President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 25, 2018 11:44 PM UTC

Memorial Day Weekend Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

Photo by Colorado Pols


85 thoughts on “Memorial Day Weekend Open Thread

    1. Gas prices rising? Check.

      Several foreign wars threatened, imminent, or in process? Check.

      Credibility and moral authority of President at all-time low? Check.

      Has America been made "great" again? Nope.

      Are we winning? Nope.

      Guess it must be time to frantically pump up the "crooked Hillary" memes again. I'll take it as a sign of desperation on your part, which is a positive thing. съеби на хуй, comrade.

      1. Strong women that want to serve our country’s best interests obviously frightens ol' Gerbils.

        Corrupt, sexually predatory men that seek public office for their own financial gain, regardless of the cost to the nation, serve as a role model for him.

        When it comes to supporting Trump, Gerbils gladly takes a very wide stance.

    2. What is it with asshole Republicans that they have to be constantly showing what asshole woman haters they are?  I would have thought Andrew would be showing off his dictator to dictator commemorative coin.

        1. Putin’s Boy is back, shameless and showing just how bad D’s are failing in the message war. 

          DC Establishment Dems who don’t want to do politics are perpetual failures. You can’t wait until November you Cowards: Trump and his Gang of Felons are steamrolling this democracy and another photoshopped pic of Trump or Coffman won’t do shit.

          If our reps in DC can’t get their hands dirty for $170,000 a year then they need to get the fuck out. 

                  1. Here is the thing.  You're not wrong.  But most of the time, you simply complain and add little to the conversation with barbs thrown at a certain Senator for good measure.  And aside from complaining about lack of message and direction from the Dem brass-hats, while harping specifically on things that make no sense to harp on like voting for the defense budget, but when there is a more real issue we have with dems in general or specific Dem pols, either nothing, or an "I told you so".  


                    Seriously, articulate a vision, and find better hills to die on.  Because simply complaining does nothing except make you look like a dead-ender.  

                    Now, if you excuse me, I have to go back to ragging on Right-wing trolls.

                    1. The biggest issue right this second is that Trump is fucking our Democracy with no condom. Rudy -Giuliani is his Cohen penned NDA, and we are losing in the court of public opinion because our guys 1) don’t want to get their hands dirty defending The Constitution from Trump’s fucking, or 2) they feel they should remain “above the fray” – though still while Trump is fucking the Constitution in the next room. 

                      Thus us D’s *current* abject failure, and I’m afraid we’ll be looking at Trump’s second term before our Brilliant DC Representatives see it. 

                    2. I dunno’ . . . 

                      . . . I always thought

                      Bennet sux 4evah!

                      was kinda’ catchy!??  I mean, it has a pretty good beat, and you can dance to it.

                      Besides, any more than three words from Zappy and most folks start developing a throbbing headache . . . 

    3. From the National Review:

      In the Trump–Russia affair, officials of the Obama-era intelligence agencies suggest that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was in a traitorous conspiracy with the Kremlin. What grounds? They’d rather not say. You’ll just have to trust them as well-meaning, non-partisan pros who (all together now) can’t be expected to divulge methods and sources.

      Countering that are not only Trump fans but growing ranks of security-state skeptics. The Obama administration blatantly politicized the government’s intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus. Their Chicken Little shrieks that public disclosure of FISA warrants and texts between FBI agents would imperil security have proven overblown at best (and, in some instances, to be cynical attempts to hide embarrassing facts). “Trust us” is not cutting it anymore.

      In the end, it is not about who the spies are. It is about why they were spying. In our democratic republic, there is an important norm against an incumbent administration’s use of government’s enormous intelligence-gathering capabilities to — if we may borrow a phrase — interfere in an election. To justify disregarding that norm would require strong evidence of egregious wrongdoing. Enough bobbing and weaving, and enough dueling tweets. Let’s see the evidence.

