Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 21:45:02 GMT
You have to look at the rest of his statement to answer that question, not just the highlighted portion. "This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked." "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything."So? I read that excerpt and I still stand by my question and statement. AN INNOCENT MAN does not respond the way this man does to not only this investigation but to any questioning of his actions. When someone tells you, this will ruin your presidency in such a way as to permenantly smear you and take up all your time dealing with this investigation, defending yourself and fighting back against actual lies in the media about yourself, yes an innocent man would respond this way. Move on to the actual things he may have done to prove your case against him, because this one sentence is not going to prove your case given the context in which it was said. It's absolutely does not say about him what you're claiming it does. There are other things you could focus on to prove your case, this ain't it.
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Apr 19, 2019 22:19:41 GMT
So? I read that excerpt and I still stand by my question and statement. AN INNOCENT MAN does not respond the way this man does to not only this investigation but to any questioning of his actions. When someone tells you, this will ruin your presidency in such a way as to permenantly smear you and take up all your time dealing with this investigation, defending yourself and fighting back against actual lies in the media about yourself, yes an innocent man would respond this way. Move on to the actual things he may have done to prove your case against him, because this one sentence is not going to prove your case given the context in which it was said. It's absolutely does not say about him what you're claiming it does. There are other things you could focus on to prove your case, this ain't it. LOL Again, I stand by my question and statement about his reaction to not only this investigation but to any questioning of his actions. Oh, and btw, I don't need to "prove my case against him" it's a message board, not a court of law and yes, I did say EXACTLY what it says about him not being an innocent man even in context. If you had nothing to worry about, you would embrace an investigation so your name could be cleared. This was clearly never his intention. But you go right ahead and defend him because that says more about you than me and it helps me filter out the riff raff.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 22:33:53 GMT
When someone tells you, this will ruin your presidency in such a way as to permenantly smear you and take up all your time dealing with this investigation, defending yourself and fighting back against actual lies in the media about yourself, yes an innocent man would respond this way. Move on to the actual things he may have done to prove your case against him, because this one sentence is not going to prove your case given the context in which it was said. It's absolutely does not say about him what you're claiming it does. There are other things you could focus on to prove your case, this ain't it. LOL Again, I stand by my question and statement about his reaction to not only this investigation but to any questioning of his actions. Oh, and btw, I don't need to "prove my case against him" it's a message board, not a court of law and yes, I did say EXACTLY what it says about him not being an innocent man even in context. If you had nothing to worry about, you would embrace an investigation so your name could be cleared. This was clearly never his intention. But you go right ahead and defend him because that says more about you than me and it helps me filter out the riff raff. You absolutely know I mean "prove your case" in the sense of discussing it here and not in a sense of a court of law. But you go right ahead and deflect because that says more about you than me and it helps me filter out those that resort to that kind of thing when they dont have anything to back up their claims.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Apr 19, 2019 23:25:20 GMT
LOL Again, I stand by my question and statement about his reaction to not only this investigation but to any questioning of his actions. Oh, and btw, I don't need to "prove my case against him" it's a message board, not a court of law and yes, I did say EXACTLY what it says about him not being an innocent man even in context. If you had nothing to worry about, you would embrace an investigation so your name could be cleared. This was clearly never his intention. But you go right ahead and defend him because that says more about you than me and it helps me filter out the riff raff. You absolutely know I mean "prove your case" in the sense of discussing it here and not in a sense of a court of law. But you go right ahead and deflect because that says more about you than me and it helps me filter out those that resort to that kind of thing when they dont have anything to back up their claims. Gia.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 23:28:30 GMT
I'm sure when Clinton was worried about a special counsel "fucking" his presidency, the Trump supporters would have completely been on his side like they are now on the side of Trump's "poor me" attitude.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 0:24:32 GMT
I'm sure when Clinton was worried about a special counsel "fucking" his presidency, the Trump supporters would have completely been on his side like they are now on the side of Trump's "poor me" attitude. I'm sure you understand that you can employ critical thinking to take his words in context to know they aren't the damning words claimed they are and still not be on his side for the poor me. At least I'm hoping you're that intelligent. Your statement says otherwise, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Apr 20, 2019 0:41:30 GMT
