The Message Forum is an ongoing dialogue among classmates. The goal is to encourage friendly interaction, including interaction among classmates who really didn't know each other. Experience on the site has revealed that certain topics tend to cause friction and hard feelings, especially politics and religion. 

Although politics and religion are not completely off-limits, classmates are asked to be positive in their posts and not to be too repetitive or allow a dialog to degenerate into an argument. 

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Response" button to add your entry to the forum.

Lowell Tuttle

Lance, I don't know whether I should say this within the social media confines, but a very nice post.

David Cordell

Steve Keene

David and Lance,

For the sake of unity, a heartfelt thanks to Uncle Joe and Kamy from me.❤️

Lowell Tuttle

Since you probably cannot read this without a Houston Chronicle subscription, here is a editorial from today.   I am trying to follow Russian petroleum imports and their necessity.   This, of course, is more related to exploration and long term projects, but at some point the export/import marketing is connected.   

Russia is not a good business partner

Companies should learn from Exxon Mobil, which lost chance for profit in waiting to divest.

Melissa Phillip / Staff photographer

Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods has led the company out of Russia. But the move could have been made much earlier — and more profitably.

For the past 25 years, Exxon Mobil has pursued oil and gas exploration in Russia, spending and earning billions of dollars even as concerns mounted over Russian President Vladmir Putin’s increasing war-like footing.

The company was fined $2 million in 2017 after its subsidiaries continued to do business with Russian oligarchs against whom the U.S. government had levied sanctions following Russian’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. A federal judge eventually set aside the fine, but not before the Treasury Department concluded that Exxon had “caused significant harm” to the sanctions program. “Exxon Mobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements,” the Treasury said.

The year before the invasion, Exxon’s then-CEO Rex Tillerson was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship in recognition of the company’s partnership with Rosneft, the state-controlled oil producer, to drill in the nation’s Arctic waters and in parts of Siberia. Exxon quit the Rosneft collaboration in 2018, absorbing a $200 million loss, but has remained active in other ventures there.

Four years later, Exxon’s leaders probably have some regrets about not pulling out entirely. This week, the Irving-based oil giant joined two European oil majors, BP and Shell, in announcing plans to sever ties with Russia after Putin authorized a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The decision to withdraw will bring real pain to the companies and their shareholders, particularly BP, which stands to lose its $14 billion stake, compared with $4 billion for Exxon and $3 billion for Shell.

We applaud Exxon’s leaders, as well as those at BP and Shell, for joining the growing number of Western companies divesting from Russia and denouncing its aggression.

“Exxon Mobil supports the people of Ukraine as they seek to defend their freedom and determine their own future as a nation,” the company said. “We deplore Russia’s military action that violates the territorial integrity of Ukraine and endangers its people.”

Isolating Putin is not only the right thing to do, but the only thing they could do under such dire circumstances. Maintaining their business partnerships in the face of a world swiftly uniting against Russia’s combative posture would have been untenable over time, as demonstrated by similar decisions from companies such as Ford, General Motors, Volkswagen, Visa and MasterCard to stop doing business there.

But this experience offers some lessons for multinational companies in an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape. Many do business in risky environments — China, for example — and as such, accept the trade-offs that come with those partnerships. In some cases, this means turning a blind eye to antidemocratic measures, human rights violations and outright oppression. In the light of the changes wrought this week in the wake of Putin’s extraordinary aggression, those trade-offs may need fresh analyses.

The world has changed nearly overnight. Putin’s nuclear threat this week was a stark reminder that the stakes for the confrontation in Ukraine could extend across the globe, and raises the risk of the mutually-assured destruction we’ve spent more than 75 years avoiding. The nuclear fears may ease, but the world left in the wake of Putin’s saber-rattling rhetoric since invading will continue to be too dangerous a place for giant corporations to ignore the risks of doing business with unstable, autocratic countries.

At the very least, multinational corporations must develop exit plans, so that sudden exits like the ones we’re seeing this week from Russia can be made with minimal disruption to the lives of their shareholders and employees, both those in the United States and overseas.

Big Oil companies have been grappling with this conundrum for years, none more than Exxon. The company’s Sakhalin-1 venture — a group of oil and gas fields it operates off the coast of Sakhalin Island in Russia’s Far East — is a jewel in Exxon’s international portfolio, producing more than 1 billion barrels of oil and about 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas since it took over operations in 2005. The partnership was a recognition of shared interests: Russia needed Exxon’s technology to drill in some of the harshest conditions of the world; Exxon wanted exclusivity over a valuable chunk of land. Yet when Putin made the decision to annex Crimea in 2014, rather than create distance, Exxon instead dug in its heels. It refused to bow to the federal government’s pressure to stop doing business with Russia, and eventually lost a significant amount of money.

