Spin it anyway that you want. The Dems and media spun a fake story that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. They spent three years on that wild conspiracy theory. After years of investigation there was zero evidence of this. Instead the media desperately tried to conflate unrelated "links" between folks who worked on Trump's campaign and Russia with the fake collusion theory to fool the rubes who weren't paying much attention. If, for example, a Russian was in attendance at a conference that a Trump official attended, that was characterized as a link with Russia. But that is past history. How about the gas prices, inflation, crime, shortages, hacks, Middle East chaos, illegals pouring across the border, Kamala embarrassing herself before the US military, mounting debt....
"mounting debt" LOL! Where ya been, bucko?
National debt was increasing
by just $56 billion each month until Trump signed tax a partisan passed tax cut bill that cut corporate tax (35 percent max. to 22 percent) and personal tax rates for those ten percent wealthiest Americans who own 84 oercent of stock shares.
https://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/debttothepenny.htm
So, Richard, you exhibited not the slightest concern when the monthly debt increase almost doubled between
October 1, 2017 and February 26, 2020, on the eve of the pandemic!
Not a newspaper with a reputation for endorsing ANY democrat for any office.:
https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/editorials/our-choice-is-joe-biden/article_e2053388-cc66-59f4-9e7f-8e01a1ea11df.html
Our choice is Joe Biden*
Oct 25, 2020
...Since Trump took over, the national debt has exploded by more than 7 TRILLION dollars. While the last several trillion was in response to the COVID-19 economic crisis, at least the first three trillion was on the books well before the pandemic, while Trump was presiding over “...the best economy we’ve ever had in the history of our country.” (Trump’s words.)
The layman would expect that the best economy in history would be a time to get the fiscal house in order, pay down debt and prepare for a rainy day (or perhaps a worldwide pandemic). The real tragedy of this scenario is that the runaway spending under the Trump administration has flashed dollar signs in the eyes of Capitol Hill Democrats. Trillions in unchecked spending has them clamoring to birth the social programs of their dreams...
And here we go.
One side says Trump is God, he's the savior of the Republic and the other says Trump is a merciless monster who was Putin's Manchurian candidate.
It never ends.
Not fair or accurate, misleading, in fact? Why do it? Why encourage or further embolden even more criminal obstruction? Unless you are partisan why presume to have a better understanding than the judge who wrote this 41 page opinion, has seen the redacted versions of the documents she describes, and also presided over the criminal trials of both Manafort and Stone, sentencing both on the brief end of the maximums they were facing, despite their acts of obstruction, perjury, and Stone's threat of someone shooting her, all after both had been charged?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.207679/gov.uscourts.dcd.207679.27.0_1.pdf
The reaction of a second federal judge, Reggie Walton
March 4, 2020 :https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/politics/mueller-report-barr-judge-walton.htmlJudge Calls Barr’s Handling of Mueller Report ‘Distorted’ and ‘Misleading’
"The judge said the attorney general lacked credibility on the matter and said he would review the report to decide whether to make its redacted portions public...
...Mr. Barr could not be trusted, Judge Reggie B. Walton said, citing “inconsistencies” between the attorney general’s statements about the report when it was secret and its actual contents that turned out to be more damaging to President Trump. Mr. Barr’s “lack of candor” called into question his “credibility and, in turn, the department’s” assurances to the court, Judge Walton said.
The judge ordered the Justice Department to privately show him the portions of the report that were censored in the publicly released version so he could independently verify the justifications for those redactions. The ruling came in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking a full-text version of the report..."