I'm sure when Clinton was worried about a special counsel "fucking" his presidency, the Trump supporters would have completely been on his side like they are now on the side of Trump's "poor me" attitude. I'm sure you understand that you can employ critical thinking to take his words in context to know they aren't the damning words claimed they are and still not be on his side for the poor me. At least I'm hoping you're that intelligent. Your statement says otherwise, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Fact. Merely stating “I’m fucked” are absolutely, most definitely, damning words. And if you take what just the redacted report says, then trump knew and continued to lie, obstruct, mislead, prevent, and inhibit others—if YOU had an ounce of brains, you could read the document as a whole and see that everything trump did or ordered others to do puts him in that unethical, corrupt, illegal “I’m fucked” camp. But nope. As a trump apologist, your just going to continue to try to skew the facts, move the goal posts and insist that your opinion is fact. (It’s not sweetheart). And you’re such a fucking hypocrite—insulting other peas because they don’t agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Apr 20, 2019 0:49:16 GMT
if things go true to form, based on previous instances, DT's next play will be to admit to some of it: 'well, yes, I did these things- but they weren't ILLEGAL so it's okay; and hey, how about that economy and those tax cuts?' and see how that plays in the media. 1) outright denials of everything 2) say what's right there in front of us in black and white is all LIES, crazy talk, etc. 3) admit to at least SOME of it, but say it's okay because he didn't MEAN anything bad by it, etc. 4) deflect, spin, and pull the old, 'hey, look over there!' trick. the he'll start to get squirrely, go on a Twitter rant or two, and they'll book a fundraising / campaign tour so he can give another speech to trot out all the oldies but goodies 'crooked Hillary' and 'Obummer' so he can have his sheeple cheer and stomp their feet at his lies. lather, rinse, repeat ad nausea.
|
|
craftymom101
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,620
Jul 31, 2014 5:23:25 GMT
|
Post by craftymom101 on Apr 20, 2019 1:02:44 GMT
Nope. Nopee. Nope. We work the process to register our AMERICAN (or at least DEMOCRATIC) IDEAL that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW and that cavorting with Foreign Adversaries and SUBORNING PERJURY among other obstruction acts ARE UNACCEPTABLE IN AMERICA. Let it go, my eye. I say we wait until he’s out of office and go after him HARD for money laundering and tax evasion. All those things we KNOW he’s done/is doing. I also say we put our energies into modernizing/securing our election process and making sure nothing like this will ever happen again. Because you know that there are foreign agents and shady people right here in the US already working on the 2020 election. And, Republicans LOST seats after Clinton’s impeachment. Can he be prosecuted for money laundering and tax evasion? What is the statute of limitations on those crimes? The NYT piece outlined the vast number of crimes committed by the Trump children, however my understanding is the statute of limitations limits what the AG can charge D. Trump with.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Apr 20, 2019 2:57:36 GMT
I say we wait until he’s out of office and go after him HARD for money laundering and tax evasion. All those things we KNOW he’s done/is doing. I also say we put our energies into modernizing/securing our election process and making sure nothing like this will ever happen again. Because you know that there are foreign agents and shady people right here in the US already working on the 2020 election. And, Republicans LOST seats after Clinton’s impeachment. Can he be prosecuted for money laundering and tax evasion? What is the statute of limitations on those crimes? The NYT piece outlined the vast number of crimes committed by the Trump children, however my understanding is the statute of limitations limits what the AG can charge D. Trump with. Most federal crimes have a five-year statute of limitations. If it’s a state prosecution, that would depend on the state. The money laundering case being made against Trump Org that I know of stemmed from Cohen’s testimony in how he was reimbursed for the hush money payments, but could also include mail and wire fraud because of how the monies were transmitted. That case, I know for a fact, is being investigated by federal – SDNY. On the tax evasion issue, I’m not sure I’m remembering correctly, but I think that was handed off to New York State, not a federal district jurisdiction. If it was state, that could be anywhere from 2-6 years statute of limitations. ETA: I just remembered something. There’s another referral by Mueller and that’s the Trump inauguration committee. That’s SDNY also. That’s a wider investigation – corruption, money laundering. Chris Christie was saying that’s a much bigger deal than the Russia issue and poses a bigger threat to Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 4:19:25 GMT
Can he be prosecuted for money laundering and tax evasion? What is the statute of limitations on those crimes? The NYT piece outlined the vast number of crimes committed by the Trump children, however my understanding is the statute of limitations limits what the AG can charge D. Trump with. Most federal crimes have a five-year statute of limitations. If it’s a state prosecution, that would depend on the state. The money laundering case being made against Trump Org that I know of stemmed from Cohen’s testimony in how he was reimbursed for the hush money payments, but could also include mail and wire fraud because of how the monies were transmitted. That case, I know for a fact, is being investigated by federal – SDNY. On the tax evasion issue, I’m not sure I’m remembering correctly, but I think that was handed off to New York State, not a federal district jurisdiction. If it was state, that could be anywhere from 2-6 years statute of limitations. ETA: I just remembered something. There’s another referral by Mueller and that’s the Trump inauguration committee. That’s SDNY also. That’s a wider investigation – corruption, money laundering. Chris Christie was saying that’s a much bigger deal than the Russia issue and poses a bigger threat to Trump. The consensus has long been that Mueller referred out the money crimes to SDNY. If I were Jr, I'd not be taking any victory laps at present.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Apr 20, 2019 4:33:16 GMT