By contrast, ConocoPhillips saw the writing on the wall. The Houston-based company had a joint venture with Rosneft in northwestern Russia that produced 4 million barrels of oil a day. In 2015, the company sold its 50 percent stake in the project, officially ending a 25-year partnership and making a windfall in the process.

While Exxon made a bold decision in unwinding a project on the scale of Sakhalin-1, its window for reaping profits similar to ConocoPhillips has slammed shut. Russian state news agencies reported Tuesday that Western companies would be prevented from selling Russian assets. Even if Exxon is eventually able to sell its 30 percent stake in Sakhalin-1, finding a buyer with the financial resources and technical expertise to take over the project will be challenging. How and if the company can even get its roughly 1,000-person workforce out of the country remains to be seen. Exxon reportedly sent a plane to Sakhalin Island to retrieve staff, though it’s unclear how many have been evacuated.

Big Oil’s exit from Russia underscores a cold reality: Putin’s erratic leadership and disregard for rule of law makes the country a lousy business partner. Its invasion of Ukraine has only emphasized just how lousy.

Lowell comment...a billion barrels of oil and a billion feet of gas, as well as 1000 employees...not to mention future stakes in the fields there...Russia's going to be like Venezuela to some extent...

Lowell Tuttle

Re exploration in Russia.   Something tells me that post Ukraine crises, a strong possibility these partnerships with BP and Exxon will resurrect.   Or, I suspect new partnerships will be substituted.   

On the marketing and refining issue.   Mass increase of oil and gas production in US slowed down areas, as well as the fields in Canada are refined in Texas and Louisiana, right Steve?   The Oil and gas refined on the East Coast and West Coast comes from Russia and other areas, right?  Even the Keystone pipeline is/was designed for Gulf Coast refining.

Stopping the Russian oil imports will stop or greatly delay and slow down those refining operations.  Am I wrong or is there some other consideration I am missing?

Isn't it heartening to see someone ignorant trying to understand?   Laughing at myself...

Wayne Gary

Lowell,

I npticed you had your mail-in ballot rejected. What was the reason.  What I heard on the news was most of them were rejected because the person would not provide either the lqsr 4 digits of social security or tneur state drivers liscense or ID number. 

Lowell Tuttle

Wayne,  I had to sign up for two ballots.  One would have been for the primary and one would have been for all elections.   The primary ballot required I designate a party's ballot.   That request would not be accepted for all exlections box I checked.  I actually threw away the letter explaining why as they had sent me another mail in ballot request and it was too late for the deadline.

When I registered to vote, I either used my DL or my Social security number.   Or I used both.   When I send in my ballot request, I can either identify my myself using the DL number or the Social security number.   I could also choose both.   Apparently, I could choose the wrong one and my ballot might have been rejected for that.

There is also a voter registration number.   But, I couldnt find my old voter registration card, so, I didn't have that number.   

I did get my voter reistration for 2022 2023 in the mail, but not until just the other day.

Now, in the 2020 election, I was mailed a ballot for both the primary and the general election by my political party.   I didn't have to go through the above process.   I voted by mail, no problem.

That was outlawed by Republicans.  Nice.

David Cordell

Two questions -- one simple, one complicated.

Simple: Why isn't Putin dead?

Complicated:

Steve,

Jen Psaki, whom I admire and hate, asked rhetorically why oil companies aren't drilling on 9,000 leases. I later heard an explanation that I didn't understand. My question relates to the following, i.e. does this make sense?

When government land is offered for mineral/oil leases, the area offered is in blocks that include many lease areas. The company must bid on the entire block. Some of the sub-areas are deemed by the oil company to be good prospects, while others are deemed likely to be unprofitable.

So, reasonable profit-seeking oilmen/women might not drill on many of the leases for perfectly logical reasons. Of course, $115 oil may make the poor prospects worth re-evaluating.

I'm sure this isn't quite right, but can you clear it up?

David Cordell

Steve, next time we're together, I expect to hear you say these two words: "I'm buying."

OK, maybe it's three words, but I'm sticking with two.

Lowell Tuttle

The simple answer is the price of oil dropped to below 0 a barrell in the Spring of 2020 due to over supply.

They get oil out in Saudi and Russia for a lot less per barrel than we do here. 

Companies shut down when the price goes too low (independents)   The only producers are the long term large ones....

Something like that...

Kurt Fischer

Lowell:

Interesting dilemma that ExxonMobil has now regarding their participation in the Sakhalin-1 project in Russia.

As you might recall, I worked for Mobil Oil and then ExxonMobil from 1988 to 2002.  The Sakhalin-1 project was originally a Mobil investment and then was retained when Exxon acquired Mobil.  It was considered to be one of the crown jewels of Mobil. 

