Brit Hume says Mueller report coverage ‘worst journalistic fiasco’ he’s seen in 50-year news career

Washington Examiner: Veteran journalist Brit Hume called the media’s coverage of President Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia the “worst journalistic fiasco” he’s seen in his 50-year career.

Hume’s criticism comes in light of a trending social media theme of #Obamagate after former President Barack Obama expressed his concern over the Justice Department dropping charges against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn last Friday.

Flynn was fired in early 2017 for lying about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador. Trump and his allies have accused Obama of being aware of a “deep state” ploy within the highest levels of federal law enforcement to deny Trump the presidency.

Trump has been the subject of a longtime media storyline linking his 2016 campaign team to Russia. Trump and his camp were eventually investigated by former special counsel Robert Mueller, who compiled a report documenting the findings and the evidence for Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While the report found Russia had used disinformation tactics to meddle in the election, it did not find substantial evidence linking Trump’s campaign with the foreign actor.

On Tuesday, Hume blasted the pursuit of the “collusion narrative” by top newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post in a relentless chase that eventually landed the coverage Pulitzer Prizes in 2018. read more

31 Comments on Brit Hume says Mueller report coverage ‘worst journalistic fiasco’ he’s seen in 50-year news career

  1. Pot meet Kettle.

    Hume played a huge part in queering the deal for Gingrich in the ’12 primaries and we ended up with a Romney/Ryan ticket.

    Thanks, Brit Hume.

  2. Here’s one example of Hume making the case for Romney over Gingrich.

    There’s a lot worse. Hume was unrelenting. He really got out there and stumped for Romney by saying:”Republicans in Congress will be ‘terrified to run’ with Gingrich, will ‘try to defeat him’

    I was a Gingrich supporter in ’12 because of the speech he gave at one of Horowitz’s “Restoration Weekend.” In that speech Gingrich laid out how to completely polarize the Left and Right and instead of trying to go the usual “big tent” message, to go ahead and draw the clear distinctions and solutions offered by conservatives over progressives. This was exactly what was needed in ’12, and it is exactly what POTUS Trump did when he made his Trump Tower speech. Americans were more than ready to divorce itself from a long, bad marriage with the Left.

  3. …anyway, Brit Hume, Brett Baier and the rest of them at FNC have no room to talk about “bad journalism.” Least of all Brit Hume.

    Man, this makes me sore.


  5. I always liked Brit’s causal demeanor but his lack of political cognizance leaves a LOT to be desired.

  6. @Abigail Adams – Mdm. I FULLY get you about Hume. This is one of the reasons I stopped watching FOX ten plus years ago.

    BUT that said, why not embrace this? At least he is recognizing what is going on AND he made comments recently about Bidens ‘condition’.

    He is calling out his fellow journo’s. What can we not like about that?

    I asked you if you could provide other sources of American conservatism that YOU prefer, whatever the source, cabletv, website or other, still waiting.

    Gen Glover

  7. ghost we have long memories of those who were anti Trump. ..
    Brit was not on the list but he is not a true P. Trump supporter.
    They all look for blood and make no mistake if he could help bring down P.Trump he would. Mark Levin is the same.
    All of the press is out to get him, almost every one of them.
    Very very few are on our side.
    The only thing stopping them is they know that Biden is a complete idiot.

  8. @Geoff C. The Saltine – Thomas Sowell himself is on that list, should I throw him out now? In the trash bin of history?? How about ANDREW C. MCCARTHY? He prosecuted the 1993 bombers!! AND is now HAMMERING the current ‘situation’ with Flynn etc, I just listened to him on the John Batchelor Show (another hesitant DJT supporter) but solid.

    I LOVE Thomas Sowell the guy is off the charts conservative BRILLIANT who WAS a lib first when he was 20 years old, when working for the gubmint he realized ‘ something ain’t right here’.

    And Cal Thomas has been SOLID his entire career.

    Thank You, I have seen that before, but I don’t care about the anti trumper ‘lists’.

  9. ghost yes many have come around we all know that but my point is they almost cost us being stuck with Hillary.
    McCarthy was still defending the fbi and the doj until a year and a half ago.
    They all worked against P.Trump and many still do.
    I will never trust any of them fully again.

  10. @Geoff C. The Saltine- a year and a half ago is a LIFETIME these daze, at least in the case of McCarthy and others. Do the writings he has done, and still doing, bear no relevance? Not everyone is going to be, or was, on our side, but when I hear coherence I’ll take it.

