I KNOW THAT I'M LATE TO THE TOPIC,
with this cartoon! It was scheduled to run last week, but was
pre-empted by the release of the redacted Mueller report.
This ginned up
controversy feels like it happened a million years ago, since we're all
living in dog years (or, as I have suggested previously, trapped in the
event horizon of the black hole in the resident's brain).
But these
attacks are by no means over -- Karl Rove just published an op-ed in the
Wall Street Journal last week, decrying Omar's remarks and demanding an
apology.
"Senator Chuck Grassley held a town hall back home in Iowa and he got a
little more than he bargained for when one of his constituents asked
about his repeated votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In fact,
Chuck Grassley has voted seven times to repeal the Affordable Care Act
and were it not for John McCain’s heroic thumbs down vote, Grassley and
his party would’ve succeeded in taking away health care from millions.
So how did Chuck Grassley respond? He stammered around saying he didn’t
think the courts were going to rule the Affordable Care Act to be
unconstitutional, even as Republicans and the Trump Department of
Justice are trying to get the courts to do just that.
This Iowa woman did not let up and Grassley seemed at a total loss. He
had no defense whatsoever."
Hosts: Brett Erlich, Aida Rodriguez, Nando Vila
Cast: Brett Erlich, Aida Rodriguez, Nando Vila
You’ve read all the legal insights you can stomach about the not-quite Mueller Report. You’ve argued with your friends and family and trolls about whether or not we should go ahead with impeachment
(note: How is this even a question? You impeach the motherfucker with a
full-court press convincing the American people to rally behind
impeaching the motherfucker). You may have even sat down and pored
through the Barr-damned redacted report, finding every appalling nugget
you can mine out of it, like how the whole White House is just a cheap
1970's Godfather-knockoff film made in Russia.
And now you’ve come to the Rude Pundit, and I’m here to tell you this:
Goddamn, the resident of the United States, Donald Trump, is such a
little whiny bitch all the way through.
We know how much of a whiny bitch he is through his tweets and endless
airings of grievances at his rallies of the damned. He's the kind of
little bitch that sits in the kitchen, just whimpering when its bowl is
empty or whimpering because it shoved its toy under the couch. Just a
whiny, noisy, little bitch and you fuckin' hate whoever in the house
brought that bitch home.
In the not-really Mueller Report, we get to see the Donald Trump in
private, and, holy fuckballs, if anything, he’s even more of a whiny
bitch when his stump-thumbs aren’t tapping away on the Twitter app.
For instance, when meeting with his then-White House counsel Don McGahn,
then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and then-AG Chief of Staff Jody
Hunt, Trump bitched to Sessions about the Russia investigation, “This is
terrible Jeff. It’s all because you recused. AG is supposed to be most
important appointment. Kennedy appointed his brother. Obama appointed
Holder. I appointed you and you recused yourself. You left me on an
island. I can’t do anything.” That line, “You left me on an island,” is
what you say when your online crush has ghosted you and you’re pining
away pathetically into the ether.
Another time, he pissed and moaned to Sessions, “Everyone tells me if
you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It
takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the
worst thing that ever happened to me.” The worst thing to ever happen to
Donald Trump is that someone might hold him to account. You know, I’ve
got no sympathy for Jeff Sessions, American’s most racist elf, so fuck
him even if he did have to be the urinal for Trump’s whine dribbles.
(Trump said his now famous “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end
of my residency. I’m fucked” to Sessions and Hunt, and I wonder if
they immediately thought of him boning Stormy Daniels.)
Over and over, Trump whinged about how he wanted to be “treated fairly,”
that he wanted everyone to make sure he got a “fair” shake. When he
tried to convince Sessions to un-recuse himself from the Russia
investigation and then open an investigation into Hillary Clinton
(which, what the fuck?), he bleated, “Not telling you to do anything.
... I’m not going to get involved. I’m not going to do anything or
direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly.” Being
treated fairly meant, to Trump, an AG who ran interference for him, as
he absolutely believes Eric Holder did for Barack Obama. It never
fucking occurs to this blithering dick face that maybe Obama didn’t do
anything that needed to be interfered with.