One of the cultural characteristics of both Mobil and Exxon was the understanding they made investments to produce oil and gas, but did not get involved in the politics of the individual countries.  They made large enough investments and were large enough companies to think they were above the local politics and, for the most part, the countries tended to leave them alone.  In effect, they felt like they were a neutral international organization with sufficient heft so they were not subject to global political disruptions.  

It appears their assumptions proved to be wrong in this case.  Although, based on the article you included, they still made a ton of money between 2014 when Crimea was taken over and now.  It more than pays for the $4 billion they will have to write-off.  Although I agree that Exxon might return to the investment some time down the road dependent on the political environment.

Lowell Tuttle

Kirk, apparently their investors also agree as the stock price has not been affected, other than by the risen price of crude and gas.

Steve Keene

Lowell and David,

Lowell you are mostly correct.  They Keystone Pipeline will take heavy crude that is low gravity to the Gulf Coast where the refineries are designed to process heavier end hydrocarbons including waxes and asphaltines.

All across the Western plains and mountains pipelines carry natural gas, the lighter hydrocarbons such as propane, ethane and methane to a Hub in Oklahoma where it eventually is directed to the Midwest and Rust Belt.  This fuels the population centers from Wisconsin to Illinois to Michigan and Ohio for industrial production.  

Some of the new natural gas pipelines from the Permian and Eagleford Areas have been shut down which has caused a bottleneck for producers for the high volume horizontal wells.  Gas flaring has been largely eliminated, so oil wells cannot be drilled without a place to deliver the natural gas that is produced with them.  So in short, drilling plans were curtailled despite the high oil prices.

The Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York is very gaseous and of Devonian age and is delivered to the East Coast for refrigerated liquified natural gas ships to sell worldwide.  This is the production that could be delivered to Europe to replace the Russian gas.  The Permian Basin and Eagleford oil can replace the oil we are buying from Russia if the administration would allow the new gas pipelines to be opened.  If they shut off oil and gas from Russia through the Swift program, back up the truck to buy Energy Transfer, Enbridge, Kinder Morgan, Williams Pipeline, and Enterprise Products stock.

None of the questions you ask are dumb, you just have a brilliant knowledge of insurance while I know oil and gas.

David for your part I get that "your turn to buy" alot now.  That is why I have become more of a recluse.  I am taking lessons from Steve Gardner.  My suggestion is to go to dinner with Hull and Delisa.  I can afford to buy dinner, but Hull can afford to buy you the restaurant every time you go out to eat.   

Exxon Mobil has already turned a profit on their investment in Russia and Azerjaiban and Kurjestan while quietly managing to stay under the radar.  All they have to do is forego the future profits and direct their funds to their next most prospective pronect somewhere else in the world.  They have opportunites waiting in line from Alaska, offshore U. S. continental shelf, Africa, South America and Southeast Asia.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Wayne Gary

Lowell,

Maybe you should't have said you voted in the republican primary.  You may be insulted and ridiculed by someone in the class whose name or intials I will not say.  Not me.

David Cordell

Very interesting. From today's Wall Street Journal.

William Barr: When I Confronted Trump About Election Fraud

In an excerpt from his new memoir, the former Attorney General recalls the explosive White House meeting where he rejected President Trump’s claims about the 2020 election.

By William P. Barr

March 3, 2022 11:00 am ET

The first day of December 2020, almost a month after the presidential election, was gray and rainy. That afternoon, President Trump, struggling to come to terms with the election result, had heard I was at the White House for another meeting and sent word that I was to come see him immediately. I knew what was coming.

Over the preceding weeks, I had been increasingly concerned about claims by the president and the team of outside lawyers advising him that the election had been “stolen” through widespread voting fraud. I had no doubt there was some fraud in the 2020 presidential elections. There’s always some fraud in an election that large. But the Justice Department had been looking into the claims made by the president’s team, and we had yet to see evidence of fraud on the scale necessary to change the outcome of the election.

The data suggested to me that the Democrats had taken advantage of rule changes—especially extended voting periods and voting by mail—to marshal the turnout they needed in their strongholds in key states. I had been a vocal critic of these rule changes precisely because they would increase the opportunity for fraud and thus undercut public confidence in the election results. There was also no question that, in some areas, state rules meant to guard against fraud—for example, the requirement that voters file applications for mail-in ballots—were not followed. This also increased the opportunity for fraud. Still, the opportunity for fraud isn’t evidence of fraud.

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani at a press conference on election fraud claims at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Philadelphia, Nov. 7, 2020.

