Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to Win

| May 13, 2020


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Surprising exactly no one, Russia actually wanted Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 Presidential election. This of course was not the narrative being pushed by Dems hoping to taint the Trump administration with Russian collusion before and during the election.

Fred Fleitz, a former CIA officer and National Security Council chief of staff, wrote in a Fox News opinion piece that House Intelligence Committee members “Told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that John Brennen suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election.”

John Brennan Suppressed Intel Saying Russia Wanted Hillary Clinton to Win

By: JOEL B. POLLAK

Fox News’ Ed Henry reported Tuesday evening that Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has declassified information calling into question the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump.

Henry told Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight that the new information would suggest that John Brennen, who headed the Central Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama, “also had intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity, she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin’s team thought she was more malleable, while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable.”

On Tuesday, Henry said that he had obtained independent confirmation of the claims made by Fleitz in that report.

For three years, the received wisdom in Washington has been that 17 intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had interfered in the election to help Trump win. It then transpired that only four agencies had actually been involved.

Not exactly blockbuster news, just more confirmation of Dem duplicity. Read the entire article here: Breitbart

Category: Breaking News, DC Government, Democrats

Comments (73)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 5th/77th FA says:

    Where daHell is my shocked face when I need it? When oh when will we see these domestic enemies of our Republic tried, convicted, and hung by the neck until dead for treason and high crimes against a duly elected President of these United States?

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

  2. Slow Joe says:

    Brennan? Isn’t that the guy that converted to the religion of piece?

    • Mason says:

      No, it’s the communist who somehow passed enough background checks and Congressional checks and balances to become head of the CIA.

  3. Skippy says:

    Absolutely no surprise to read this

  4. LC says:

    Let’s see that data then. Because in the meantime, here’s President Trump’s own DNI’s report:

    “We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

    Source: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

    This is the result of a multi-agency report, confirmed by two Trump-appointed DNIs, and the Senate Intelligence committee chaired by a Republican. But I’m sure some unnamed committee staffers are more reliable, totally.

    • AW1Ed says:

      Old news, LC. The article addresses a lot of that.

      • LC says:

        Yes, by unnamed sources, which I seem to recall a lot of people here railing against in the recent past?

        Has the actual evidence been presented? I don’t see anything anywhere yet.

        Once it’s out there, I’ll consider it. But right now, it’s one guy saying he heard it from unnamed sources. That doesn’t exactly have the same sense of validity as formal reports by the Senate and DNI.

        • Slow Joe says:

          LC, I am afraid that everything has become ideologically charged thanks to the Democrats and their unwillingness to work with a duly elected President. You never thought anything remotely as this when Obama won, twice.

          I, for one, I have become ideologically committed to the principles that make America great: Free Market Economy, Small Government, and our Constitutional Freedoms. You can never go wrong if those 3 principles become your political objectives.

          Therefore, I will vote for President Trump regardless how many times he stormed Daniels.

          If that seems similar to what the Dems were saying when BJ Clinton was President, when they supported him regardless of his behavior with Eleanor Mondale, Genifer Flowers, etc and etc. then it is because it was the Democrats who started this trend of supporting people because they liked the politics, regardless of anything else.

          Therefore, MAGA 2020.

          The fact that President Trump has proven to be far morally superior to his detractors in the Democrat camp, bares no weight on my decision to unconditionally support him on the next elections. That it is a very simple calculation that ANYBODY from the Dem camp would be abysmally worst for our country than President Trump.

          That in this election I will actually vote for a candidate that I actually like, instead of the lesser of two evil as in every other election since I became a naturalized citizen, is just a bonus.

          • Slow Joe says:

            You never *saw* anything remotely as this

          • LC says:

            I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about how the fault for this rests with the Democrats. I have no great love for that party, either, but I remember Boehner and McConnell’s infamous comments about Obama here:

            https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

            But more important than pointing fingers is figuring out the path forward – and while I admire ideological positions, I tend to think your chosen three don’t paint a full picture.