Going after Hillary Clinton to win the election wasn’t enough. Several
times, the report mentions how the Trump campaign, including testicle
pimples Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner, sought information that
would “incriminate” her. And Trump’s mad tweets about Clinton’s “crimes”
are also part of the report.
And, most tellingly, Trump thought “it was unfair that he was being
investigated while Hillary Clinton was not.” I guess it also never
occurred to him that he was resident and no one gave a shit about
investigating Clinton when it wouldn’t damage her politically. Trump,
though, is a cruel motherfucker. Trump wanted to hurt her personally by
prosecuting her for...something.
That's a fucked-up area that no one has really touched, but it's an
abuse of power as deep and as wrong as any of the dozens of others.
Look, we all know that the saggy sack of bullshit, drool, and dried
semen that is Donald Trump has long been a pathetic figure. From his
pretending to be a masterful real estate speculator on The Apprentice
to his carnival sideshow of ludicrous products with his name on them,
Trump is like a bloated Elvis impersonator whose girth can't be
contained in the sequined white outfit anymore, although at least that
manque' Elvis had some honor in his life and was probably a whole lot
less racist.
As we await the release of the Mueller report and the desperate spin
that the White House and its subservient Justice Department will put on
it, as we learn
more and more that Attorney General William Barr is just another one of
Trump's ass remoras, the president himself has seemed to grow smaller
and smaller, even as he fluffs himself like a half-mad aging male porn
star who can't get hard when he pops Viagra by the handful and injects
cocaine right into his dick.
He's just so fucking pathetic and not in a sense of "pathos," but more
in a "goddamn, I can't even stand to look at that worthless motherfucker
anymore - it makes me sick" way.
At a "roundtable" discussion
(if by "roundtable," you mean, "Sure, fine, the table was physically
round and that's about it") on Monday in Burnsville, Minnesota, Trump
repeatedly mentioned his 2016 campaign and victory. No, really.
Early on, right after saying something about the fire at Notre Dame
Cathedral that faked concern, Trump immediately veered into how much
better he was than Hillary Clinton in 2016: "I was criticized — coming
up, I was criticized that I didn’t raise as much money as Hillary
Clinton, that I only spent half. It’s actually much less than half. But
I don’t want to tell. And in the old days, if you would spend less and
win, you got credit. Today you have to spend more and win. So if I
would’ve spent more, I would’ve been given a lot more credit. But the
fact is we did spend a lot less money — much, much less money — than the
Democrats. And we won."
We are two-and-a-half years past the election of 2016. Yet this craven,
miserable son of a bitch keeps wanting to relive a moment where maybe
his shitty father would have given him a warm handshake to celebrate.
Trump brought it up again: "There’s a great movement in this country,
and it started with that very special day in November. Remember that
day? Was that a great day? November. November 2016." God, the brain
worms keep whispering this to him.
And then, in a "discussion" that was supposed to be about "the economy
and tax reform," Trump mentally lumbered off like a drunk Frankenstein's
monster, and he talked about North Korea (no shit, he said that people
told him that there were earthquakes going on there, but he knew it was
nuclear testing) and the fuckin' ISIS caliphate and the fuckin' Golan
Heights and the embassy in Jerusalem, which he said cost just $500,000
when it cost at least $21 million. "We’re using all Jerusalem stone," he claimed, which would be fuckin' idiotic.
Seriously, the head of Sergio's Family Restaurants and the general
manager of Liberty Landscape Supply, brought there to massage Trump's
taint and tell him how amazeballs he is, had to wonder what the fuck was
going on.
Trump sounds more and more like a man who is worried that his days are
numbered and that he'd better make sure that his story is told the way
he wants it told, not how the failing news media would tell it, with its
innumerable failures and buffoonery and evil, intentional and
unintentional.
Gird your loins for more fuckery as the report drops. He'll
be screeching like a meth-addicted mongoose if he thinks it says even
one small thing against him. Let's be there to cage him and ship him
away.