      1. Quoting a McCarthy?

        During the 2008 presidential election campaign, McCarthy wrote a number of posts on the National Review's Corner blog stating that he thought that Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, was not serious about protecting US national security against threats from Islamic extremism and elsewhere, and that Obama had a number of troubling ties and associations with leftist radicals. McCarthy promoted the false theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wingorganization Weather Underground, had authored Obama's autobiography Dreams from My Father.[7][8] McCarthy described an article outlining the conspiracy theory as "thorough, thoughtful, and alarming".[9]

        McCarthy argued in October 2008, "that the issue of Obama's personal radicalism, including his collaboration with radical, America-hating Leftists, should have been disqualifying."[10]

        This clown has a rich history in false alarms:

      2. You don't read National Review, Goebbels boy.  You read Der Sturmer, Protocols of the Elders of Zion and old copies of the Dearborn Independent.

        So don’t try to put on airs.  And go back to kissing Trump's butt.

        God, the stench must be awful.

        Just awful.

          1. Wow. If that's the Andrew McCarthy from the National Review, that is the guy who almost single-handedly created intellectual basis for anti-Islam paranoia, after George Bush was at pains to put it to rest after 9-11.

                1. The Depraved Political Whore Party, led by Donald Trump and assisted by Rudy Giuliani, is drunk with power, and will bring down our democracy if that is what it takes to cling to power, and fill the coffers for  themselves and their benefactors.

                  Thus Republicans are yelling "How dare you!" to the FBI and our intelligence agencies as they do their job of tracking down Russian agents and compromised U.S. citizens, leading directly to the top of the Trump campaign, including members of his family.

                  I am stunned at how quickly the already morally, ethically and intellectually bankrupt GOP has fallen even further into the most abject state of corruption.

      3. There's a difference between a spy and a staffer with a conscience and a sense of patriotism. 

        As for the evidence, the accused has no right to the makings of a case until the prosecution has finished building it.

        1. Andrew is getting careless with his "facts." Couple examples: on the Hillary/Russia/uranium thing, that matter was totally debunked months ago by Shep Smith on his Fox News show. Again reflects reality that one can be led to Fox News, but can't be forced to actually listen and understand unless it is Hannity and Ingraham mindlessly shouting "Spygate!!!"

          Second, the Senate Intelligence Committee has released reports saying that there is no dispute with the intelligence community's assessment that Russia indeed interfered in the 2016 election, and is even continuing those efforts in advance of the 2018 elections. More reports to come.

          The problem for Andrew here is that he pays attention to "showboat and no facts" Devin Nunes, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. In the meantime, the Senate Committee; chair Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA); are quietly doing their work in a bipartisan fashion, sort of like Mueller is quietly moving forward.

          Anybody notice that Senator Burr was not invited to that original briefing last week about the Mueller/Russia case, just Nunes and Gowdy from the House? 

          1. So, not only did they not invite Dems, they shut out some Repubs as well.

            I guess when you've been in jail, it's hard to keep up with real news and how things move forward.  No wonder Cornholio still acts like its early 2017.

      4. We don't listen to jailbirds who went to the slammer for creating chaos and destruction at white supremacist rallies here.


        BTW, did you ever meet Christopher Cantrell?  He was the crying Nazi who made boasts on a Vice documentary about his views on race and how much destruction he was going to cause.  Then two days later, he made a video of himself crying because the police had a warrant out for his arrest.  Then he was subsequently arrested.  I think you and he have a lot in common.  

    1. #Re$i$t

      With friends like these, who needs enemies?

      Edit: Holy shit. Just got through a second read of the article and noticed this gem:

      Whitney Phillips, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said that that group is not going to the NLRB to undermine its workers, but in fact to help more of them. “We are not currently opposing efforts to organize our affiliate; we have asked the NLRB to consider whether all of our employees should be able to participate,” she told The Intercept.

      We’re not trying to make it difficult to organize. We just want to make sure nobody gets left out of this terrific opportunity to organize!

      1. The real deal is representation … requiring someone to have representation from a staff 500 miles away , well thanks. But how about we organize where we can represent.

    2. This concerns me. I might withdraw my financial support of Planned Parenthood if they don't let their union workers organize, without putting stupid restrictions on like requiring that all union workers in every state of PP must consent to the union, or they won't negotiate with the SEIU.

      For an organization that promotes independence and agency over our own bodies and lives, this is a contradictory stance.