            I’m generally for a free market too – but I’m a bit concerned when that ‘free market’ means American jobs are shipped overseas to make billions for CEOs and shareholders, at the expense of American industry and strategic manufacturing capacity. Maybe you’re fully on board with ‘free market’ stuff regardless of those issues, or maybe we just draw the line in a different place, I don’t know. But on the whole, sure, the free market is a good thing… and something both parties recognize.

            Small government is a tricky one – I like the principle, but do wonder, again, where we draw the line. It’s easy when we think of all the countless mid-management idiots throughout the government at all levels, but how small do we make things? Do we fund scientific research? If not, what would that have meant for our ability to succeed with the Manhattan Project in WW2? Are national parks a valid expenditure? They bring in far more money than they cost in tourism dollars, but they’re not ‘essential’ to government so it’s not clear what role that’d have in a small government, despite being a net plus. What about the interstate highway system? Or on the military side, the F-35? Is ‘big’ the number of people, the cost, or the scope? I think plenty of people want to reduce waste in government, and having (say) an assistant manager for gender issues in robotic theory would obviously be pretty unnecessary, but I think there’s plenty of debate about other areas. And, to start that debate, someone needs to narrow down what is meant by ‘small government’, because it sounds great in principle, but then goes off the rails. One common example (and I’m not saying this is a position you adhere to) is when conservatives thump on about small government and freedom, but then try to get involved in the private sex lives of people. So ‘small government’ is complicated, but I do like the idea.

            As for Constitutional freedoms, I’m a big fan too – but to suggest Democrats are against that is, again, kind of interesting. These protests right now about some states asking people to stay home because of a global pandemic? I can understand that position, even if I don’t agree with it due to societal needs. But I wonder where those ‘freedom’-touting people are when it comes to, say, the Patriot Act? [ https://www.cnet.com/news/patriot-act-powers-under-scrutiny-in-senate-votes/ ], or TSA, or many other similar things. This isn’t to say they’re wrong about how we should have our freedoms, but rather that the current outrage seems more politically motivated, and some balance needs to be achieved.

            In summary, we tend to agree on the high-level, but I don’t see a marked difference here between Democrats and Republicans. If the Patriot Act, for example, makes us ‘less free’ in exchange for better security, and this administration is keen on expanding it, isn’t that voting against this principle of Constitutional freedom? Or, maybe is there a bit of give and take there?

            I’m not a Democrat, and hated both Clinton and Trump. I think the former was a miserable, power-hungry politician, and the latter an absolute con artist and lousy human being. Chances are I’ll vote against him. That you find him, a guy who cheated on every wife, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and lies like he breaths somehow ‘morally superior’ to damn near anyone mystifies me. Better for the country? Did we pay off our debt like he promised? No, it’s gone up. Well, how’s our economy? Oh, well, that’s the virus. How are we doing on that front? Oh, worse than many other countries, unfortunately. Where are we leading the world? Where has our country markedly improved, for the average person? There are some that can make that argument, but not many.

            For me, this election, like the last one, will regrettably be another ‘lesser of two evils’ choice. And it almost certainly won’t be for Trump.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Trump is the on bringing jobs back here from overseas, eh?

              I was born and raised Democrat. The more I learn about that party, the further I get away from the anti-American morass it has become.

              The Republicans ain’t saints, but they in general much less harmful to the USA and Constitution than the current mob of the Donk party.

              Trump is kicking -their- asses, too, much to my delight.

              Trump is no saint, but he genuinely loves the USA, and is doing a pretty good job defending it from the grifters and maniacs of both parties.

              He fights, and he is just getting warmed up.

              MAGA!

            • Slow Joe says:

              LC, free market has nothing to do with shipping jobs overseas.

              You are confusing free market with free trade.

              Free trade, as practiced by the Clintonians, means opening America in exchange of nothing, because they believe access was more important than American jobs.

      • LC says:

        I hope so. Let’s see – I’d like to see the evidence, and will absolutely keep an open mind. I don’t think the Obama administration was full of saints, I’m just more inclined to trust the consensus of the IC -both American and that of our allies- than some Fox News commentator citing unnamed sources.