Despite what Donald Trump and his cronies would have you believe, the
Mueller Report (IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS) doesn't exonerate Donald Trump on
allegations of obstruction of justice. In fact, the exact opposite is
true.
Reading from the actual redacted report, Jesse Dollemore lays out a case for an
obstruction charge. The only reason it seems charges aren't/can't be
pursued is because of DOJ policies related to indicting a sitting resident.
The on air and backstage talent at MSNBC couldn't help but laugh at the so-called resident's lawyer.
Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, insisted on Thursday that the resident “doesn’t support anyone telling lies.”
During an interview on MSNBC, host Ari Melber asked Sekulow about
people who were found to have lied to special counsel Robert Mueller’s
Russia investigators.
“Does the resident condemn the lies that interfered?” Melber pressed.
“I know which ones I believe you’re talking about,” Sekulow admitted.
“The resident doesn’t support anyone telling lies. Let’s be crystal
clear on that.”
As Sekulow spoke about Trump’s distaste for falsehoods, laughing could be heard on the set.
“In the course of this investigation, if people were under oath and
made inconsistent statements or statements that were material, there’s a
standard that applies under false statements,” he continued.
“I’m
trying to not be that technical. There’s a standard that applies. No one
supports someone talking about perjury or shaping testimony.”
Sekulow also confirmed that he was given the Mueller report two days before Congress was allowed access.
Trump went to Mt. Vernon and embarrassed himself and the entire country
while he was there. Ana Kasparian, Brett Erlich, and Nando Vila, hosts
of The Young Turks, break it down.
Devin Nunes should have stopped when he sued a fake cow for defamation,
but the California Congressman doesn’t know when to take a loss.
He’s
now suing the Fresno Bee newspaper over an article they printed last
year detailing lurid sex parties that happened at a fundraiser for a
winery that Nunes owns a stake in. The paper didn’t implicate Nunes in
the events, but he’s still mad as hell.
And, as Ring of Fire’s Farron
Cousins explains, that’s not even the funniest part of this ridiculous
lawsuit.
Ecudaor, which prides itself on its hospitality and spent almost $1
million a year protecting the WikiLeaks founder, saw his behavior as a
national insult.
By Associated Press
QUITO, Ecuador — The dramatic end to Julian Assange's asylum
has sparked curiosity about his 7-year stay inside Ecuador's Embassy in
London that was marked by his late-night skateboarding, the physical
harassment of his caretakers and even the smearing of his own fecal
matter on the walls of the diplomatic mission.
It
would've tested the patience of any host. But for tiny Ecuador, which
prides itself on its hospitality and spent almost $1 million a year
protecting Assange, it was also seen as a national insult.
"We've
ended the asylum of this spoiled brat," a visibly flustered President
Lenin Moreno said Thursday in a fiery speech explaining his decision to
withdraw protection of Assange and hand him over to British police.
"From now on we'll be more careful in giving asylum to people who are
really worth it, and not miserable hackers whose only goal is to
destabilize governments."
Black
women marry less than others - and the numbers are even lower for
darker skinned black women. Is colorism – favoring lighter skin – to
blame? Dream McClinton puts herself on the line to report
I take a deep breath and ready my fingers. I admonish myself for
being theatrical about something so mundane. Another deep breath.
“Here we go,” I mutter, pressing enter.
My profile has been created. It seems simple enough: swipe left to dismiss, swipe right to express interest.
The first eligible bachelor appears – not my type, I swipe left. Then
another follows – too young, I swipe left again. Ten swipes in, and I
find myself texting my eldest sister this was a bad idea. A feeling of
vexation settles over me.
I didn’t think I would ever have to use a dating app, but men don’t talk to me any other way.
I’ve spent so much time trying to understand what is so unattractive
about me that men shun me. At first, I thought it was because I was
intimidating – a word I’ve heard used to describe me. For a while, I
concluded I was “not that interesting,” a line I subsequently used as my
biography on social media. But those explanations won’t do.
The real issue is staring me right in the face: my deep mahogany skin.
Colorism – the prejudice based on skin tone – has stunted the
romantic lives of millions of dark-skinned black women, including me. We
are not as valued as our lighter-skinned counterparts when seeking
romantic partners, our dating pool constricted because of something as
arbitrary as shoe size.