      The people that are trying to organize are the lowest-paid staff of the clinics, the receptionists and aides and clerks. They are literally on the front lines of the reproductive rights battle. They are the ones at risk if a nutcase with a gun makes it in the front door to “stop the baby killers”.

      In Portland, Wendy’s probably pays more than what they’re getting paid ($15/hr) in PP clinics. Whatever these people need to keep working on the front lines for us, they should have.

          1. So Zappy and JADodd, in your view, do "liberal" and "progressive" politics exclude workplace and union organizing? Because apparently this is a controversial issue.

            I mean, it sounds as if the Planned Parenthood board favors more the "neoliberal" ideology, meaning socially liberal policies, but favoring free market capitalism. Meaning that they don't want any uppity unionized workers making decisions in "their" clinics. 

            I wonder how much this has to do with Cecile Richards' departure this May as PP's president.

            By the way, right wing media is ecstatic over this story; Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, and a few others are all over this story as an opportunity to "divide and conquer"  – to widen divisions in the left between social liberals and unionists.

            I think the best thing you can do, if you want to help, is to write or tweet to Planned Parenthood stating that you support union organizing without restrictions from management.

            1. Neolibs may as well be Neocons for all the “good” they do, and that includes SFL Bennet. I  support Unions (he doesn’t), have been a member of several and am now a member. Sadly, Republican messaging since Reagan has won the day, and most workers are repulsed by the idea. This then ends up with a situation where Colorado’s own Neil Gorsuch helps Colorado’s own Chipotle screw its workers. Then you’ll get someone like Jason saying, “at least they are from Colorado.”

              Therein is the message failure.

    1. I think you meant no fatalities. I have been a proponent of school defense by any means necessary to stop an active shooter, and a basketball, firearm, or a bucket of rocks appears to be more effective than expecting criminals to follow laws. I would have suspected you were intent on crafting a new law that would  prohibit middle school students from buying pistols or make it illegal to bring them to school, but you and I seem to be on the same page on this. Perhaps a compromise of less lethal defense tools like bean bag guns or Pepper Ball guns that give the potential victims a course of action without actual firearms is the solution? Whipping out your glock in this instance sounds equally unreasonable as hiding under the desk. 

            1. Easy.  The good guy with a gun is carrying a gun . . .

              . . . The bad guy with a gun has either been shot dead, killed himself, or is in prison.

      1. As crazy as it sounds, Negev, I'm actually attracted to the bucket of rocks defense.  Twenty kids throwing rocks could at least disrupt a shooter, while one kid throwing a rock is unlikely to kill anybody.  I also believe in strong doors lockable from the inside.

          1. Unnamed unfortunately this conversation is actually based on NOT open carry on school grounds and NOT arming teachers. Your canned comments do not make sense because nobody is even talking about either of your statements so I am not sure if you are just typing the voices in your head or following a preprinted script but you may as well yell "squirrel!" and dart off into the distance it may be more effective in expressing how you follow a post.

            I'll sum is up quickly to adhere to your attention span:

            School shooting stopped by teacher with basketball

            shows minimal defensive action thwarts potential mass killing

            Possibility suggested to provide non-lethal defense options to schools

            Talk amongst your multiple personalities and see if you have some useful information to share with the group. Snack time is over. 


            1. Whatever NRA shill. I'm not the one quoting ammosexual talking points all high and mighty after a mass shooting happens showing you care more about your sense of entitlement than actual lives.

            2. Here are my top ten ways to make schools safer; Bucket of rocks comes in at #7.

              10. Bringing more guns into schools – get rid of the whole "gun free zones" thing. Encourage everyone over 18 to carry. Openly. This will result in more gun deaths, as it always does.

              9. Allowing concealed carry on campus. Bad idea. Same reasons as #10, except even less accountability and more danger for law enforcement if they don't know who's carrying and who's carrying legally. Besides, it doesn't help people of color  – as Philando Castile could attest, if he was still alive.