Most federal crimes have a five-year statute of limitations. If it’s a state prosecution, that would depend on the state. The money laundering case being made against Trump Org that I know of stemmed from Cohen’s testimony in how he was reimbursed for the hush money payments, but could also include mail and wire fraud because of how the monies were transmitted. That case, I know for a fact, is being investigated by federal – SDNY. On the tax evasion issue, I’m not sure I’m remembering correctly, but I think that was handed off to New York State, not a federal district jurisdiction. If it was state, that could be anywhere from 2-6 years statute of limitations. ETA: I just remembered something. There’s another referral by Mueller and that’s the Trump inauguration committee. That’s SDNY also. That’s a wider investigation – corruption, money laundering. Chris Christie was saying that’s a much bigger deal than the Russia issue and poses a bigger threat to Trump. The consensus has long been that Mueller referred out the money crimes to SDNY. If I were Jr, I'd not be taking any victory laps at present. No, I wouldn’t. Especially since Appendix D that lists the referrals is practically ALL BLACKED OUT. No one even knows, apart from Mueller, his team and the DOJ, who might be in jeopardy in the twelve referrals that were redacted.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 20, 2019 4:44:33 GMT
No, I wouldn’t. Especially since Appendix D that lists the referrals is practically ALL BLACKED OUT. No one even knows, apart from Mueller, his team and the DOJ, who might be in jeopardy in the twelve referrals that were redacted. And we think Barr didn't tell? Can I say not me!
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Apr 20, 2019 4:54:00 GMT
No, I wouldn’t. Especially since Appendix D that lists the referrals is practically ALL BLACKED OUT. No one even knows, apart from Mueller, his team and the DOJ, who might be in jeopardy in the twelve referrals that were redacted. And we think Barr didn't tell? Can I say not me! I have no clue. I don't know what to think anymore. This much I do know - any person who has had any transaction with Trump, Trump Org, Trump campaign, Trump inaugural committee, Trump anything, before or during his presidency needs to be shopping for a lawyer. Because nobody knows what the potential crimes are and who the targets may be.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 12:53:13 GMT
Quick comment about Sarah Sanders: She claims she got texts and EMAILS from countless FBI agents... WHERE are the emails? Aren't they supposed to be saved? Again where are the emails? (OOPS............I just realized what I am typing and laughing at it............ where are the emails?) Larry's take....“It is not news that Sarah Sanders is a pathological liar who works for a pathological liar, that is why as a general rule I do not use video of Sarah Sanders speaking at White House press briefings,” O’Donnell noted. “I don’t let this program become a delivery system for Trumpian propaganda, which is the only thing that Sarah Sanders traffics in whenever she speaks, wherever she speaks. “Remember, Sarah Sanders is not just a liar, she is a pathological liar. So when she was admitting to the Mueller investigators that she didn’t tell the truth, she actually lied to them — and they knew it,” he explained.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 13:41:16 GMT
If we "let this go" we are setting our country up for similar and greater abuse going forward. POTUSes who lie, obstruct and scheme to their own advantage w/o consequence.
Laws are there not only to deal with the current crime but as deterrents to future crimes.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 13:41:40 GMT
Nope. Nopee. Nope. We work the process to register our AMERICAN (or at least DEMOCRATIC) IDEAL that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW and that cavorting with Foreign Adversaries and SUBORNING PERJURY among other obstruction acts ARE UNACCEPTABLE IN AMERICA. Let it go, my eye. I say we wait until he’s out of office and go after him HARD for money laundering and tax evasion. All those things we KNOW he’s done/is doing. I also say we put our energies into modernizing/securing our election process and making sure nothing like this will ever happen again. Because you know that there are foreign agents and shady people right here in the US already working on the 2020 election. And, Republicans LOST seats after Clinton’s impeachment. Of course the Republicans lost seats after the Clinton Impeachment because it was a stupid reason to impeach a president for. Name one married guy who wouldn’t lie about having sex with another woman? They can’t help themselves, it’s in their DNA. And the majority of Americans knew it really was nothing but a witch hunt. But Mueller has laid out the groundwork for impeaching trump for obstruction of justice, not once, not twice but for 10 instances. A little more serious then married guy lying about having sex with another woman. If the Democrats walk away from upholding the rule of law just so they can win, then they are no better then the Republicans. If the Democrats in Congress can’t perform the task of oversight and put together a message that the majority of Americans can support, then maybe they don’t deserve to win.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 13:44:24 GMT
Can't believe I'm boosting Joe Walsh, but presidential crimes make strange bedfellows.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 14:39:23 GMT
Hakeem Jeffries...