Like other systems of racial inequality, American colorism was born
out of slavery. As slave masters raped enslaved women, their
lighter-skinned illegitimate offspring were given preferential treatment
over their darker counterparts, often working in the house as opposed
to the fields. This order has since been perpetuated by systemic racism
and internalized by black people. It remains alive even now, insidiously
snaking into my life.
I have many memories of being degraded
because of my complexion, the most piercing is from middle school: two
girls giggled in my Georgia history class during the showing of a
documentary about slavery. As the film explained the origins of skin
tone prejudice, one girl – biracial, hazel-eyed, and the only other
black girl in class – whispered that she would have been a house slave,
but that I would have been a field slave. As the famous image of whipped Peter played on screen, I sank down in my chair, silently greeting the weight of oppression on my 12 year old shoulders.
In many ways, nothing has changed since that day. Dark skin still not
only comes with the expectation of lower class but lessened beauty, not
to mention uncleanliness, lesser intelligence and a diminished
attractiveness. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, women like me see
successful black men coupled with fair-skinned female partners who pass
the paper bag test
– a remnant of the Reconstruction era, where the only black people
worthy of attention had to be lighter than a paper bag. This “test” was
even instituted in places such as historically black colleges and
universities as an informal part of the admissions process.
Today, this gradation discrimination remains. “It’s typical to see
light-skinned black women as representing beauty in the black community
and therefore being highly desirable for high-status spouses,” says Dr
Margaret Hunter, who teaches sociology at Oakland’s Mills College and
has studied the relationship between marriage and colorism for over two
decades. Hunter sums it up like this: “Black women in general marry less
than other races but darker-skinned black women marry men of lower
social status than the lightest-skinned black women.”
How likely people are to want to interact with others on OkCupid? Asian
women are 27% less likely to start a conversation with a black man than
other men. Black women receive the most consistently negative scores.
The lighter the shade, the higher the probability of marriage
Jasmine
Turner, owner of BlackMatchMade, a Chicago-based matchmaking company,
agrees this affects all black women. “Honestly, I think black women tend
to lower their standards because they’re finding challenges in dating.
Now I’m finding that black women are like ‘You know what, as long as he
has a good job and he’s a good person …’ No matter how successful they
are, they’re open to dating him.”
I’ve never been one to settle. I’ve taken this attitude to the app,
only searching for men who are gainfully employed and fairly
decent-looking. But I definitely understand what she means.
Previously,
dating has made me feel like I must drop some of my must-have criteria –
a college education, a steady job, and able and willing to pay for the
first date – in order to find a match. My mother has even scolded me for
it, telling me to raise my standards: “I’ve been on a lot of dates, and
no girl should ever pay for a first date!”
But my feelings of a necessary drop in standards have been validated
by research from Dr Darrick Hamilton, a professor of economics and
sociology at Ohio State University. Hamilton aggregated information from
the 2003 Multi-City Study of Urban Equality to identify why so many
dark-skinned women who date men remain bachelorettes. His assessment was
designed to show how the imbalance of eligible black males – taking
into account high incarceration rates and a limited labor market –
affects the marriage market.
His research shows that a scarcity in available “high-status”
husbands (defined as higher levels of education, not growing up on
public assistance, coming from neighborhoods that had less crime),
effectively leave black men in control of the dating selection process.
His data concluded 55% of light-skinned women were married while only
23% of dark-skinned women had jumped the broom.
“[Black men] have unnatural power within marriage markets that
enables them to bid up cursory characteristics like skin shade,”
Hamilton told me over the phone. In other words, the lighter the female,
the higher the probability of marriage. “One of the results that we
found was that [darker-complexioned] black women who have ‘higher
status’ faced a greater penalty in marriage markets than those with a
lower socioeconomic status.”
According to his research, I am the epitome of the “high-status”
option. College educated, familial middle class background, age 16-30,
able-bodied. But according to the equation, I haven’t the “social
capital” (read: skin tone) to seek a quality match.