PHOTO: CHRIS MCGRATH/GETTY IMAGES

Under our system, the states have responsibility for running elections. Claims that the election rules are not being followed fall under the states’ jurisdiction, and the burden is on the complaining party to raise the matter with state officials and courts to have it addressed. This often requires pressing the states to conduct in-depth audits of relevant districts needed to resolve alleged irregularities. The Justice Department does not have the authority or the tools to perform that function. Instead, its role is to investigate specific and credible allegations of voting fraud for the purpose of criminal prosecution. A complaint just saying the rules were not followed is not enough.

When I looked at the voting patterns, it also appeared to me that President Trump had underperformed among certain Republican and independent voters in some key suburban areas in the swing states. He ran weaker in these areas than he had in 2016. It seemed this shortfall could explain the outcome. The fact that, in many key areas, the president ran behind Republican candidates below him on the ballot suggested this conclusion and appeared inconsistent with the fraud narrative.

If the American people lose confidence in the integrity of their elections, and the legitimacy of an elected administration, we are headed toward a very dark place. That is why I was so disgusted by efforts in 2016 to delegitimize President Trump and “resist” his duly elected administration. But now the situation was completely reversed. President Trump’s legal team was feeding his supporters a steady diet of sensational fraud claims, without anything resembling substantiation.

Some allegations of election fraud turned out to be patently frivolous; others just were not supported by the available evidence.

In the weeks after the election, accusations of major fraud centered on several specific allegations. I had asked the Justice Department office heads around the country, working with the FBI, to look into these and a number of similar claims. Some turned out to be patently frivolous; others just were not supported by the available evidence. I had repeatedly informed the president through his staff that the department was looking at substantial claims of fraud but so far hadn’t found them to have merit.

I was concerned that the country seemed headed toward a constitutional crisis. On Nov. 29, the president, appearing on Fox News, had claimed the election was rigged and stolen and attacked the Justice Department as “missing in action.” Based on my previous discussions with President Trump and his staff, he knew that the department was playing its proper role, but he appeared to think we were “missing in action” unless we worked with his legal team to reverse the results of the election.

At noon on Dec. 1, I sat down for lunch in the attorney general’s private dining room with Mike Balsamo, the Associated Press reporter who covers the department. Mike asked me about the president’s criticisms over the weekend. I told him that, contrary to the president’s comments, we had been looking into substantial claims of fraud. “What have you been finding?” Mike asked. My response: “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” Moments later, news was blasting out across media outlets that the attorney general had contradicted the president by declaring that the department had yet to find evidence of widespread voter fraud sufficient to change the election’s result.

When I left that afternoon for my previously scheduled meeting in the West Wing with the president’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, I knew what to expect. President Trump hailed me down to meet with him. I knew it would be an unpleasant meeting.

My chief of staff Will Levi and I walked through the Oval Office and along the narrow hallway that leads to a small rectangular dining room that President Trump also used as a work area. He was sitting as usual to my left at the head of the dining table. The opposing head of the table to the right was unoccupied, but looming on the wall behind it was a large-screen TV. It was tuned to the One America News channel covering a Michigan legislative hearing on voter fraud allegations.

Facing me on the far side of the table sat Mr. Meadows, Mr. Cipollone and Deputy Counsel Pat Philbin. Standing to my right was a White House lawyer, Eric Herschmann. The side of the table closest to me was empty. I walked over to the chair on my side of the table close to the president, rested my hands on the top of the backrest and remained standing. The president, holding the remote, turned down the volume a bit but kept it audible in the background.

I looked at POTUS and greeted him. “Hello, Mr. President.”

There was an awkward silence. He put down the remote control, at first not looking at me. I could tell he was enraged, struggling to keep his temper under control. He shuffled through some papers on the table, looking for something, his breathing a little heavier than usual, his nostrils flaring slightly. Finding what he wanted, he thrust a news clipping at me. “Did you say this?” he snapped.

It was the Balsamo article. “Yes, I did, Mr. President,” I responded. “Why would you say that?” he demanded, his voice rising. “Because it is true, Mr. President,” I replied. “The reporter asked me what the department had found to date, and I told him.”

He stopped for a moment and then said, ‘You must hate Trump. You would only do this if you hate Trump.’

“But you did not have to say that!” he barked. “You could have just said, ‘No comment.’ This is killing me—killing me. This is pulling the rug out from under me.” He stopped for a moment and then said, “You must hate Trump. You would only do this if you hate Trump.”

“No, Mr. President, I don’t hate you,” I said. “You know I sacrificed a lot personally to come in to help you when I thought you were being wronged.” The president nodded, almost involuntarily conceding the point. “But over the weekend, you started blaming the department for the inability of your legal team to come up with evidence of fraud. The department is not an extension of your legal team. Our mission is to investigate and prosecute actual fraud. The fact is, we have looked at the major claims your people are making, and they are bullshit.”