        The addition of our allies’ opinion matters because just a few days ago, Pompeo was pushing that the IC determined the coronavirus was likely from a lab… until our allies pushed back. Sadly, everything is political now, so independent consensus is a good thing.

        And for now, that consensus is that the Russians favored Trump.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Because he would sell them 20 percent of our uranium, stand by while they glom up chunks of other countries, oppose increasing US oil production, yank BMD out of Poland…

          Yeah. He has been a real treasure for Putin.

          Oh wait, that was the Donks.

          You don’t want to see what treacherous scoundrels comprised the prior admin, fine. Keep your eyes tightly shut.

          But expect well-deserved ridicule.

          And much embarassment as the light shines on that cesspit of serpents.

        • Skippy says:

          So what’s your take on this
          I have a bad taste in my mouth
          Over this circus and the fact Biden
          Straight up lied yesterday
          About not knowing anything
          I’m not a trump fan by any measure
          But Obama legacy is in the crapper
          My background is Intel
          And have seen a lot of odd things transpired under Obama this is pushing it into a area of no return

    • Hondo says:

      LC: the document you linked is dated 6 January 2017.

      The current POTUS was not inaugurated until 20 January 2017.

      Accordign to Wikipedia, the DNI on 6 January 2017 was Clapper. Also according to Wikipedia, his term ended on 20 January 2017.

      I’ll leave it to you to figure out who appointed Clapper as DNI. Hint: it wasn’t Trump.

      • Poetrooper says:

        But…but…but, Hondo, to LC that’s IRREFUTABLE evidence because it came from the Obama administration.

        I guess Mr. Peer-reviewed Evidence didn’t bother to check the timing as long as it supported his narrative, hmm?

        • LC says:

          I knew the report was from then, but I thought it was implied -and admittedly, maybe from a comment I made elsewhere- that it was embraced by Trump’s DNIs as well.

          Nobody in the IC has officially countered the previous assessment. If anything, Coats -Trump’s first DNI pick- reportedly resigned after POTUS downplayed Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2018 midterm elections. Must be Obama’s fault, I guess.

          • Hondo says:

            If the report was prepared and released during the Obama Administration – which it was – it is hardly “President Trump’s own DNI’s report”. That is how you characterized the document (it’s a direct quote from your comment above); that characterization is not accurate.

            If you do a bit of research, you’ll find the IC document you linked was ordered begun by former-President Obama on 9 December 2016. That is more than a month after the 2016 election, and less than 30 days prior to the document’s release. Oh, and it was prepared over the Christmas holidays, and during a transition of Presidential Administrations. I’m sure that didn’t exactly make the work go faster.

            https://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155494946443/odni-statement-on-declassified-intelligence

            Normally, major efforts (such as a “full review” of, well, any significant subject) involving multiple IC elements might reasonably be expected to take somewhat longer than that – particularly in light of the timing.

            Frankly, from the timeline this has all the earmarks of something thrown together on short notice with whatever information was readily available. Whether or not it is a CYA activity or was prepared to further a political agenda? Dunno. Don’t have access to the actual materials used in creation – and also don’t have any idea just how comprehensive the sources used were. However, given the short period of time (a period of <30 days over the Christmas/New Years holidays, and during a change of Administrations), I'd guess not all relevant data was available for use when drafting the report.

      • LC says:

        Yes, the original, IC-wide report was from 2017. And then was repeatedly acknowledged as accurate on numerous occasions by DNI Coats, DNI Maguire and Senator Burr on the SSCI.

        Right now, all we have on the other side is a guy quoting unnamed senate staffers – yes, he’s a former CIA analyst, but that’s a bit too much irony for the counter arguments: The IC can’t be trusted, except this guy, and unnamed sources are likely made up, except in this case.

        If the information is vetted and released, then I’ll consider it.

  5. George V says:

    I’m not surprised to hear something like this.