              8. Arming teachers – downsides: students don't want it, and it won't make them feel safer. Risks of gun theft and loss or accidental discharge are high. Risk of misuse by people employed in one of the most high stress and lowest paid professions high.  Risk of racial profiling also high. Black,  brown, and poor students are disproportionately disciplined, suspended, and expelled – why would they also not be most at risk for getting shot by a "good guy/gal with a gun"? Adolescents have hormones aggravating mental illness and stress – rather than treat the illness, we'll shoot the kid.

              Politicians use the “more mental health help” as a distraction from the need for gun control – but they never, ever vote for funding mental health in schools or clinics.

              7. Sure, fine, bucket of rocks as last – ditch defense. I'd keep one near the desk and have some kids compete to get a better grade than "Bucky". 

              6. Having your armed (with a pistol) security guard or resource officer try to take out the guy with 1-2 AR15s. He/ she would probably be ordered instead to stand down and wait for backup, as the Parkland security guard did.

              5.Having all the football players rush the guy using big tables for shields. Probably, this would result in some football player fatalities, and schools couldn't reasonable ask or expect it.

              4.I've checked out the possibilities of grabbing the fire extinguisher and using that as a weapon ( it works in the action movies).

              3. What we do now – drill, have a barricade plan and an exit plan, keep buildings locked during the day, check all visitors, hope for the best, thoughts and prayers and blame game when our hopes fail and we have yet another school shooting. Rinse the blood out, grieve, repeat.

              2. License guns like cars. Require liability insurance as condition of ownership. Require homeowners/renters to show proof of gun storage – safes or offsite or smart guns keyed to owners.

              1. Universal background checks. Prior Domestic violence, felony menacing, animal abuse, terrorist threats disqualify. Must be 18 years or older. Certain types of weapons / ammo cannot be bought by civilians.

              So Negev, when you look at this list and realize that you only want options 7-10 and most people want options 1-7, doesn't that make you feel a little bit out of touch?

              And you'll notice (or maybe you won't, so I'll point it out) that repealing the 2nd amendment or confiscating guns from gun owners who have no criminal record is nowhere on this list.

              1. Have you ever in the history of school shootings seen the top 7 options of your list succeed? Perhaps I am not the one who is out of touch. 

                What I want is measures to stop the shooter once they have thwarted, like they always do, your items 1-3. We can agree this is important as illustrated by your items 4-6, all of which include some level of counter aggression towards the shooter. I am NOT a proponent of arming teachers, or students with firearms, and I am surprised such items made your top 10 list. But if you are on board to arm security with a pistol, why not arm them with weapons equal to the perpetrator? If your willing to sacrifice the football team to  a suicide mission, why not accept pepper spray guns into the school? And if you are ready to grab a freakin fire extinguisher off the wall, why not give yourself some distance and use a bean bag weapon as linked above?

                8 of your top 10 school safety ideas include defensive measures. We are in agreement on that. 80% of school shooters pass background checks (your #1 safety option) and the rest kill, steal, or borrow guns not identified as being owned by them (#2 gun owner did not do shooting) Both options have been shirked in every. Single. Shooting. 

                Recent shootings with minors not of age to purchase and firearms used not considered the "assault" category would lead me to suggest you reconsider leaving the repeal/confiscation option off your list, as eliminating it from the package indeed leaves you as the one out of touch. 

                1. Maybe it was that other Negev, who just two comments ago was applauding “any defense” including basketballs, and boxes of rocks?

                2. Have you ever in the history of school shootings seen the top 7 options of your list succeed?

                  1. Never tried at a Federal level. Individual states free to set their own limits. Loopholes big enough to drive a SAM -armed tank through.

                  2.Again, never tried. Existing insurance policies insure the value of gun collections, not the value of lives that may be lost  because of the guns.

                  3. What is "success"? If it's just keeping the body count down, then I suppose you could say we succeeded. If your kid happened to be one of the bodies, then not so much.

                  4. Fire extinguisher defense? It works in all the cartoons and action flicks. I want an ACME portable hole for the shooter to fall into, as well.

                  5. Really, I wouldn't ask my football player students to do this. Just being young, strong and male shouldn't mean being expendable.