    And at This point, I will take on ALL experts and knowledgeable ‘tradesman’ onto the ship’ at this point.

    Hillary is gone. IOW she did not win. THANK GOD. So now the murky muddy pol cleared and now, like McCarthy and others can see clear to the bottom? Same like Larry Johnson now writing for the GWP.

  11. As will I ghost. I was a commenter for years at No Quarter when Larry had that site I know him well.

  12. Is it really a fiasco is the media decides it’s not. See Scandal Free Obama and Coronavirus Commisar Cuomo.

  13. @ghost — I think we’re seeing the same people from opposite viewing perspectives. There are two ways to see this. Yours’ is from someone who sees McCarthy, Levin, Sowell, et al, as cheerleaders for “our cause”. True enough, they are. But your support of them lacks any criticism of a couple of very important, fundamental characteristics: their solid reliability in the clinches, and their inability to understand why The People elected POTUS Trump in the first place. Those are two things that are way too important to be ignored when evaluating these people. There are other important reasons to question anyone who planted their flag as a #NeverTrump(er), but I think those first two are supreme.

    It’s hard to fully respond to this argument without writing 2000 words on it, or without digging through my ponderous comments on this subject from the ’16 cycle, at the genesis of the #NT movement.

    Have you read the NRO “Never Trump” issue, and each of the essays written by the signatories?

    Since you keep bringing up Sowell, I’m putting his essay here in full. I’ve linked the full issue with all the essays, below.


    “In a country with more than 300 million people, it is remarkable how obsessed the media have become with just one — Donald Trump. What is even more remarkable is that, after seven years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor.

    No doubt much of the stampede of Republican voters toward Mr. Trump is based on their disgust with the Republican establishment. It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters. But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions?

    No national leader ever aroused more fervent emotions than Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s. Watch some old newsreels of German crowds delirious with joy at the sight of him. The only things at all comparable in more recent times were the ecstatic crowds that greeted Barack Obama when he burst upon the political scene in 2008.

    Elections, however, have far more lasting and far more serious — or even grim — consequences than emotional venting. The actual track record of crowd pleasers, whether Juan Perón in Argentina, Obama in America, or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing.

    After the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, we are entering an era when people alive at this moment may live to see a day when American cities are left in radioactive ruins. We need all the wisdom, courage, and dedication in the next president — and his or her successors — to save ourselves and our children from such a catastrophe.

    A shoot-from-the-hip, belligerent show-off is the last thing we need or can afford.”

    I’ve been fascinated with Sowell since I was a teenager watching him on Firing Line. Many people know him from his commentary and essays; I’ve read his books. He tackles some of the hardest issues of our time. He is fearless when it comes to critiquing American black culture.

    In this #NT essay he starts by questioning (and thus undermining) the average Trump supporter’s ability to assess Trump rationally, and yet he goes on to support his own argument against Trump by conjuring up the biggest boogie man in the room, nuclear war with Iran. Sowell’s entire argument against Trump is one boogie man after another: Trump is Hitler? Wow.

    This is one of the most heart-breaking things I’ve ever experienced coming from a truly brilliant, truly thoughtful man. I’d already figured out most of the rest of the NR #NT writers by then, but this really shook me up. How could he get Trump so completely wrong? How could he ascribe emotionalism as the only reason so many people supported Trump? It made so little sense to me at the time that I was even willing to believe that someone had paid him a lot of money to write that essay. And when I saw Andrew McCarthy’s name on that list, I was sure of it. I’ve been to a live event featuring McCarthy as a keynote and you could have knocked me over with a feather to see him fall in with #NT. The others? Well, most of them make their living as pundits on tee vee and radio and because I’d already figured them out by then they came as no surprise to me. But Sowell? McCarthy? These two were normally well outside the cause celebre’ of conservative punditry. Each would tell you facts about the subject and let you draw your own conclusions from them. They were completely rational and could debate your questions without resorting to sophistry or logical fallacies. Rock solid.

    Despite Sowell’s commentary on Trump, I was unmoved by his entreaty. Finding the answer to whatever motivated him so much that he joined that gang of 22 would have to wait, I had a candidate I had to get elected. But one thing came out of it: Anyone who could not understand Trump’s vast appeal was so very obviously missing the most important point, and could no longer be completely trusted to inform me about him or his candidacy. That was a really hard truth.