But before even entertaining thoughts of marriage, I have to get past
the dating stage. Turner says she often sees black men pass up
perfectly eligible dark-skinned women. “Black men will say, ‘complexion
doesn’t matter’, but they might give that lighter complexion woman who
is very comparable to a darker-complexion woman a chance, when they
wouldn’t give that darker-skinned woman a chance.”
The
effects play out in the lives of women like me and my friend Larissa.
We usually like to talk about sci-fi books and traveling, but today I
ask her if she’s ever felt diminished by men due to her complexion.
“Sometimes, I can kinda feel their eyes sliding off of me to go the
pretty white girl next to me, or even the fairer-skinned Yara Shahidi
type,” she says, a twinge of sadness in her voice.
While she sees
herself getting married, she doesn’t know if she will end up with a
black man. “I don’t necessarily see myself walking down the aisle with a
black guy. Not because I’ve written them off or because I don’t want
to, but just realistically, based on how the dating life has been
treating me and how I’ve been approached.”
Julia Wadley of North Carolina’s matchmaking service EliSimone, which
caters to a mostly black clientele, has observed this dynamic in her
field. “I’ve had colleagues who were like, ‘Hey, I have a black client
and he’s open to any race’. I’m like ‘Oh, OK, great! I’ll send you a
couple of matches who fit what he’s looking for. Then they’ll come back
and say, ‘She’s too ethnic looking’.”
I know exactly what she means, but I ask anyway: “What would ‘too ethnic’ mean, in terms of look?”
“Dark skin. Someone who is probably brown to dark skin. Someone with
natural hair. Someone who is over the size of six,” she answers. “I
would bet $5,000 every single one of my black colleagues have had that
happen. Where they’ll come back and say, ‘Uh, well, he’s only looking
for someone who is very fair’; or, ‘He’s looking for someone who is
light-skinned’.”
Still, Wadley tells me, she hoped I’m not writing a “woe is me,
nobody wants dark-skinned girls” article. I wince hearing it, hoping for
the same, deep down. But this topic doesn’t lend itself to optimism.
‘It made me feel like I would never be wanted’
Writing this piece, a memory I had long forgotten resurfaces. At
university, on the line for the security check-in for dorms, I bumped
into a friend of my former roommate. I inquired about something someone
had said. Immediately, his face changed from joy to anger. “You’re too
dark to be talking to me like this, Dream,” he sneered. Hurt to the
point of rage, I bristled and walked away. We never had a conversation
again.
I aimlessly skim the app late one night, swiping left, right, right,
left. I’ve only made a few matches since downloading it the week before.
Then, I come across a profile. “I only date light-skinned women…” reads
his bio, even though his skin tone matches mine. I wasn’t going to
swipe right in the first place – he was not cute – but I still feel the
bristle of my sophomore year. I roll my eyes, and swipe to the next one.
I
would like to think I’ve grown up since that 19 year old who was
insulted at the gate of my dorm.
My dark skin is not something to be
ashamed of, even if past lovers made it clear they were ashamed to be
associated with me because of it. I’ve been all of it before – I’m
dating someone but there’s a secrecy to our relationship: hands that
only hold yours in private, a reluctance to present you to family and
friends, kisses that only meet your lips when no one else can see.
I hate that I’ve had to beg for legitimacy in my intimate
relationships. I hate that my friends have had to do so too. I want
love, but my self-esteem is too high a price to pay.
Sharlene and I met at a Kendrick Lamar concert during our freshman
year of college and we’ve stayed in contact ever since. Knowing she’s
shared similar sentiments about dating in the past, I get in touch,
hoping to round out my perspective on the matter. “I feel like
dark-skinned women were just the women that men had behind closed doors.
They weren’t trophy wives enough for you to show to the world. Somebody
wouldn’t want to show me off but, next thing you know, they’ve got
somebody lighter and they’re showing them off … It made me feel like I would never be wanted.”