                  6.  About 7 school shootings ago in Colorado, the killer killed himself when he heard the security guard and others coming. But he wasn't brought down by "a good guy with a gun". Douglas County is going to be arming its security guards – NOT trained police- with Bushmasters. I see the same problems I mentioned in items 8, 9, and 10: Lack of training, lack of accountability, potential for unfair targeting of kids who are already targeted.

                  I worked in a school in which 4 young freshmen died in a year – two in car accidents, one in a gang drive-by, and one stabbed in the lunchroom. There were school resource officers or other guards around at two of these, but they were not able to prevent the deaths.

                  7. I may collect a bucket of rocks – but again, it hasn't been tried that I'm aware of, so it's disingenuous to ask if it has "succeeded" in stopping a school shooting.

                  Here is the money quote from the article you linked to to "prove" that universal background checks and closing gun show / online gun buying loopholes won't work to stop mass shootings:

                  "The way our laws are structured unfortunately often times allow people to legally buy guns who shouldn't," said Mike McLively, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence based in San Francisco.

                  The man who threatened my life can still legally buy guns. His second amendment rights have not been infringed, which I assume makes you happy. Should the law not be changed?

                  Distance and other people are my safety buffer. Not every threatened person has that security.

                  It's late, I'm done. Your logic does not hold up. I'm glad you're not among the wackos pushing for me to sport a Glock to class , but you have failed in your basic mission: to show why we should not license guns like cars, require universal background checks, require guns to be safely locked in homes, cause people financial pain if they are unwilling to comply with these basic safety measures.



              2. MJ, the problem is that Negev appears to be really bad at both logic and math.

                For some reason, the simple solution of fewer guns equals fewer deaths completely escapes him.

                Of course, the real answer to the puzzle Negev poses is:

                It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

          1. Nope.

            Nice try though . . . 

            . . . Any so-called “defense” with a higher likelihood of causing more harm than the probability of the need for it, is certainly not a good defense . . . 

            . . . back to the drawing board Wile E.


            1. You aren't thinking this through, Dio.  Not much can go wrong with the box of rocks since one guy going nuts and throwing them isn't likely to kill anybody.  But if 20 kids are all throwing rocks the chance of stunning and disarming the shoot er is significant.  


              1. I am thinking this through — box of rocks, fine.  Whatever. Cute.

                 However Negev said “any defense” is better than no defense.  You’re supposed to agree with that, reasonable sounding premise (cuz’ you’re thinking box-o-rocks), and he’s moving the conversation down the road to other weapons “of defense”, and, then just two comments later he carefully points out that another’s “any defenses”, but not his preferred defenses, are not good defenses. (question:  what weapons “of defense” does Negev nearly always get around to advocating for whenever he’s here?) .

                . . . you thinking this through?

                1. Thinking, as opposed to sarcasm, isn't really your strong suit, Dio.  To me, the appeal of a box of rocks as a community defense mechanism is that it is fairly useless if one rogue soul tries to abuse it. Not so the gun or molotov cocktail.  But a hail of stone can be lethal and even MJ is willing to include it on her list of when all-else-fails remedies.

                  Sure, you'd prefer universal confiscation of firearms, but you ain't gonna get that.  MJ's measures are more moderate and achievable.  Notably, as she notes, the box of rocks is the only remedy on both her list and Negev's.  

                  On a subject as polarized as this one, that is worth something.

                  1. I truly don’t have a problem with a box of rocks . . . 

                    (Might be a bit of a problem selling that one, publicly. But, why not, I’d rather see that than teachers with flamethrowers.)

                    . . . you carry a box around in your head, and I haven’t heard you speak of ever being attacked, so, yeah, why not?  

                    (Maybe it’s all the rattling that scares some would-be attackers and other people, I dunno? . . .

                    . . . and, it’s probably not the reason you’re such an asshole.  Probably not the only reason.)

                    Conviscation?  No.  Relax.  Your guns (and mine) won’t be taken.  You can even keep your cranial cache of rocks, too! . . . 

                    1. Well, Negev's and Andrei's work is done. We did start out talking about gun safety and Trump's "I know you are but what am I?" distraction from Russiagate, among other topics, and now we're talking about personalities and the relative educational  merits of rocks in heads and/or buckets.