    My point in this: No one is infallible. People get things wrong. But to plant your flag so firmly in the ground that you call yourself an “official #NeverTrump” takes an extraordinary will to do so; so much so that unless one writes an open letter repudiating their thinking behind that decision or at least explaini what caused them to believe what they did, cannot be trusted to not do it again. As far as I know Sowell has done neither.

    Sowell was not the biggest heartbreaker for me, either. There is one other that is so devastating, so loved, that I cannot even bring up his name. I have every book he’s ever written. But I no longer respect him as I once did because he missed the point of Trump, too.

    This is entirely too long and there’s so much more to say.

  14. @Abigail Adams – thank YOU for your thorough well thought out and written essay!

    I will give you yet a couple more examples of ‘a perceived’ NT’er.

    Dennis Prager – he could probably be considered one, as a Cruz supporter, in the beginning? Now? He just about comes to the aid of the POTUS almost daily. He admits regularly how he was not correct in his original expectations of DJT as a PERSON and now he thinks DJT is performed outstandingly well.

    Mike Gallegher – his position was to support the winning primary candidate whoever that will be’, he would say every day. Now he is one DJT’s biggest cheerleaders, daily.

    Personally? I was never a Non NT, I was just a Cruz fan, and having grown up my entire life in NYC, DJT has ‘always’ been there. His idea for the re-building of the Trade Center?
    PUT THEM BOTH BACK UP. That he wrote in a OP-ed article for the NY Postin 2001 like a month later or whatever. THAT is when he caught my attention as I thought ” hey I like that idea”. I never watched the Apprentice so I have no clue as to that side of things, and therefore DJT was not on my radar, oh of course he said he would run he is known to have said.

    And as for McCarthy? The guy tried and prosecuted the “blind sheik’ behind the first b-mbing in 93′. I forever am greatful of that, no matter what!

    “and their inability to understand why The People elected POTUS Trump in the first place.” -AA

    This one I disagree on, Levin certainly understands this, he talks about it ‘every other night’. I have heard McCarthy talk, I’ve never seen him, for many, many years, mostly on the John Batchelor Show (JB is brilliant as well and a perceived NTer, again at that time).

    When you get in a street fight, usually it’s one group against the other. Right? To engage a third party potential ally(?), is military and street fighting suicide.

    What you sent about the Sowell piece, yes, I agree it DOES sound extremely damming doesn’t it? And in hindsight completely wrong, and yes, disappointing.


    Gen Glover

  15. @ghost — Tying up a few loose questions from you:

    You asked: “BUT that said, why not embrace this? At least he is recognizing what is going on AND he made comments recently about Bidens ‘condition’.

    He is calling out his fellow journo’s. What can we not like about that?

    I asked you if you could provide other sources of American conservatism that YOU prefer, whatever the source, cabletv, website or other, still waiting.”

    On the first:

    Brit Hume and talking heads who work both sides of the cable news networks are not credible witnesses. They are not even journalists. They are nearly 100% editorial. If I want to know the facts, the last place I turn is to a known editorial “journalist” to explain anything to me.

    Why don’t I embrace or celebrate when someone from “my side” gives light and air to something I agree with? Simply this: If we’re going to make journalists account for themselves, we must make *all* journalists account for themselves. In other words, just because they say something I vigorously agree with today doesn’t mean they won’t completely disappoint me tomorrow, depending on their own political ideas or worldviews. Those two things should never enter into their reporting of the facts. Back in the day, the news was the news and tee vee stations had to tell us what was editorial. They had to state that openly. Today, there’s no distinction between the news and someone’s interpretation of it.

    This is a bit of a tricky needle to thread, I know, but here goes:

    I know that what Brit Hume says about some things are true. But I also know that he says and has said a lot of false things and has reasons which he does not disclose for saying false things. He is no more trustworthy as a source of information or coloring information than any other typical “journalist.” Those who applaud him for something we know is true, yet also know that he, himself, is also guilty of are, themselves, ignoring the very dishonesty Hume is accusing his peers of. In doing that it becomes quite obvious that we really don’t care about honesty in journalism as much as we care that someone from “our side” is calling it out. As is written in the gospel of John: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone (at her).” Hume (and other of his peers) are not without the sin of dishonest journalism and so it makes it even more insidious and even more of a sin for him to talk about dishonest journalism.