The president looked defiant. I continued, “I’ve told you that the fraud claims are not supported...And others have also told you this. But your legal team continues to shovel this shit out to the American people. And it is wrong.”

The president motioned toward the TV. “Have you listened to any of these hearings?” he asked.

“No, I haven’t, Mr. President,” I said, “but I am familiar with the allegations.”

The president leaned back in his chair and crossed his arms over his chest, rocking a little from side to side, staring at me, his face getting redder. He was seething but appeared willing to let me continue. “Your legal team keeps publicly saying ‘fraud,’ but their arguments in courts don’t claim fraud,” I said. “They’re really saying the state didn’t follow the rules...But that is not the same as evidence of fraud.”

“There is a mountain of evidence,” President Trump protested, gesturing to the hearing on TV.

‘Mr. President,’ I said, ‘the reason you are in this position is that, instead of having a crackerjack legal team...you wheeled out a clown show.’

“Mr. President,” I said, “the reason you are in this position is that, instead of having a crackerjack legal team that had its shit together from day one, you wheeled out a clown show, and no quality lawyers who would otherwise be willing to help will get anywhere near it.”

“Maybe,” he said, almost pensively, “maybe.” But he was not assuaged.

“Look, Mr. President, they wasted a whole month with this idiotic claim about Dominion machines,” I continued. “First, there is no evidence they were compromised. Your team picked the one theory that can be easily disproven.” I explained that the paper ballots are retained, and it is easy to verify the machine’s accuracy by comparing the machine’s tally with the retained stack of ballots. As far as I knew, I said, wherever this had been done, there had been no material discrepancy, and no one had yet pointed to one.

“Have you seen the thousands of Biden ballots dumped in the early morning in Detroit?” he asked. “People saw boxes of ballots being carried into the building in the early morning.”

“We have looked into that also,” I replied. “Detroit has over six hundred precincts, and, unlike other places, all the ballots are transported to a separate processing center for counting. It’s not surprising that boxes of ballots would arrive through the night. Detroit’s votes usually come in late, and this time the vote totals were comparable to previous elections,” I assured him. “In Detroit, you actually did slightly better than in 2016, and Biden did slightly worse than Hillary Clinton. ”

The president seemed a bit taken aback that I seemed to know what I was talking about. “Have you bothered to ask the people who are feeding you this shit how the votes compared to the last election?” I pressed.

The president glared at me and shifted the conversation away from the election, mentioning other areas where he felt I had failed him. The big one was the failure to bring to conclusion before the 2020 election U.S. attorney John Durham’s inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Russian collusion investigation. “I regret it’s taking so long,” I said, “but, as I have told you, a big part of that is Covid.”

“When will it be done?” he snorted.

“I am not sure, but I’m hoping it will be done in the first part of the Biden administration,” I replied.

“The first part of the Biden administration!” the president roared harshly, staring daggers at me. I could not tell if he was mad at the delay or at my explicit recognition that Joe Biden would be the president.

The president then started raking me over the coals about his longest-standing grievance against me: my August 2019 decision not to indict former FBI director James Comey for giving his lawyers memos that were later found to contain a few words of confidential information.

I tried to bring the conversation to a conclusion. “I understand you are very frustrated with me, Mr. President, and I am willing to submit my resignation. But I have—”

Bang. A loud sound, almost like a gunshot, cut me off and jolted us all.

“Accepted!” the President yelled. It took me a second to see that President Trump had slammed the table with his palm. “Accepted!” he yelled again. Bang. He hit the table once more; his face was quivering. “Leave, and don’t go back to your office. You are done right now. Go home!” he barked.

I nodded and said, “I understand, Mr. President.” I gestured to Will, and we started walking out. Just recovering from the surprise themselves, Pat Cipollone and Eric Herschmann both yelled loudly at the same time, “No!”

Pat continued, “This is a big mistake, Mr. President.”

Will and I had gotten only about 50 feet down the hallway leading to the stairs when my cell phone rang.

“Don’t leave!” Eric said insistently.

“I am getting the hell out,” I replied before the call was dropped.

Atty Gen. Barr leaves the White House on Dec. 1, 2020, after discussing election fraud claims with President Trump.

PHOTO: SHUTTERSTOCK

It was rainy and dark as I emerged onto the drive running along the side of the West Wing. The FBI agents on my protective detail met me, and Will and I climbed into the armored black Chevy Suburban.

“Where to, boss?” the agent in charge asked.

“The department,” I said, as the Suburban drifted slowly down the drive toward the exit gate.