    Why would they want a pres. who downplays the CO2 global warming theory and wanted the US to produce more oil and be energy independent? Russia’s only significant income comes from oil. Russia would logically prefer a pres. that would embrace “green” policies, and limit or halt fracking for oil and gas. That’s not Trump.

    Why would Russia not prefer a pres. who, as Sec. of State, approved the sale of uranium assets in the US to Russia?

    Since the election, Trump has put heavier sanctions on Russia, and during the Syrian fiasco (started under Obama, mind you) the US military absolutely destroyed a battalion of Russian contractors fighting on behalf of Syria. This is the guy who is Putin’s puppet?

    To me, the Trump-Russia collusion idea never passed muster. And, regarding reports from the DNI office – well, we know now that all these supposedly neutral federal agencies are heavily populated with political appointees.

    • rgr769 says:

      Also, let’s not forget that the Ruskies has already forked over millions to The Clinton crime family via Billy Jeff’s speaking fees and contributions to their fake charity. So Putin already knew she could be bought. Exhibit A: The Uranium One deal.

  6. FuzeVT says:

    But, but. . . they helped Trump get elected??!! It just doesn’t make any sense!!
    [/sarc_off]

    This actually shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone and I don’t think it is to any in the talking head class. You would just have to get them telling you the actual truth, which is a rarity. It would stand to reason (an unfamiliar thing to most of the left) that Russia would favor what was described as the third term of Barrack “After my election I have more flexibility – I will transmit this information to Vladimir” Obama.

    Let’s remember, however, that what Russia wanted most of all is chaos in the US – whoever was the best rout to that end. It would seem the “progressives” in the country were the best means to that objective.

    • OWB says:

      Precisely. Sure, they would like someone most likely to cooperate with them. But first and foremost is they want to destroy any confidence Americans might have in their president, any president. The Dems/media have taken on that part of the job for them with this incessant drumbeat of discontent.

  7. 26Limabeans says:

    Brennen.
    He needs to swing.
    Next to Clapper and Comey.

    Then fashion nooses for Bill and Bernadine.
    They would be the origins of it all.
    They gave birth to Obama in Chicago.
    Biologically it was Ann Dunham but it was Bill
    and Bernie that weaned him.
    I will leave the name of the sperm donor up to
    the student to research as a home work assignment.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      “I will leave the name of the sperm donor up to
      the student to research as a home work assignment.”.. The only thing sure in that regard is that it was a black muslim.. apparently Ms. Durham never met one of those she wouldn’t sleep with…

  8. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    Regardless of the evidence, the left will ALWAYS parrot their talking points.

  9. Ex-PH2 says:

    None of this is any surprise, other than it took this long to get it into the public venue.

  10. Mikhail K. says:

    “Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to Win”

    American wanted Boris Yeltsin to Win.

    Paid good money, too.

    Fair game, no?

  11. Commissar says:

    No they didn’t. This is nonsense revisionist bullshit.

    They primary goal was lifting sanctions which Hillary would never had done. She likely would have increased them and intervened in Ukraine. Something her and he neoliberal allies wanted to do.

    In fact Russia openly said Hillary winning might lead to war.

    • AW1Ed says:

      Except the entire premise of Russian collusion to support Trump is patently ridiculous, Lars. Hillary was a known quantity and corrupt as hell. They could play her like a fine instrument, and would have. Trump was an unknown and turned out to be the very thing the Russians wished to avoid.

    • UpNorth says:

      She would have increased sanctions and intervened in Ukraine? I want some of whatever it is that the Poodle is smoking. He’s so far out he’s looking at Uranus, close up.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Let’s apply some basic logic here, Lars. I know you are handicapped in that department, so I’ll help you out. Hillary Clinton is a career Establishment politician. Foreign intelligence agencies, including theirs, have rooms full of files, profiles, and estimates on her. She’s also got a decades-long history of corruption. They know her history, they know her personality, they know that she’s a power-obsessed bitch who’s willing to have people murdered, they know that her “foundation” is a colossal money-laundering scam that is the envy of organized crime all over the world. They also know that she’s loyal to nothing and nobody besides herself and has no problem selling out America for personal political gain; that she would burn this nation to the ground if it meant she could rule the ashes. They have tons of dirt on the bitch, and a documented history of getting what they want from her, whether through leverage or flattery (Uranium One ring any bells, dipshit? That ain’t even the half of it).