”House Dems remain focused on lowering healthcare costs.
We also have a constitutional responsibility to check and balance Individual 1.
We will fully investigate the culture of corruption at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”
Walk and chew gun....
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,544
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Apr 20, 2019 14:41:34 GMT
But Mueller has laid out the groundwork for impeaching trump for obstruction of justice, not once, not twice but for 10 instances. A little more serious then married guy lying about having sex with another woman. This really needs to sink in to some people's brains. And for some reason that I can't figure out, it just isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 20, 2019 14:44:35 GMT
But Mueller has laid out the groundwork for impeaching trump for obstruction of justice, not once, not twice but for 10 instances. A little more serious then married guy lying about having sex with another woman. This really needs to sink in to some people's brains. And for some reason that I can't figure out, it just isn't. Motivated ignorance.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Apr 20, 2019 15:15:49 GMT
@zingermack So what if they do impeach? To what end? Do you really have faith that the republican senate will convict and remove him from office? Because if they don’t, it will just embolden him and others like him even more. Can you even imagine the tweets celebrating his innocence?
And do you really want Mike Pence as your president? Because at least Donald Trump is stupid. Mike Pence might actually be good at getting his agenda done...
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Apr 20, 2019 15:26:13 GMT
I say we wait until he’s out of office and go after him HARD for money laundering and tax evasion. All those things we KNOW he’s done/is doing. I also say we put our energies into modernizing/securing our election process and making sure nothing like this will ever happen again. Because you know that there are foreign agents and shady people right here in the US already working on the 2020 election. And, Republicans LOST seats after Clinton’s impeachment. Of course the Republicans lost seats after the Clinton Impeachment because it was a stupid reason to impeach a president for. Name one married guy who wouldn’t lie about having sex with another woman? They can’t help themselves, it’s in their DNA. And the majority of Americans knew it really was nothing but a witch hunt. But Mueller has laid out the groundwork for impeaching trump for obstruction of justice, not once, not twice but for 10 instances. A little more serious then married guy lying about having sex with another woman. If the Democrats walk away from upholding the rule of law just so they can win, then they are no better then the Republicans. If the Democrats in Congress can’t perform the task of oversight and put together a message that the majority of Americans can support, then maybe they don’t deserve to win. It wouldn’t matter if they had a video of him giving Putin a golden shower. Republicans will continue to make excuses for him. Their support has NOT WAVERED in the face of what we know as UNDENIABLE evidence. They don’t want to admit the truth. I watched FOX quite a bit yesterday and they are CELEBRATING this victory. I watched interviews on MSNBC with Republicans who truly believe this report exonerates Trump. And most disturbingly, I read the face book feeds/comments of Republican friends...people I live and work with....people I thought were RATIONAL....who all believe the same thing. So we can insist on a long and messy impeachment, and the people above will CONTINUE to support him—probably even more, because he’s being “victimized.” He will get impeached, and then he will be acquitted by the senate, re-elected and then he will REALLY think he can get away with anything.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 20, 2019 15:32:17 GMT
Quick comment about Sarah Sanders: She claims she got texts and EMAILS from countless FBI agents... WHERE are the emails? Aren't they supposed to be saved? Again where are the emails? (OOPS............I just realized what I am typing and laughing at it............ where are the emails?) Larry's take....“It is not news that Sarah Sanders is a pathological liar who works for a pathological liar, that is why as a general rule I do not use video of Sarah Sanders speaking at White House press briefings,” O’Donnell noted. “I don’t let this program become a delivery system for Trumpian propaganda, which is the only thing that Sarah Sanders traffics in whenever she speaks, wherever she speaks. “Remember, Sarah Sanders is not just a liar, she is a pathological liar. So when she was admitting to the Mueller investigators that she didn’t tell the truth, she actually lied to them — and they knew it,” he explained.” Saw it last night!! I have not seen anyone else show the beginning of the video, although I am sure someone will soon...... It is WONDERFUL!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 15:53:46 GMT