    So, until we care about the honesty of ALL so-called journalists, it’s an error thinking that people like Hume are on “our side.” None that fudge the truth or sensationalize are on “our side.”

    Maybe that answers the second part, too. I don’t follow or get information from tee vee or radio pundits. First off, they never ask the really important questions and second, they do most of the talking and never let their guests get a word in edgewise. Even some of my favorite personalities like Dobbs and Bongino constantly talk over their guests, goof around with strange speculations, break for too many commercials, etc. Or they spend the time pushing their guests’ latest books. It’s just irritating.

    I learned through my study of Christian apologetics, how to approach the gathering and sifting of information and how to defend an argument once a conclusion is reached regarding that information. It’s because of this that I do my own primary research and strongly encourage others to do that. And it takes me very far afield, indeed. News is not just the recitation of events. Everything is nested inside context, timing and an entire constellation of other events. I’m not anxious about not knowing — in a neat little package — the whole story about something. I detest hasty speculation. Eventually the outlines emerge from a host of, often unrelated, facts, information and events which cast the meaning of what I am seeking to know. It’s like hearing the fog horn from ship at sea, seeing “something” out there in the mists, coming closer and only then beginning to grasp the size and shape of it. But if I’m only seeing the bow, I still don’t know how long it is.

    I understand. If people are too busy to find out for themselves what’s what, they want to find someone they think is a reliable news source. I am grateful to people like Sundance, for example, for being so obsessive! But I still don’t agree with his editorial sometimes. I find the more someone sneaks in their opinion, the less I trust their facts.

    I hope this answers your questions.

  16. @Abigail Adams – fair enough!

    That said, I would like to think WE are both minded critical thinkers and I actually pride myself in digging deeper into the things ‘I hear or read about’,
    as YOU do! By I’m just not into ‘throwing out the baby with the bat water’! There are way to many leftists and communists to concentrate on already…never mind the RINOS, McStains, Krystals, Goldbergs, types. (btw I stopped reading NR ten years ago also about the same time when I stopped watching Fox, that is when I woke up to the UniParty). As you probably can tell from what I have written I LOVE the radio format and listening to Gorrrrrrrkaaaa right now, an absolute bulwark (another one ‘I found’ by listening to the J Batchelor show for the past 15 plus years) Glad he finally got his own show!

    Now, tell me more about Christian Apologetics!

    I ‘dig’ words A LOT, so why is the word ‘apology’ part of that?? That is if CA is about the ‘defense’ of Christianity. They are not apologizing for being Christians are they? Exactly so why the use of the word and who ‘coined’ this term originally?? Someone like Lewis or Chesterton?? Or much much earlier than THAT?

    I find myself CONSTANTLY trying ‘to defend’ Christianity’ so does that inherently make me a CAer??

    Just wondering, I have ‘heard’ about CA and a dear friend knows about it, perhaps I should revive that conversation with him.

    And I have heard Hugh Ross on Pragers show a couple of times and was FASCINATED by his personal experience and shear brilliance. (I only know he is CA because I just did some quick research).

    Gen Glover

  17. Let’s talk about Prager another time. Dennis was never an identified #NT. He’s confused about a lot of things if you really listen to him, but he’ll get there eventually, I think. I like him, but he knows very little about the doctrine of Christianity — which is very sad and funny, since he spends a lot of time talking about the subject.

    But back to Christian apologetics: The word, of course, comes from the Greek “apolgia” — to speak in defense of something. So, no, there is no connection to the word “apology” the way we use and think of that word.

    And since the very process of apologetics is to encourage primary investigation, here is a link that I think explains the art and science of Christian apologetics quite well. About midway down the front page you’ll see how apologetics can be (should be) applied to all of humanity’s endeavors, and not just Christianity.


    There are a lot of resources out there if you go looking.

  18. Finally, ghost, this is why I don’t trust anyone who was against Trump in the beginning (especially #NT’s who haven’t explicitly recanted):

    Their reasons or arguments for being against him were deeply in error. If they had said that they just don’t like his personality, okay. Everyone has that right. But they did not have the right to state erroneous information about him and then try to convince others that it was true. Whether they did this knowingly or not is no excuse. And it is because they based their arguments (their apologetics) on untruths, they do not have a solid — apologetically-speaking — foundation for their claims.

