Delaware, which of course has no connection to a purported bribe paid from a Ukrainian businessman to VPOTUS. It's not even clear that there would even be jurisdiction in Delaware to deal with such a crime.

Menendez, Obama's least favorite D senator, spoke out against the possibility of a comically awful Iran nuke deal in 2014. A DoJ investigation led by Smith -- and indictment -- followed. (BTW, Menendez speaks out against the possibility of a comically awful Iran nuke deal in 2022. Guess what? Yup, he's under investigation again.)

By 2011, Edwards was a nobody in Democrat politics.

Why has every high-profile case Smith investigated turned to lead, most notably when the Supreme Court *unanimously* ruled against him and the Obama DoJ on the McDonnell prosecution?

What I remember about Burisma is that he could stick a Quarter up 1 nostril & pull it back out the Other.

That is ... something. Like every conspiracy theory, it has a smattering of facts arranged with a suggestive question, but nothing is actually there. Needs more contrails though and maybe some anti-vax silliness.

That is ... something. Like every conspiracy theory, it has a smattering of facts arranged with a suggestive question, but nothing is actually there. Needs more contrails though and maybe some anti-vax silliness.

Translation of Mouse: "I know nothing about what happened at the time but what he wrote hurts my narrative so therefore I won't do any research of my own and just dismiss it a 'conspiracy theory.'"

The great thing about conspiracy theories is their borg-like capability to expand to envelope everything and anything any given nutter doesn't like. There's always another shadow of the all-powerful cabal that gives shade to new forms of nuttery.

I eschew the "... and then they gave billions to Jared ..." nonsense because it is all centered on suspicious and circumstantial timing. Though, way way more grounded than the silliness you are spewing.

Jared Kushner’s new private equity firm got $2 billion from Saudi Arabia because maybe that’s how you can cash in when your investing experience is slender but your father-in-law may wind up back in the White House. It’s also possible that you can get billions for a firm with no track record because the White House did favors for the Saudis when your father-in-law still occupied the Oval Office.

You do remember that a POTUS was investigated and then impeached for taking aim at his presumed political opponent a year before a POTUS election over Burisma? And now you're claiming what, that Barr, a year later, didn't behave like a naked partisan and leak info about this claim by the Burisma founder, thereby throwing the election into chaos?

Maybe the problem here is that leftists and pseudo-libertarians truly believe attorneys general *should* emulate Eric Holder and be the President's "wingman."

In January 2020, AG Bill Barr received credible evidence former VP and presidential candidate Joe Biden was compromised by a $10 million foreign bribe.

Barr let the Delaware U.S. Attorney, handpicked by 2 Democrat senators, bury this evidence.

So put up, or don't, but don't expect your conspiracy theory to be taken seriously by adults unless you do so (which, of course, you can't).

I call Trump a lying criminal treason weasel, because

of the team he plays for. We know.

Across the board, you and your fellow mouseketeers chalk up any accusation of malfeasance against a top Democrat official, no matter the content, as a lurid "conspiracy theory" cooked up by Republicans.

You are the one "defending" a Democratic Official (A Senator no less) with weird conspiracy theories, while I am OK with having charged him. He didn't actually have to step down from the committee he was on if I recall correctly. I don't actually care enough to do the research, so feel free to "Gotcha" me on that.

I didn't even call Trump anything remotely like that in 2016. However, over the last 8 years, he has acted like a lying criminal treason weasel, so that is what he should be called.

Yes, you finally discovered I'm willing to defend an avowedly anti-Turkey, liberal Democrat when there's reason to believe he's been unfairly targeted, as evidenced by the reactions of the judge and jury that heard the government's case?

And he did step down from his role as the committee's ranking member

LOL. Because the prevailing mood here in 2016 was that Trump wasn't in bed with Putin? LOL.

LOL. Because the prevailing mood here in 2016 was that Trump wasn't in bed with Putin? LOL.

But ... he was? And this was fairly comprehensively shown?

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a ### for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

I have no idea why anyone would still link to such misleading nonsense, but when Putin attacked Ukraine in 2014, Obama sent non-lethal aid. When Trump took office, he sent lethal military aid, and it’s likely not a coincidence that Putin didn’t launch his 2nd attack against Ukraine until after Trump left office.

“The smartest one gets to the top,” Trump told the crowd. “That didn’t work so well recently in our country. But they ask me, ‘Is Putin smart?’ Yes, Putin was smart. And I actually thought he was going to be negotiating. I said, ‘That’s a hell of a way to negotiate, put 200,000 soldiers on the border.’”

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius,’” Trump said during an interview with conservative radio hosts last month. “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine – of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”

“They say, ‘Trump said Putin’s smart.’ I mean, he’s taking over a country for two dollars’ worth of sanctions,” Trump told a crowd at a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago, according to a recording of the event. “I’d say that’s pretty smart. He’s taking over a country – really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in.”

But why pay attention to the words Trump actually utters?

I mean most of the GOP (at that point) were still somewhat anti-Russia along with the Democrats, which is why there was aid to Ukraine.

So you’re saying that it was Obama alone who blocked lethal aid to Ukraine before 2017?

Once again, Bitter Mouse just ignores the facts. Trump began providing lethal aid to Ukraine in 2017, long before any of the events Bitter Mouse claims were linked to that aid. Most of what Trump said about Putin just jabbed at Democrats by asserting that Putin did a better job playing his hand than Obama did with ours. You may disagree with that, although Obama’s 2014 Ukraine response looks even worse in hindsight, IMHO, but those still peddling Russian collusion nonsense are just flat out lying. Mueller found that no American - not Trump, not his campaign operatives, nor any GOP officeholder - knowingly colluded with Russia, and Durham laid bare that there never was anything that met objective criteria to justify an investigation.