                      Speaking of which, when I make my bucket o'rocks (which I think I will try to get away with calling Ken Bucket)  I think I'll have a little fun with painting rocks. Polsters (and others) who irritate and/or amuse me will get a rock painted in their honor. The kids will use these as bathroom passes. Win-win,right?

                      I also have a whole plan for grading Ken Bucket. Participation points: Perfect attendance, quiet, doesn't bother anybody. Helps people remember what classroom they came from when they go to the bathroom. 

                      On the negative side, Ken Bucket doesn't contribute  to discussions, and never turns in any work. He's terrible at taking standardized tests.

                      But he might be handy as ammunition.


  1. It occurred to me that there are two main differences between Nixon and Trump:

    1.  50 IQ points

    2.  Trump already built his crime family before he became President

    For more than a year, President Trump has been at war with law enforcement agencies that answer to him, interjecting himself into an investigation in which he himself is a subject. And he has escalated the conflict drastically in recent days by accusing the F.B.I. of placing a “spy”inside his 2016 campaign, pressuring the agencies to reveal secret information and demanding an investigation of his investigators.

    “To turn on the F.B.I. using this loaded language like ‘spy’ and ‘infiltrate,’ President Trump is trying to poison public opinion against the F.B.I. for his own reasons,” said Barbara McQuade, a career federal prosecutor who served as United States attorney in Michigan under President Barack Obama. “He may be successful, but I worry about the impact his kind of rhetoric has on the public when the F.B.I. is investigating a case of kidnapping or bank robbery and the president has told them they’re not trustworthy.”

    And Gerbils appears to be going all-in for Alex Jones conspiracy propaganda to normalize the Cheetolini's behavior.

  2. Trump runs a really tight ship, and knows what’s going on in his administration!

    TRUMP’S “PHONY” SOURCE TURNS OUT TO BE A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL. President Donald Trump on Saturday accused The New York Times of inventing a source for a story who, in fact, was a White House official conducting a briefing for reporters under the condition that the official not be named.

    Trump tweeted that the Times quoted an official “who doesn’t exist” and referenced a line in the story about a possible summit with North Korea, which read: “a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.”

    Said Trump: “WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.”

    The Times reported in a story about the tweet that it had cited “a senior White House official speaking to a large group of reporters in the White House briefing room.”

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Trump repeatedly has criticized the use of unnamed sources and labeled information related by unnamed officials “fake news.” Still, his White House regularly arranges briefings with officials who demand anonymity before relaying information, a practice also used by previous administrations.

  3. Darn good thing it’s a long weekend . . . 

    . . . cuz just the title alone is likely to splode’ someone’s head.

    The lesson here isn’t just about these two candidates. Dozens of other Democratic candidates also sound like Abrams and Lamb. The lesson is that Democrats are more united than many people realize — and are running a pretty smart midterm campaign.

    . . .  and, even worse . . . 

    Yes, there are some tensions on the political left. But these tensions — over Obama-style incrementalism vs. Bernie-style purism, over the wisdom of talking about impeachment, over whether to woo or write off the white working class — are most intense among people who write and tweet about politics. Among Democrats running for office, the tensions are somewhere between mild and nonexistent.

    Democrats Are Running a Smart, Populist Campaign

    . . . Now, aren’t you glad you didn’t have to worry about whether or not to bring an umbrella to work today?

  4. Gerbil's ludicrous propaganda piece is dismissed by, you know, actual credible sources:

    Democratic Representative Adam Schiff was among those briefed. Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, he said, “There is no evidence to support that spy theory. This is just a piece of propaganda the president wants to put out and repeat.”

    Republican Senator Marco Rubio told the same program that so far he has seen no evidence to support the president’s assertions about a campaign “spy.”

    “What I have seen so far is an FBI effort to learn more about individuals with a history of bragging about links to Russia that pre-exist the campaign. If those people were operating near my office or my campaign, I’d want them investigated,” said Rubio, who ran unsuccessfully against Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary campaign.

    “If it turns out to be something different, we want to know about it. But it is the FBI’s job to investigate counterintelligence,” Rubio said.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

53 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!