Of course the Republicans lost seats after the Clinton Impeachment because it was a stupid reason to impeach a president for. Name one married guy who wouldn’t lie about having sex with another woman? They can’t help themselves, it’s in their DNA. And the majority of Americans knew it really was nothing but a witch hunt. But Mueller has laid out the groundwork for impeaching trump for obstruction of justice, not once, not twice but for 10 instances. A little more serious then married guy lying about having sex with another woman. If the Democrats walk away from upholding the rule of law just so they can win, then they are no better then the Republicans. If the Democrats in Congress can’t perform the task of oversight and put together a message that the majority of Americans can support, then maybe they don’t deserve to win. It wouldn’t matter if they had a video of him giving Putin a golden shower. Republicans will continue to make excuses for him. Their support has NOT WAVERED in the face of what we know as UNDENIABLE evidence. They don’t want to admit the truth. I watched FOX quite a bit yesterday and they are CELEBRATING this victory. I watched interviews on MSNBC with Republicans who truly believe this report exonerates Trump. And most disturbingly, I read the face book feeds/comments of Republican friends...people I live and work with....people I thought were RATIONAL....who all believe the same thing. So we can insist on a long and messy impeachment, and the people above will CONTINUE to support him—probably even more, because he’s being “victimized.” He will get impeached, and then he will be acquitted by the senate, re-elected and then he will REALLY think he can get away with anything. So what happens if the Democrats in Congress ignore the Mueller Report and shutdown all the oversight hearings and the Democrats still don’t kick trump out and they lose the majority in the House? Which would mean trump would not be out of office until January 2025. The statute of limitations would run out on most if not all of the potential criminal acts committed by trump. So then what? Seriously what then? The Democrats should not shy away from their oversight duties just because they might lose. If they can make a strong case to impeach, then it needs to be done. Yes there is a good chance in the Senate the Republicans will vote against impeaching trump. But then they are on record for shielding a president who has broken the law. And while that might be ok with hard core trump supporters and hard core Republicans, they just makes up a small portion of the electorate and these Senators could end up paying a heavy price for that vote. And they know it. So in the end, who knows how they will vote. Nixon resigned because he didn’t have the support of the Republicans in the Senate.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 16:46:25 GMT
@zingermack So what if they do impeach? To what end? Do you really have faith that the republican senate will convict and remove him from office? Because if they don’t, it will just embolden him and others like him even more. Can you even imagine the tweets celebrating his innocence? And do you really want Mike Pence as your president? Because at least Donald Trump is stupid. Mike Pence might actually be good at getting his agenda done... No I don't think the GOP will remove him No I don't want President Pence. Neither of those things negates the fact that it is literally the job of the house to bring impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors. Suborning perjury and otherwise obstructing justice are DISGUSTING in a POTUS. What I want is the House to do its job to relate to the next Trump that the American presidency is not the new mob heaven for corruption and destruction of the rule of law.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 17:14:53 GMT
Neera Tanden...
”I worked in Clinton WH during impeachment; there’s a fundamental difference to today. During Clinton impeachment, the public perceived the events to be punishment for private behavior. Trump's obstruction is using power of the presidency to shield him from public accountability.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 20, 2019 17:40:36 GMT
Neither of those things negates the fact that it is literally the job of the house to bring impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors. Suborning perjury and otherwise obstructing justice are DISGUSTING in a POTUS. What I want is the House to do its job to relate to the next Trump that the American presidency is not the new mob heaven for corruption and destruction of the rule of law. If they are going to file the articles of impeachment they need to do it sooner than later!
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Apr 20, 2019 18:23:26 GMT
I'm starting to wonder if there is a good outcome here?
We know Trump is unethical and corrupt. But even if Congress takes every step to impeach him, what do we do with the corrupt Trump cronies he's put in the white house ?
And even more worrying, how do we deal with the American citizens who have taken the opportunity to show their hate openly? Doo we just pretend that we don't have Nazis living amongst us?
Our country is very divided. There are those among us who are okay with government corruption as long as their guy "wins." But I don't feel that the average American has been winning. Corporations, maybe. I just don't feel like you even have a voice unless you have the power that billions of dollars buy you.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Apr 20, 2019 18:33:27 GMT
I want Trump to have to testify. I want people to have to pay attention. I want him on record addressing this stuff. I'm tired of Twitter bites no collusion, no obstruction. It is ridiculous. I want the American people to be forced to listen. I'm tired of the ignorant who bury their heads in the sand. I want it to be so ugly even Fox news can't spin it.
|
|