      Contrast Trump. Other than his tendency to talk shit on Twitter, he’s been rather unpredictable to them. Unlike his predecessors, he’s taken a hard line with the Russians, ChiComs, Iranians, etc. He’s made it clear that he’s willing to deal, but not on their terms. And he’s plowed through all the dirt that’s been thrown at him. That’s not to say he’s a choirboy; he’s Donald Trump, the most famous asshole currently walking this mortal coil of Earth. Every “revelation” is met with “No shit. He’s Donald Trump. We know this. Have you been living under a rock for the last 50 years?” and he continues on his way. They have been trying to get leverage on him for three years now and failed consistently for that reason. For all his superficially thin skin, he has shown that he can’t be embarrassed. Maybe it’s determination, maybe it’s narcissism, or maybe something else entirely, I don’t know. But it works.

      Russians are chess players. They like known quantities with known exploitable weaknesses. Wild cards are an anathema to them. If you think for even a second that Putin was afraid if Hillary Clinton, you’re (again) a fucking idiot.

      • SFC D says:

        And everyone said amen.

      • 5th/77th FA says:

        Daaaaaaayyyuuuum TOW!!!!! No wonder the Missus stays in the family way. You are On Target and firing for effect with that Big Gun. Hey seagull, you need a basket to put that ass in that TOW just handed you?

        Well said and Spot On TOW! I stand in awe!

      • David says:

        Last time an unknown loose cannon got in the White House was 1980, and that ended poorly for them.

    • E4 Mafia '83-'87 says:

      The Russians knew Clinton was into ‘Pay-to-Play’ schemes. Let’s review:
      Clinton Ledger-
      Russian reset button as Sec State
      Unrianium One fleecing
      Bill’s high dollar fees for speeches in Russia
      Perkins Coie/Fusion GPS/Clinton Campaign/DNC to Christopher Steele cash pipeline for Russian disinformation

      Trump-
      Trump-Moscow Tower never left an artichtects drawing table

      Analysis:
      Clinton, a confrimed Globalist elite, was a known entity that was open to wheeling & dealing versus an unkown wild-card campaigning on ‘America First’ & ‘Make America Great Again’. Plus, she was clearly the favorite from the get-go. Moscow’s choice was obvious…the wanted Hildabeast.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      “Nu zeey deedn’t. Zees is nunsense-a refisiunist buollsheet. Zeey primery guel ves leeffting suonctiuns vheech HEEllery vuould nefer hed dune-a. She-a leekely vuould hefe-a increesed zeem und interfened in Ukreene-a. Sumezeeng her und he-a neuleeberel illees vuonted tu du. In fect Ruossia oupenly seed HEEllery vinning meeght leed tu ver. Bork Bork Bork! ”

      I still think your posts are MUCH funnier translated into “Chef-speak”! XD

      • The Other Whitey says:

        Never mind that his argument is self-defeating. “Russians thought Hillary Clinton would start a war!” Really? So if that’s true, then the supposed collusion (if it had actually taken place) would be a good thing, would it not? Especially by the standards of the Left, who are always going on about how they’re all about Peace and Love (Obama sending drone strikes against family picnics doesn’t count).

    • OldManchu says:

      Only 5 more years dick weed. Hang in there.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk!

      Honk!

      – Komrade Kazoo

  12. Poetrooper says:

    From the first moment the Democrats pulled this Russian collusion crap outta their asses and the media monkeys started flinging it like the poo it was, ol’ Poe has been saying it simply doesn’t pass the common sense test, as George V points out above.