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

But Barr only used the second half: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

You do remember that a POTUS was investigated and then impeached for taking aim at his presumed political opponent a year before a POTUS election over Burisma? And now you're claiming what, that Barr, a year later, didn't behave like a naked partisan and leak info about this claim by the Burisma founder, thereby throwing the election into chaos?

I know this because I have said nothing about any aid to Ukraine at all.

Do you mean Trump sent aid to Ukraine reluctantly and after attempting to blackmail him?

The Ukrainian army wasn't capable of really using said aid.

That’s utter nonsense - no one should believe that. For example, you need very little training to use Javelin anti-tank missiles. In February 2022, Ukrainians off the street were using them against Russian tanks. The full U.S. military training course which is thorough enough for even the rawest recruit is only 80 hours, which could certainly be compressed if you were on a wartime footing.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge: Mitt Romney was more right than Barack Obama when it came to foreign policy towards Russia. Because my balls aren't being kept in a box in some MAL bathroom - I have absolutely no problem stating this (with the benefit of hindsight).

Where Davis and DMN differ, of course, is that the former claims Barr got played, which seems credible in light of the former AG admitting to Bret Baier that, 2 1/2 years after Biden got sworn in, it's "stunning to me" there's been no word out of Delaware about this information. In contrast, all DMN has to go on is Raskin's deceptive claim, since Barr made clear back in the summer of 2020 that the USA office in Pittsburgh served as a place to vet incoming information before sending it along.

Unlike the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, there's actual evidence the Biden family has been on the take from officials connected to Ukraine, Russia, and China, as well as a top business executive in Romania, but it's suspected you don't actually care enough to do the research there either.

Still orgasming over the thoroughly discredited Steele ‘dossier’? Sad.

Mueller found that no American - not Trump, not his campaign operatives, nor any GOP officeholder - knowingly colluded with Russia, and Durham laid bare that there never was anything that met objective criteria to justify an investigation.

That is a complete lie. Mueller did not "find" any such thing.

Unlike the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, there's actual evidence the Biden family has been on the take from officials connected to Ukraine, Russia, and China, as well as a top business executive in Romania, but it's suspected you don't actually care enough to do the research there either.

That’s utter nonsense - no one should believe that. For example, you need very little training to use Javelin anti-tank missiles. In February 2022, Ukrainians off the street were using them against Russian tanks. The full U.S. military training course which is thorough enough for even the rawest recruit is only 80 hours, which could certainly be compressed if you were on a wartime footing.

In the last 10 years, the Ukranian army has been trained by the US and NATO while Russia has remained unchanged. Ukranian is now better than the Russians in many, if not all these areas. Ukranian can use the western weapons effectively and stand=up to Russia in a straight military battle. It makes sense both tactically and strategically.

Crimea wasn’t the only front in 2014. Ukraine was also resisting Russia in the Donbas, and anti-tank missiles would certainly have helped there. As previously noted, ATGMs are only 1 category of lethal aid - Obama didn’t provide any, not even small arms & ammunition. Not only didn’t he provide any current western weaponry, he also failed to tap stockpiles of Soviet era weaponry that were available from the former Warsaw Pact countries that are now NATO allies. Again, it’s absurd to contend that Ukraine couldn’t have used any lethal aid in 2014.

A very simple question: Would any western weapons that were useable by the Ukrainians changed the ultimate results in 2014 or just result in more dead soldiers? The current "Special Operation" shows that the Russians don't care about casualties in their cannon fodder troops.

You seem to be laser focused on the fact that lethal weapons could kill some Russians. This is true, but the US strategic decision should have been based on the trade-off between getting dragged into a proxy war with Russia that the Ukrainians couldn't win (the Russians had more troops and weapons and they were equal in tactics since the Russians had trained the Ukrainians) and helping the Ukrainians hold onto/take back their territory. Killing Russians shouldn't have been a consideration. Hence, if it was determined that giving lethal aid was ineffective in achieving US strategic goals and risked getting into a proxy was with Russia, then it was a defensible position to not give lethal aid.

A very simple question: Would any western weapons that were useable by the Ukrainians changed the ultimate results in 2014 or just result in more dead soldiers? The current "Special Operation" shows that the Russians don't care about casualties in their cannon fodder troops.

The current "Special Operation" shows that the Russians don't care about casualties in their cannon fodder troops.

I wasn't a decision maker with access to the military assessment underlying the decision, but then neither were you.

You’re attempting to split hairs. Mueller’s investigation found that the evidence “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Whether that is different in your mind from ‘colluding’ is of no consequence. Russia-Russia-Russia was always a hoax and remains so today.

I wasn't a decision maker with access to the military assessment underlying the decision, but then neither were you. I don't know if it was the right decision, but from the outside, it appears defensible. So instead of just repeating that it was bad, come up with an argument where it was in the US strategic interests to arm Ukrainian in 2014 with battlefield anti-tank weapons. Being able to kill some Russians is not a winning argument. I'm assuming that you aren't saying that we should have given them main battle tanks and aircraft since they didn't have the infrastructure, training, and logistics to use them correctly.

I think you're letting yourself get distracted from the real inanity of Clapper's typical passive-aggressive argument: pretending that Trump supported Ukraine. He's taking something that Congress did and trying to credit Trump with it.

But Mueller couldn't find evidence of an express agreement between Russia and Trump.

The lack of lethal military aid made it more difficult for the Ukrainians, causing more casualties for them. Not the policy choice that should have been made, IMHO. You apparently disagree, and there are still some so-called foreign policy ‘pragmatists’ who think a war involving a non-NATO, Russia-adjacent state isn’t a vital U.S. interest, but such policies reward Russia’s aggression while increasing Ukraine’s suffering.