The moment when the Special Counsel was forced to read their own words about Trump

Originally published at:


Behold! Another US taxpayer funded gQp fiction fest to smear a person.



Both of my parents have passed away more than 7+ years ago though I couldn’t tell you the date or year.

Although my memory is excellent and my parents were important people in my life, the dates of their passing is not.


That was glorious. I think it is particularly telling he tried to get out of reading his own words when they negatively characterized Trump. That and his very long pause after another senator asked if he would pledge not to take an appointment by Trump.


Honestly, I’m angry at Hur, but I’m more pissed at Merrick Garland for appointing this guy to run this investigation in the first place. How stupid is this guy? He had a Supreme Court appointment stolen out from under him by these bastards and he thinks that he can play nice with them and be treated fairly… What the hell, man? If there’s anyone in the Biden administration who is not fit for office, it’s this guy.


i think the investigation probably looks better to a wider range of people because garland had a ■■■■■ appointee as special counsel.

if he’d chosen someone from the biden or obama administration, there’d have been the appearance of conflict… even if the person had still done their job honestly.

personally, i think its good to try to hold the line on what acceptable behavior looks like, and not play fast and loose just because the other side does. even though the gop still won’t acknowledge the facts… you do it simply because it’s the right thing to do.

( ex. as pointed out in the video, garland also didn’t summarize, redact, or ask for any edits of the report. that’s how we want our government to operate. )


I’m 47 years old and do not have any cognitive or memory issues. I have lost a father, a mother, and a brother. I could tell you the year and month they died, but I would have to look up the exact date. Different people process loss and trauma in different ways. Sometimes it’s remembering the date and time, and sometimes the emotions and locations. Sometimes it’s remembering other objects of memory. I sure as hell remember where I was and what I was doing when I learned my loved ones died. I don’t have a disorder because I don’t remember the exact date on command by a lawyer in a testimony that has nothing to do with those losses.


I remember the precise time, day and date my mother died, because it was on a Sunday morning exactly one week before Christmas Day.

This gave me the problem of registering the death within 7 calendar days, a legal requirement in the UK. This couldn’t be done without getting the hospital to certificate the cause of death, before I could book an appointment with the Registrar, which had to be in the district of her death, a long way from where she or I lived. This entire bureaucratic nightmare was played out across the landscape of grief, loss, and familial obligations to her survivors.

However I have to think to get the right year, and it was only a couple of years ago.

The way memory works is not like a neatly written logbook.


I take your point, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Firstly, I think we would both agree that the GOP is going to spin and distort whatever info is accumulated, because they are not interested in fairness or finding facts.
Secondly, they are going to attack any special counsel who does not provide a report which is biased toward their purpose to smear the sitting president, and blur the distinction between his conduct and that of T****. Appointing a special counsel like Hur played directly into their hands and the Dems will receive no credit for fairness.
Lastly, the GOP are going to make accusations of bias against any report which does not further their efforts to blur the lines between honest behavior and dishonest behavior. There is no point in attempting to circumvent that effort by making their job easier and by appointing a known GOP figure who will help them.
I would like to think that Garland is ethical and scrupulous as you suggest, but if so he is dangerously naive and ineffective both with this choice of Hur, and with his long delays in commencing the prosecutions against the criminal actions of T****. It was a mistake to make him AG.


I would say Garland was playing the long game, with total confidence that Biden did nothing wrong. And that it worked, in large part because the Dems have finally stopped playing nice and trying to not offend the fascist, but to punch them in the mouth whenever possible. And this hearing showed just that. It worked. I can’t be mad about it.


The problem is a huge swath of people will see nothing but the report, and hear about reporting on the report. The transcripts show parts of that report are blatantly false, but that info will never make it into the Fox/Newsmax/etc circle - they will only see the report saying he’s a bit forgetful.

There are people today still using the uncountable-times-debunked anti-vax study as gospel truth, having no idea it was debunked and it’s author defrocked.


You are so right. I recently mentioned that CPAC speaker who crowed about “Welcome to the end of democracy.” A conservative co-worker immediately chirped up with “I have never heard any conservative say something like that.” Man, this was not some internet nobody, it was the opening speaker at CPAC. “Never heard of that. Must be some rando.” I can’t even begin to explain the frustration. This guy seems genuinely nice, but willfully ignorant of what his party is promoting.


We all live in bubbles these days. Sometimes it’s more deliberate and sometimes the tech does it to you. One experiment I used to show people when I provided “internet training” was browsing a news or social media site logged in and then logged out/with a private window. The difference is startling, often. Give it a try!

That said, is there a fix for this? Not easily. Tech purposely will try to feed you things that you will consume so that you want to consume more.


that’s my point though. what if it’s not about “credit”? what if garland made the choice that he thought was the most likely to be unswayed by loyalty? what if he made the choice he thought was right?

like for me? i try to act in ways that i believe comport with my values. not because someone is going to praise me ( nor because god will give me a cookie when i die. )

that’s entirely different than ■■■■■ and most of the gop, who seem entirely concerned with “what will this get me”

i do agree that it’s not always wise to do the right thing; still it can be heartening to see, consequences and all

yeah. me neither.

they were always going to criticize biden for being three years older than his predecessor. they didn’t need this report for that. they’ll invent whatever they think they need


Even if Garland’s goal was to win the political game for Democrats it still paid off in at least one way.

One thing the Republicans haven’t been able to do with this report was to create an enduring media narrative that Hur was just carrying water for Biden.


It’s gratifying to watch them yell at Hur, though. “I have to take this shit from people on my side? Where’s the gratitude?”


As he was speaking, he could imagine his would-be patron hearing him speak, and knew that instead of receiving a lifetime judge appointment, he was now more likely to receive nothing but a Truth social tweet attacking him as a disloyal RHINO.


I wonder how much taxpayer money has been spent on this entire “stollen” election crap. The 60 court cases, the hearings, the cases against President Biden. It’s all BS and has only been allowed because of the coward GQP following TFG’s orders. Hopefully, the next time they all bow to their orange fuhrer will be a “but I really did win” pity party at Mar-a-Lardo November 2024


The gQp’s theater productions are not free. We pay for every second of their thumbs down performance.



Stollen: a fruitcake the public can be proud to vote for!