    The struggling Russian economy is so heavily dependent on oil and gas that there is no way they could ever want to have an America-First president who would remove all the constraints placed on the American petroleum industry by Obama. The Russians didn’t just want, they NEEDED liberal Democrats with all their silly green energy pipe dreams to continue the suppression of American energy production, so that the Russian economy could thrive.

    But that common sense approach to this argument, as always, eludes Lars and LC because it doesn’t fit their liberal, Trump-bad narrative. To continue to cite reports from intelligence agencies whose leadership has long since been discredited is not an effective tactic, LC.

    Seems I recall you believed Schiff had an effective case, too…

    • rgr769 says:

      Both those clowns are infected with incurable TDS. Too bad AW1Ed doesn’t just post ORANGE MAN!! at the beginning of their comments, and then we won’t bother to read their verbose bloviating blather.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Personally, I appreciate LC ensuring we don’t become an echo chamber. Lars, on the other hand, can eat a dick.

      • SFC D says:

        Concur 100%. Counterpoint is a wonderful thing, but “you’re all just brainwashed puppets and I know all” gets tiresome. Sometimes it’s not even fun yanking his chain anymore.

      • Twist says:

        I like having LC around. Differing viewpoints are a good thing. 100% agree about Lars.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Trying to exploit Hillary’s dimwitted behavior has more to do with Russia’s (Putin’s) attempts to get rid of competition from the USA as a source of oil/gas and mineral wealth. Since Russia is the world’s largest producer of natural gas, and the mineral/gas/oil resources as yet untapped are vast, it’s rather obvious they just don’t like competition, especially from us.

      This should tell you something about what resources they really have.
      https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=44

      While China is possibly the most heavily populated nation on the planet, and they do have enormous untapped resources, they aren’t quite up the Russia’s level just yet.
      https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=53

      So most of this appears to be about competition and not a whole lot else. If Hillary had gotten the nod instead of Trump, the attempts to drive us into the background economically would have gone on and on, to our detriment. I suspect the greenbeaners who lead the pack on objections to using our own natural resources may have something to do with it, too.

  13. Combat Historian says:

    Washington Examiner now reporting that DNI Grennell is preparing to declassify and release documents showing Brennan’s cover-up and suppression of intel and analyses documenting Putin’s support for Clinton during 2016 campaign. Nothing like seeing the primary source documents first-hand; this is about to get really interesting really fast…

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-spy-chief-declassifying-documents-showing-ex-cia-director-john-brennan-suppressed-russia-intelligence-report

  14. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    Putin, and for that matter Xi, likely didn’t care too much who won, as long as we wound up at each other’s throats.

    I think -now- they may be rather sorry the donk didn’t win. Very

  15. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    OK… someone explain to me WTF is the US Ambassador doing trying to unmask someone SEVEN FUCKING TIMES IN A SIX WEEK PERIOD?

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/13/samantha-power-claimed-she-never-tried-to-unmask-michael-flynn-but-records-show-she-unmasked-him-7-times/#disqus_thread

    PS – Power lied to Congress about it!

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      It is May 13th.

      This stuff is going to be rolling out for -months-. If you think this stuff is bad, just wait. It gets -much- worse.

      When “big” folks start seeing prison in their future, they are going to go apeshit. -then- things get interesting.

    • Skippy says:

      Hell there is one of Obama’s Donors on this list
      Like seriously how or why I’d he requesting that

      • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

        If they area able to do this shit, when do they start doing it to us (besides using the IRS)? Personally, it wouldn’t be a surprise to me if they were doing it to us and their minions are still trying to check on people they perceive to be a “threat” or “danger” to them.

        The bunch that were doing it need to be wearing Prison Orange for a long stretch and those authorizing it should join them. Fuck them and their “rights”, they forfeited them the moment they started this shit.

        I wonder what Lars would do if he found out someone had done this to him? Would he raise holy Hell about it, or tell us that “it’s a bug, not a feature”?

        • 26Limabeans says:

          “I wonder what Lars would do if he found out someone had done this to him?”

          He would find a way to justify it for the good of the party.