Deflated, I talk to Elizabeth, my former sophomore-year roommate, who
is now in her third year of law school. I ask if a partner has said
anything rude to her because of her skin tone. She names a man I know,
to my dismay. “There was just a comment that he made one time. [He said]
‘I want a white family’.” She laughs: “It was just so weird to me
because you’re telling me you want a white family. I can’t give you
that! Like, why are you talking to me?”
“I want a white family.” The words stick with me for the rest of the
day, weighing me down like a bale of cotton. It brings tears to my eyes.
I wonder: are dark-skinned women just the placeholders until they meet
their desired match? Do all these men really just want white families?
A few nights into the app, another guy pops up on my screen – decent
looking and seemingly gainfully employed. I’m mildly interested. His
profile bio is just one line: “The darker the berry, the sweeter the
juice.”
My immediate thoughts warn me of a possible fetish. Dating
with dark skin often comes with a double edged sword: we are unwanted,
except by men who want to create an experience out of us, leaving our person hood out of the equation altogether. We become empty objects,
vehicles for pleasure, rather than multi-dimensional beings.
Hunter vocalizes this sentiment. “At the same time, there’s also a
kind of fetishization of darker skin. So sometimes you’ll hear people
say ‘I only like dark-skinned women’ or that ‘dark skin is sexy’ or
something like that,” she tells me. “Not that those things aren’t true
or good, but they also kind of objectifying or sexualizing in a way that
isn’t necessarily the solution to the discrimination. It’s an
inversion, basically.”
The bachelor on my screen shares my mahogany skin tone. But I’m wary
he, like other black men, may fall victim to this form of
objectification. I remember how Sharlene expressed her frustrations with
her beauty being seen as skin deep. “We can’t get just get a regular
compliment,” she laments. “I know that people think that calling me
chocolate all the time, or talking about ‘your skin is beautiful’ is a
compliment. But why can’t I just be beautiful?”
I hear what she and Dr Hunter are saying, but my choices are few. I
feel limited; I was made to feel this way. In the end, I swipe right. My
screen darkens, proclaiming a match has been made. We chat, but the
spark isn’t there.
But three weeks after joining the app, I finally hit a stride and
start having more fun. I’ve matched with someone who seems promising.
He’s smart, we work in the same industry, and our conversations online
have been pleasant. I ask him to meet, and he agrees.
We are meeting at a food hall; for me, it’s a short walk and a train
across town but feels like a world away. A slew of hopes run through me
on the way over. I hope I’ll be just as attracted to him in person as I
am online. I hope he won’t murder me.
I approach the hall, take a deep breath, and ready my fingers to pull the door open. “Here we go,” I whisper to myself.
1. Fuck the spin. We know nothing about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.
What we know is how Attorney General William Barr characterized the
report and its findings. Barr is a Republican sin eater, engorging
himself on a banquet of crimes and betrayals going back decades.
He has no moral or ethical standing here, and his legal standing is
based on how he was going to wolf down the slop trough of sins of the
Trump administration. Unless and until we see the actual report, the
actual evidence, the actual two goddamn years of work that was done and
that, apparently, Barr only needed less than two days digest and shit
out a summary letter, we know nothing.
2. But, hey, for shits and giggles, let's say take the cackling Russia naysayers' perspective and treat Barr's letter like
it's totally legit. Well, look at the second page, where Barr says
explicitly that Mueller showed that Russia tried to interfere in the
2016 election. I mean, call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but when I
read, "The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors
successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons
affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations,
and publicly disseminated those materials through various
intermediaries, including WikiLeaks," I think that's pretty fucking
serious and damning and deserves action from, oh, hell, let's say the
White House.
2a. Barr writes that "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S.
person or Trump campaign official or associate" conspired with Russians
to spread disinformation through social media. But when it comes to the
DNC hacks, he writes, " the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump
campaign, or anyone associated with it" conspired on them, leaving out
the more all-encompassing "any U.S. person." Which says to me that
someone in the U.S. sure as shit conspired.