    Fast forward to today: If those same people who did not have a solid footing for making their claims against Trump then, and have not gone back to build that missing foundation, they have changed nothing about their knowledge of him. They have merely exchanged one set of beliefs with a superficial structure that may only be motivated by a decrease in audience, sponsors, job opportunities, etc. And they may parrot others’ opinions about Trump, but they lack the ability to stand alone in his defense when push comes to shove.

    When Victor Davis Hanson, for example, wrote “The Case For Trump”, he demonstrated in a real way, his rethinking and rebuilding a true apologetic that could withstand criticism. (Though I still think he got part of Trump’s character wrong.)

  19. @Abigail Adams – Thanks for the link! I took an initial look and will DELVE into much much further…

    Is Eric Metaxes a modern CAer? How about John Zimirak?? Are you familiar with the latter??

    That said? They, whoever created the term, really REALLY should have thought about that one! You (not you) add the letter S to it and it reverses the definition!?

    Was Michael the Archangel THEE defender of good, of FAITH, against EVIL or was he an apologetic for it?? Words ARE everything, at least to me, this is how ‘we’ communicate! Ha ha…

    Your ‘political’ analogy of VDH (quite an amazing speaker and writer) and CA is spot on, now that makes the muddy pool more clear between you and I! :>)

    VDH is yet ANOTHER person I found on radio many years ago, again on the John Batchelor Show, same with Gordon Chang they have been talking about CHINA for years!!

    AND in addition to those characters, Larry Kudlow was a regular to go to, Steve Moore was, these were all interviews I listened to looong prior to what is going on now in DJT World. This is wild to know in hindsight, now that they are in the DJT admin, include Steve Bannon in the list of people he has had on.

    He has history(name it) guys on, science guys on, for instance Robert Zimmerman anyone?

    I strongly suggest all iOTWers give his show a listen. he was battling throat cancer for a bit there so…getting him live is hit or miss. WABC770AM 10PM ECT.

    It’s difficult for some to get past the ‘character’ part of the DJT phenom, some forget the behavior of those they voted for (Clinton) the crying libs and others debate the whole ‘grab ’em by the p’ comment they got hung up on.

    Was this an issue for you?

    Gen Glover

  20. Thanks, ghost —

    You know Paul was the first apologist when he wrote in the Epistles that every Christian must have a response to any who ask them about God. What Paul was saying is that we who are Christians must be able to defend the faith. So, you could say that Paul and the Apostles were the first Christian apologists and they developed the first Christian apologetics.

    I love Eric Metaxas! I don’t know John Zimirak, though. Yes, Eric M. is a great apologist. I was “almost famous” last year when Eric tweeted a shout out to me because I recommended his amazing interview w/David Horowitz for Fur to post. That was special.

    Two men whom I think were/are at the top of the heap on apologetics: Ravi Zakarias and the late Nabeel Qureshi. If you get the time to listen to them (many, many YT videos), I highly recommend them. Nabeel died way too soon in 2017 of advanced stomach cancer at the age of 34. He was a Muslim convert, held many degrees including medicine, and loves God with more heart than anyone I can imagine. I met Ravi when he gave the keynote and closing at the annual Worldview Apologetics conference here in Seattle. Ravi has even taken his defense of Christianity to the stage of the Mormon Tabernacle — that’s how good he is. Go figure that one out, right? Sadly, Ravi has been recently diagnosed with a rare cancer that has attacked the base of his spine, so please remember him in your prayers.

    Of course, one of the most famous apologists was C.S. Lewis. If you haven’t read his books, start with “Mere Christianity”. I’m very eager to meet him in Heaven.

    Does Trump’s demeanor bother me? It did at first. I remember cringing when I saw him in the first debate. But it didn’t take long to figure out why. I think a big part of it was buying into the whole, phony “presidential” thing. I don’t know how well you got to know Moe Tom here on the blog, but Moe Tom had several encounters w/Trump on jobsites. Moe Tom was about as profane as you can get, but was a real man with a real heart who just told it like it was. Getting to know Moe Tom helped me to understand Trump, since Moe Tom was a NYC boy, too, about the same age as Trump and just as practical.

    I think you’d have to have led a pretty sheltered life not to be exposed to the rough talk of business or sports. I didn’t like him for his blue collar, NYC sensibilities, I like him for his platform. He’s a guy! Besides, I knew exactly what he was talking about with that “grab ’em by the pussy” talk. And if they were honest, I think everyone else did, too.