Suddenly the thudding, heavy sound of fists pounding on the backseat windows on both sides of the vehicle made me and the FBI agents in the front seats jump. In the dark and rain, I could barely make out Pat on one side and Eric on the other. We pulled over. Will climbed back into the third-row seats, followed by Eric, while Pat climbed in next to me.

Pat explained: “Bill, as soon as you walked out the door, the president told us not to let you leave the building. He did not mean it. He is not firing you. Come on back in.”

“I hear you, Pat, but I am not going back in tonight,” I said. “Talking any more about this tonight wouldn’t be helpful.”

“You’re right,” Eric chimed in. “But you agree there’s no change in your status, right?”

“Let’s let cooler heads prevail and talk more tomorrow,” Pat advised.

“Okay,” I agreed. “But I don’t know where he’s going with this stolen election stuff.”

“So, what are you going to say about what happened tonight?” Eric asked.

“Nothing happened tonight,” I said, “except I’m going home and having a stiff Scotch.” Pat and Eric jumped out, and we drove off.

The next morning, I got a call from Mark Meadows. I told him that I would not surprise President Trump by leaving without warning. On Dec. 14, the day by which all the states had certified their election results, effectively locking in Biden’s victory, I went over to tell the president that I would like to leave before Christmas. Within the hour, he tweeted: “Just had a very nice meeting with Attorney General Bill Barr at the White House. Our relationship has been a very good one, he has done an outstanding job! As per letter, Bill will be leaving just before Christmas to spend the holidays with his family.”

Mr. Barr served as U.S. attorney general under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Donald Trump. This essay is adapted from his new book, “One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General,” to be published on March 8 by William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins (which, like The Wall Street Journal, is owned by News Corp).

Wayne Gary

David,

I asked Congressman Alred, Sen Cruz and Sen Cornyn what if any states fully comply with the regulations set forth in the bill before the Senate and I have not heard anything.

Reading your post the thing I noticed and accept is around the country there is voter fraud that can affect a low vote local election but not enough to effect a statewide or national election.

Holly Hobby

I have less than a nanosecond. Between astonishing  (seemingly futile) fight against healthcare corruption simultaneous to efforts to get (translated) messages to Ukrainian families whose only source of information is Russia controlled media, I shouldn’t have  logged onto forum.  I logged on for one reason:  hope of even a thread of credible new insight.  You didn't disappoint.  Thank you.

I'm half Russian. Not one-quarter. One eighth. One sixteenth.  Half.  Even now are living descendants in Moscow oblasts and Ukraine, most likely in or around Starokonstantinov. Many times I’ve wondered “would I feel this passionate about Russian’s invasion were I not half Russian?”  Probably. Maybe.  Either way, it takes a lot  get me angry.   A lot.

I'll put it this way:  upon my translator informing me (again!) Ukrainian families whose trust it appeared I finally gained, suddenly pivoted (again) I was so angry (not with them instead Russian controlled media) I hopped on treadmill running so fast (!) it's amazing I didn't fall off and break my neck. 

I wish I could help these people beyond financial donation.  To hear these  families, some I've come to know and love abruptly pivoted,  succumbing (again!) to Russian controlled media, convincing them they've decided they're safe  in Odesa, Kiev etc. makes it all seem so hopeless.  They truly believe "only Ukraine Nationals will get hit. Not moderates."   Russian media so convincing, some believe even their adult children and grandchildren (Ukraine Nationalists)  are safe because they remain somehow "connected to Donetsk and Luhansk. "  It's reasonable to consider,  every day, every hour, every minute  the option of fleeing to safety grows slimmer.  How, one minute, they trust my message scrambling to flee and 10 minutes later believe Putin's "not that bad" is beyond disheartening.  But I also understand.  It's entirely possible these precious families whose photos I peruse over and over are frozen in fear.  A fear even they themselves do not understand. 

So.   Thankful you guys are discussing it. g. Sometimes what seems a small thing, a word or phrase, can spark a new way approach.   A new way to try to get the message through.

David, loved your question, “why is Putin still alive?”  Reportedly Putin stated he’s “still alive because he trusts his security.”  If only Russian oligarchs, infuriated by seizures would turn on him, maybe Putin’s security would be a little less secure.  Until then, I don't think even secondary sanctions would move Putin. Love to all.  Be safe now and always.

Wayne Gary

Holly,

Good to hear from you after a long absence.  Everybody I know is praying for the peoplw of Ucrane.

How id RJ doing? Are you both getting out again?

Holly Hobby

Hi Wayne,

Hopped back onto forum for a sec to check something.  Glad I did!  So good to see your pic and hear from you!  Grateful knowing you, too are praying.  I'm afraid that's all we can do.