2b. This part is entirely fucked up: apparently, there were "multiple
offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump
campaign." So, just to get this right, Russian operatives told the Trump
campaign, presumably Jared, Junior, and Manafort, "Hey, we're dicking
around on social media and, by the way, we've hacked the shit out of
Hillary's email. Wanna fuck?" And we know that Jared and/or Junior
winked about lifting sanctions while saying out loud, "Oh, no, we'd
never want that." And then they didn't go directly to the FBI and turn
everyone in who contacted them. That inaction gave tacit approval. Put
it this way: If President Hillary Clinton's campaign hadn't turned over
Russian offers of hacked Trump emails to the FBI, DC would be on fire
tonight as enraged Republicans demanded Pennsylvania Avenue run red with
the blood of her administration.
2c. And if this had been written about President Hillary Clinton: "while
this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it
also does not exonerate [her]," the only thing we'd be talking about is
how she wasn't exonerated. The GOP and the media wouldn't let her say
that she was exonerated. They wouldn't allow such an obvious,
demonstrable lie. But with Trump, well, fuck us all, it never matters
that he lies like the rest of us breathe.
2d. Frankly, Mueller's report could exonerate Trump on everything. It
could be everything that Republicans are spinning it to be. But I'm not
gonna buy anything one way or the other until we get to see the thing.
I'd be a credulous idiot to think any other way. Right now, without the
report, this is a cover-up. Of obstruction. Of the extent that our electoral system is at risk. Of what Trump's relationship with Russia actually is.
3. While Trump and his party of religious zealots, miserable racists, child molester enablers, and generally shitty humans are attacking
Democrats savagely, let's not leave out the role Trump played in making
the investigation into Russian meddling in the election all about him.
He saw it as tainting his "Greatest Victory in the History of Everything
Yeah You Heard Me Fuck You," so he sought to discredit the
investigation and the people doing it.
But here's the trouble I have. If you believe the Barr letter, you have
to believe that Russia did meddle in the election. It's right there. It
says so. Yet every time Trump has been given the opportunity to agree
with fucking everyone that such interference occurred, he has dismissed,
demurred, or denied it. He has suggested multiple times that it could
be the Chinese or the mythical 400-lb hacker. And his administration is
doing precious little to prevent that interference again. This is like
the climate change of espionage here: it happened. It's happening.
Everyone knows it's happening. But because a tiny group of tiny dicks
refuse to act, nothing will be done. And it'll just get worse while the
tiny dicks get jacked off on all of us.
So, at best, Trump has such a fragile ego that he fears anyone
questioning his election. Or he wants Russia to interfere. Or he's
utterly compromised. In other words, he sure as shit acts like he's
guilty and we're fucked either way.
4. Democrats did put too many eggs in Mueller's basket. And now they
should kick the investigations into high gear. Get some fuckin'
subpoenas going. Drag some motherfuckers before committees and put 'em
under oath. Get Trump's goddamn tax returns. Some emoluments clause,
motherfuckers. Some bribery.
Look, Trump is buried up to his neck in shit. Sure, it would be nice to
have backed up dump truck of manure and covered his orange deflated yoga
ball of a head. But we can also get our shovels and finish the job with
the shit that's already there.
5. Let's fuck shit up in 2020. I don't buy that concentration on Russia
has hurt Democrats. If anything, it has unified us and pissed us off.
Feel that rage. Embrace it. Use it to fuel you through November 2020
because, without some miracle or dark magic, we're not getting out of
the rest of this Trump term. Gird yer loins, motherfuckers. Gird 'em for
the long fight.
Let's talk about the continued blind allegiance to Donald Trump from
brainwashed Republicans concerning the Mueller Report. Even though no
one knows what is in it, Republicans are claiming it exonerates Donald
Trump. The Amerian people need the full report to be made public as well
as the underlying evidence!
According to new reports, swing voters in pivotal states like Wisconsin
are beginning to turn on Donald Trump after finally coming to the
realization that the man is a con artist and that he lies about
everything. This doesn’t automatically mean that Democrats are going to
win in the Midwest, but it does offer a window for Democrats to make
some serious progress.
Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains how
Democrats can get these swing voters over to their side, but it won’t be
easy.
.jpg)
#/media/File:Scourged_back_by_McPherson_%26_Oliver,_1863,_retouched.jpg){kind=link}