  21. …and before I forget: One of my go-to people is Larry Arnn at Hillsdale. We’ve spent a relatively long time with him at a one of Hillsdale’s National Leadership conferences. This panel presentation occurred mid-September of 2016. The speakers are Jonah Goldberg of NRO, Poly Sci Prof, John Marini and president Larry Arnn.

    Have you ever taken any of Hillsdales online classes? They’re wonderful.

  22. @Abigail Adams – The Apostles and Paul make perfect sense for being the ‘originalists’ with CA. But it would appear Peter was THE first to die for it?? Would this be correct??

    In another thread I explained to IOTWers that we have two young teenage boy that will be of college age in several years. Because to of the state of the ‘condition’ that college and U’s are in nowadaze? Hillsdale is probably the only college, I am aware of, other than someone posted about a Catholic college in Wyoming? I LOVE Wyoming!

    I have not watched any of Arnns vids but I have heard several times on….the Mark Levin show! Ha ha I could not help myself…and yes I have been meaning for the longest time to start watching the online classes, which you now sparked me to make this part of the ‘remote learning’ they are doing now…PERFECT!

    I told you about a good friend that is very well read in CA? (to the point he has gone to a conference in Cambridge just to be able to participate) Well he and I went to go see EM and DP down at Trinity College in NYC, it was a great discussion with the two of them. Can you imagine the banter? We were able to talk individually with them afterwards and EM even introduced his wife to us? Cool stuff.

    I’ve only been around a couple of years here now at iOTW and I do remember MT’s posts, and thought? THIS guy MUST be a fellow NYer, I could just tell and now you confirmed it. I could hear his accent and NY ‘attitude’through the internet!!

    “I didn’t like him for his blue collar, NYC sensibilities ” – Abigail Adams

    THIS IS EXACTLY why I liked DJT, the builder that he is, not the Apprentice bullshit. He ‘won’ because he was a builder not because of any TV show, I think? Also, DJT not JUST a builder from Queens, he is an ALPHA builder from Queens, and that GAULS the hell out of the leftist/dems/metoo/feministas types!!

    AND again, for that reason alone, I love stand by this ‘guy’a, this MAN!!! :>)

    Jonah Goldberg!?!? IS HE NOT the classic NTer?? Has he repented, I was not award of this??? Ya killin’ me ova here!

    Gen Glover

  23. That’s cool that you were able to meet Metaxas.

    When I said that I didn’t like Trump for his NY sensibilities, I didn’t word that right. What I meant was that I overlooked the rough edges that everyone was hung up on, and that it wasn’t *just* his NY background and real estate success that drew me in. Behind his fractious Deep State finger-pointing was the best built presidential candidate platform I’ve ever seen. If you’d been around during the ’16 cycle at IOTW, you would have seen all the times I referred people to his planks in our back and forth here. Of course all the Cruz people just gave me the wave off, but I stuck to my guns.

    Yes, Jonah Goldberg was one of the progenitors of #NT, the leader of it. If you get a chance, listen to that Hillsdale panel discussion I linked above. It’s priceless. This is was so close to the GE. Pay attention to the audience response. Goldberg and Steve Hayes teamed up just last year to create a site that he describes as “Trump skeptical.” So, that’s what Goldberg is doing these days. A die-hard #NT if there ever was one. He just cannot admit he was wrong. This is what happens when your biases search for flimsy evidence of confirmation instead of hunting for the truth.

  24. @Abigail Adams –

    ‘Of course all the Cruz people just gave me the wave off, but I stuck to my guns.’

    Well, I was not here at that time, 2016, I got ‘to the iOTW bar late’ compared to MANY here.

    BUT I do know one thing, and that is that many iOTWers here were in fact Cruz first, THEN DJT. It’s true.

    Hey, did ya see Mark Levin tonight on his Fox show RIPPIN’ Obama and his Conspiracy against the USA??

    The guy, Mark Levin, is an American Hero!

    Ya see, “This is what happens when your biases search for flimsy evidence of confirmation instead of hunting for the truth.” – Abigail Adams


    How big are those GUNS ya ‘stick to’ btw? Caliber??

    The 14th Continental had ‘small’ canni that we rolled around, only a few POUNDERS.

    Gen Glover

Comments are closed.