My Russian friends, some who still believe Putin "not as US media portrays him" continue asking "what do you think will happen?"     (Long ago I learned not to try and change their mind about Putin, re pro Russian Ukrainians, instead, love and accept them as they are.). 

In answer to their question I tell them, "Of course I could be wrong, but hunch tells me Ukraine will fall to Russia.  Christianity will be banned.  Ukrainian Orthodox persectuted.  Russian Orthodox left alone.  I tell them although Russian dissidents might rejoice, no matter what anyone thinks of Putin now, even Russian dissidents in Ukraine will wonder what happened to their beloved country.  It will never be the same. And neither will the rest of the world. Putin crossed a line." I hope I'm wrong.

Starting to get out  a little more.  ( Being "elderly and all...lol) we're cautious but would love to see you and your wife.  : )

Janalu Jeanes (Parchman)

David,

I, too, have been reading those excerpts from Barr's book, in articles on the computer, and I've heard TV clips too, especially the one by NBC with Lester Holt, in his interview with Barr. (Holt could barely suppress his smile during the interview)   I understand why Barr was telling Trump just after election night, that the election was not stolen, as Trump was saying during the aftermath, but I feel that at THIS time now, quite a lot of info has been found.  Evidence has been noted that suggests there were, indeed, a number of foul occurrences having the affect of altering election processes, that were not easily seen just after the election.   Also, the feelings of all our citizens were in high anxiety mode, just after election night, so much mud-slinging was being thrown about by many people.  Trump should not have reacted the way he did, but understandably, he was extremely pissed, as it was expected that he had good chances as an incumbent, as well as the revelation coming out in the press, of explosive info off of Hunter's laptop, telling of widespread profiting off the Biden name for ill-gotten money, benefiting the Biden family.  It was a disgusting story hitting the airways around Oct. 25th, just before election night, and it SHOULD have had a profound 'heads up' for American citizens, illustrating the ethics and character of Joe Biden (who was being portrayed as a polished, Catholic choirboy Statesman of world renown; a pal-Joey to Robert Byrd and Mississippi Senators....Oops!  No!  Not that fact!)   However, as we all know, the story was released on Fox News, so the story was hushed-up and said to be disinformation.  It was stated that since Fox News had the interview with an associate business partner of Hunter, the story was considered propaganda and typical of nonsensical Fox fare; a story that was '86-ed' by the mainstream media; the media who was hellbent to get Biden into the Oval Office, no matter what.

If you look at the readers comments for the book by Mollie Hemingway, which can be found on Amazon.com/books when looking up Mollie's book, RIGGED, you will see that there was quite a bit of genuine evidence toward "rigging" of the election.  There was enough "rigging" that informs us of voter totals in THE SWING STATES, to have swooshed 45,000 votes swung to Biden, and that was enough of an amount to place the election into Biden's favor at the end of it all.   It was what was needed to give him enough total to win, by way of giving him the needed ELECTORAL COLLEGE count.  ONLY around 45,000 votes was the determining factor, and so just rigging the election in small, calculated ways, unbeknownst to the public, had a negative effect for Trump, especially in Wisconsin, where Zuckerberg's money greatly altered the numbers in heavily Democratic counties.... And also, the Pennsylvania alterings of voting rules prior to the election, allowed for positive final postings for Biden Democrats.  In PA, the excuse was, of course, the pandemic panic, but in reality, the folks I call the "Democrat alterers" were cunning in their methods; changing voting laws which was an illegal action.   The "alterers" were NOT elected officials, but they knew that what they changed would help sway the election in their favor.  As we now know, it did, just enough to add to the other "riggings" in the other swing states.

It has been stated that the election was "bought" by Zucker bucks, and was "rigged" in numerous other ways which were hard for anyone to prove during the few weeks after the election. The outcome, I believe, was the calculation the Democrats were banking on.  With Trump's outcry of "Stolen," they were able to snicker and hold their heads deceitfully high.  The whole 'pandemic over-arching ruse' was just the ticket they needed to follow through with their goals of negating Trump votes.

It has also been noticed mightily, that the wealthy Silicon Valley, Big Tech guys who censored the conservative comments from their websites during the run-up to the election and even afterword.... (and continuing), had profound bearing on the election outcome.  It was SO obvious, you silly boys!

And then there were the issues of widespread harvesting of ballots, especially at nursing homes or high rise apt. buildings of foreign, non-English speaking migrants, some of whom were paid legal tender, to which they were familiar with using happily, and also the issue of 'curing' ballots in some states, but not others.

All of these small-ish number tallys add up toward that 45,000 magic number, don't you see?

Steve Keene

Janalu,

I am with you!

Barr would say anything to sell more books, I suspect.  Why let the facts get in the way of a sensational story?

