Mitch McConnell – RINO?

So the “stable genius” who gave the GOP Dr. Mehmet “Crudités” Oz, Herschel Walker, Blake Masters and J.D. Vance thinks Mitch McConnell is a “hack.” GOP’s Trump-induced meltdown on full display. You cannot make this stuff up.

Someone around here is constantly referring to the apocryphal adage by Napoleon to the effect of “Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself,” so I will say no more.

19 thoughts on “Mitch McConnell – RINO?

    1. History repeats itself. Trump bashing McConnell is old news AND recent news because McConnell dared to say that some of the Trump Senate candidates were less than stellar. In my research Google presented many stories on this recent news. I chose this one because it is in an extreme right wing rag that you people would not quibble with. But, as you noticed, it was a similar but older story.

      Here is the current story . . .

      Liked by 1 person

  1. McConnell kept the partisan hack Garland off the Supreme Court, so I will cut him a lot of slack.

    I’m not so sure the ‘candidate quality’ thing flies. Dr Oz would not have been my choice for the GOP Senate ticket in PA, but look at who he is running against. Fetterman lived off his parents until he was almost 50 and has never supported himself other than as a politician. How can you lose to that?


  2. “How can you lose to that?”

    Which, was the point.
    Trump and his cult gave the GOP Dr. Oz and gave the Democrats a decisive Senate seat. The “RINO” they pushed aside could have kept the seat. Thanks Trump!

    You people can trash talk about Fetterman all you want. It is what you do. But, in fact, he has had a very active career of service to young people and to his town throughout his life. Something that you people obviously put no value on. Dr Oz – so much more worthy! But, you say, his parents helped him. Who else go help from his parents?

    As for your referring to Merrick Garland as a “partisan hack,” I take that as a further sign of how being a Trumpkin cheapens and debases one’s intellect. He is in fact a very honorable public servant who has not been involved in anything “political” throughout his career. Including now. It’s about the law, stupid. Whether its Timothy McVeigh or Donald Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “It’s about the law, stupid.”

      That’s a hard case to make. Regarding Garland’s Mar-a-Lago search, all three of the laws cited in the warrant are probably moot.


      1. “. . .all three of the laws cited in the warrant are probably moot.”

        How is a law moot? That does not make any sense.

        The judge who actually saw the evidence of violations of three statutes approved the search warrant based on probable cause that crimes were committed. Based on evidence. What is your basis for saying he was wrong? You have evidence the court did not?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “What is your basis for saying he was wrong?”

          I didn’t say the judge was wrong. I said the three laws in question are probably moot (meaning, debatable, doubtful, of little or no practical value or relevance). I wrote a whole post on this topic a couple of days ago.


          1. So, when Trump is caught red-handed breaking long-standing laws the violation of which has put other people in prison, the problem is not Trump’s breaking them. Oh no. The problem is that the law he broke is of no value? Is that about right?

            Just for the record, the value of a law can be “debatable,” but “moot” is not a synonym in that context. To help you understand, if I say “The Yankees are the best team ever” but you think not, your response of “That is moot.” is not sensible.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. “In this case, one that cannot be prosecuted.”

            It is best to stick with what words mean. Avoids confusion. But now that we know what you mean, why can the three laws violated not be prosecuted? Is Trump THAT special?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “why can the three laws violated not be prosecuted?”

            As I wrote a couple of days ago:

            • Section 793. Mar-a-Lago must have been approved as a location for storage of classified materials, since the president occasionally worked there while in office. Also, it must have been approved as a storage location for presidential papers, or else the National Archives would have objected.
            • Section 1519. Obstruction is unlikely, since the location of the documents was well-known, Trump’s attorneys were communicative, and no one is talking about any alterations or destruction of documents.
              • Section 2071. As stated, unconstitutional.


          3. Well, thanks for clarifying.

            Your reasons for declaring the laws “moot” do not stand up to much analysis.

            1. Saying that Mar-a-Lago “must” have been approved as a storage location is a question of fact, not of law. NARA did not seem to think so which is why they went to the DOJ to get the documents listed and returned. And, you are forgetting, none of the laws in question relate to questions of classification at all.
            2. Actually, people are talking about the destruction of documents. If Trump flushed Presidential documents down the toilet at the White House or tore them up, why not a Mar-a-Lago? You say the location was well-known? When did it become “well-known?” And how can you say that a document’s location is “well-known” when it was certified that they were not at Mar-a-Lago. But, again questions of fact, not of law.

            3. The disqualification clause of Section 2071 may or may not apply to the Presidency. That does not say it is an unconstitutional law nor that a former President is immune to its punishments.

            Bottom line, there is nothing “moot” or un-prosecutable here. It does not mean conviction is assured – it never is – but there is probable cause to say that these crimes were committed.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “ Mar-a-Lago must have been approved as a location for storage of classified materials, since the president occasionally worked there while in office.”

            Maybe while he was president. But he has not been in office, nor cleared for TS/SCI since January 2021.
            Was the clothes closet the approved storage then also? Was the same lock on now? Access logs?

            I don’t know and neither do you. Assuming a secure, approve location from 20 months ago is still in force today for a civilian with no clearance is kind of a huge stretch.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. Laws aren’t moot; they are recalled, rescinded or overturned by legislatures. (See some of the old trigger laws now going into effect in some GOP states. Some date back to the 19th century.) NONE of which is the case here. If it were moot, why would right wing Trumpanistas keep trying to use Obama to say what Trump did was ok?

        Liked by 1 person

  3. “So I will say no more” I seriously doubt it as TDS is a difficult mental disorder that consumes extremist left wing hacks. The only cure is a lobotomy, I hear. Care to give it a chance?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s