P.S.:  You can always tell the real fascists by the haircut their parents gave them when they were children.  Look out for any kid that  has pictures of himself wearing a flattop.

Janalu Jeanes (Parchman)

Steve,

I know of which "flat top" pic you are picturing. 

I think Barr had written most of his book before the current facts were found, so I can forgive him of his first  thoughts on those happenings from over a year ago.

I still have a genuine respect for Barr, as I have followed him for many years.  He has a very fine mind and he is a devout Christian.   His legal sense is excellent.

Do you intend to support Trump again if he should run?

I think for the sake of our country, another top Republican should take the office because Trump re-entering the White House would cause immediate turmoil again, and having a repeat of that media-infused insanity would hurt our country, which is already in deep do-do.  We need a lot of healing at this time to steady the ship.  We need to stand united, or al least give it an honest try.  What we face from China, Russia and Iran is daunting, to say the least.  We've lost an immense amount of time and treasure as well as blood, sweat and tears to the fools of The East.  There has been so much dismissal of the Holy Word from that part of the world, that it is profoundly evident in the directional path they now walk.  Their evilness is enveloping and encroaching, I fear.

David Cordell

I voted for Trump, but ....

Trump still can't accept that he lost. What's more, he beat himself with his undisciplined approach and his adolescent behavior.

It was like Trump and Biden were football teams. Trump was a much better team, but it kept jumping offsides, over and over again. Ultimately, it underperformed, beating itself. Trump the person kept jumping offsides, and he's still doing it.

What's more, his case that he won the Electoral College is weakened by the fact that he lost the popular vote to idiot Basement Biden by 7,000,000 votes (and to Her Highness Hillary by 3,000,000 votes). I'm not for doing away with the Electoral College, but if Trump is so demonstably wonderful, why did he lose to a certifiable moron by 7 million votes? (That said, I think he would have won if it weren't for COVID-19.)

He is only hurting himself by continuing to claim that he won. It's like a highly competitive 12-year-old pitcher. In the bottom of last inning he walks the bases loaded, then walks in the winning run with a wild pitch. Then throws his glove and screams at the umpire, blaming his calls, even though the vast majority of observers agreed with the umpire.

No one respects that pitcher, and he is only 12. But at least observers can write it off due to his age.

Trump should be smart enough to realize that he is not going to change the outcome and that he is hurting himself with people who are on the fence about him. But his ego is bigger than his brain.

Regarding his potential reelection, it doesn't matter if the last election was stolen, or not. The people who agree with him are going to vote for him anyway. But most people don't think it was stolen, and he simply annoys them by continuing with the same schpiel. It makes them nervous and keeps January 6, 2021 on the front burner. 

Not only that, but his antics may have cost Republicans the Senate by suppressing the Republican vote in Georgia.

If he is nominated, I will vote for him, but I will have to hold my nose. I'd much prefer DeSantis or Cotton. Both are tough and have similar views to Trump's, but they are smarter and infinitely more mature.

Jim Bedwell

Chief No Stache,

Speaking of flattops, reminds me of that Shakespeare quote (or was it Yogi?), "Of all the words of tongue & pen, the saddest of all, what might have been".

And your humor is unrelenting. Although I'm sure you will understand if someday I want to spit on your grave (eye color jealousy + innate white chauvinism undoubtedly the 2 chief (pun) of the numberless reasons), I will say that before I do, I will yell to the heavens, "I MISS YOU & YOUR HUMOR, MY DEAR BROTHER IN THE LORD!!!" Will I EVER get ANY meds that work?!?!?!

Chief No Stash

Janalu Jeanes (Parchman)

David & Steven Roy,

I agree with DeSantis or Cotton being at the top of a winning ticket.  My hope is that Trump will see that they would be so good for the country and that he will suppress his ego and endorse them, even campaign for them, rather than trying to win again to make himself feel fulfilled or get the revenge he wants.   I know the chances for that are slim.

If Trump ends up on top again, I may vote for some other innocuous candidate, unless I think it will be a tough, close race.  If that is the case, I will hold my nose too, and vote for the Republicans to win, and I will have to deal with the ridiculous, tedious media and Democratic hatred again, which will be awful, awful, awful....and detrimental for American citizens.

I've said many times the only reason I voted for Trump in the first place, was to keep Hillary from the office.  She has committed so many crimes and gotten away with it all, that she, even now, feels she is coated in Teflon. I heard someone say one time that  "No one will take her down because they know that she will take them down with her, since she knows where all the bodies are buried, and she knows all the 'ins-and outs' of what kind of sleazy schemes have been perpetuated for decades."  The possible implications are astounding and would literally rock Washington off its high horse, right into disgraceful predicaments and legal suits of enormous proportions.