Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1697072747594

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 1
    I've started a separate thread for discussion of SNC-Lavalin.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I read a Politico article arguing that Congressional hearings should go back to using lawyers to elicit information. The argument was that these hearings are more about grandstanding by the pollies than garnering useful information. I'm attracted to the idea, but note that we don't do that in our Parliamentary Committee Hearings in Australia. I'm also legally trained, so probably have an internal bias. What do others think?

    The Senate Judiciary Committee tried to do this with the questioning of Christine Blassey Ford during the Kavanaugh hearings. While the Democrats allowed the legal prosecutor (who happened to be Republican) question Ms Ford the GOP still continued to grandstand.

    If you do use lawyers for the questions, I think one should represent each party on the committee.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I read a Politico article arguing that Congressional hearings should go back to using lawyers to elicit information. The argument was that these hearings are more about grandstanding by the pollies than garnering useful information.

    I'm not sure going back to the days where folks like Roy Cohn questioned people on the Senate's behalf represents a step forward in "garnering useful information".

    Blogger mistermix has some observations about Congressional grandstanding and why the most effective questioning of Cohen seemed to come from rookie Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
    If you have less than 5 minutes and missed this yesterday, watch AOC’s devastating line of questioning with Cohen. First, she avoids wasting her time bloviating. What a refreshing change. Second, she gets Cohen on the record listing people the committee should follow up with to validate his claims. The Republicans claim Cohen is a liar – let’s get some witnesses in who can back up his claims. Third, she picked a Trump property in or near her district, that probably benefited from a fraudulent tax claim, as an example.

    Being an average Member of Congress is an “almost famous” job – there are very few of you, people will be impressed if they know, but you’re not going to get recognized on the street. But there’s one place where a MoC is king or queen – the local party hierarchy. If you’re a member of the local party who wants to be the next MoC from your district, you’ve been marinating in the behavior of your current MoC. They run their jaw at hearings, they are often abusive or at least nasty to underlings, and they are so often the recipient of frequent and fond ass kissing that they forget that, outside of the bubble, a lot of people think they’re full of shit. They also desperately want to transcend their almost famous status, so they use their 5 minutes of committee time to grandstand in the hope that their bon mots will be picked up on cable TV.

    AOC came up outside the bubble. She, like most of the rest of us, understands that the masturbatory grandstanding that predominates in committee questioning disgusts people outside the bubble. So, when she has 5 minutes at arguably one of the most important committee hearings in recent memory, she digs in, does her job, and yields back part of her time.

    The solution to Congressional grandstanding isn't to bring in a bunch of unelected lawyers to grandstand on behalf of Congress, it's getting better Congressional representatives.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host
    Pretty much everything I heard the Republicans say was in reference to Cohen being a liar. If they really wanted to defend the president, they had ample opportunity during their five minute question windows. Instead, they echoed each other in reminding Cohen that he was going to prison for lying. Basically it seemed to me that they were pointing to the small pile of manure in the next pasture (Isn't that Horrid???) to draw attention away from the knee deep poo they were standing in in their own living rooms.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    My brother the mathematician analyses what the Democrats **should** be asking the Repugnicans as follows:

    Q. So Cohen is a liar, yes?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Why did he lie?
    A. To make Trump look good.
    Q. So it was dishonest for Cohen to make Trump look good?
    A. Well, yes, I guess it was.
    Q. Then Trump isn't so good after all, right?
    A. No, I guess he isn't.
    Q. But aren't you all continuing to make him look good?
    A. [silence]
    Q. Aren't you lying about Trump, then?
    A. [more silence]
    Q. And if all of you are so critical of Cohen's lies, then you should be absolutely outraged about all of Trump's lies. But none of you have the spine to say one freakin word to criticize Trump.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {I didn't see this mentioned here. Apologies if I missed it.}

    The Republicans at Cohen's hearing didn't limit themselves to spoken insults, oh, no. They resorted to posters in the chamber during the hearing (Business Insider).
    (:eyeroll:)

    Might as well have done them with poster paint themselves, like school kids. Actually, grade schoolers should've done the questioning--they would've done a better job.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    The word "puerile" springs to mind, but I doubt your average Republican would know what it meant.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I bet Roger Stone does...
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Read an article on Trumps last speech on BBC online. Yes he is all people on here say he is and more. Utterly childish. If this was a fiction book it would be unbelievable
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Even more unbelievable is the obduracy of his supporters. I have, on average, only about 35-40 students per semester in composition and communication classes combined,* but I am inspired to mount a campaign in both against black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. It's epidemic in this culture.

    *College enrollments here are falling precipitously due to people finally figuring out that it's impossible to pay back gazillions of dollars of student loans on the salaries earned in the occupations they hope to enter. College, for the US non-wealthy, is now a form of permanent indentured servitude.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 4
    Hugal wrote: »
    Read an article on Trumps last speech on BBC online. Yes he is all people on here say he is and more. Utterly childish. If this was a fiction book it would be unbelievable

    For those who don't want to watch Trump bloviate for 2+ hours you can read this Twitter thread by Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star. It gives you the general feel of the thing without having to listen to Trump's voice.

    At 2 hours and 11 minutes the speech is the longest one Trump's ever known to have given in public, and by a good margin. The previous record holder was 39 minutes shorter.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    I think listening to anyone speak for 2 hours is nigh unto ridiculous. Even if the speaker is someone you really admire, who has important/interesting things to say, you're apt to lose focus, reorganize your cell phone, fall asleep, desperately need a bathroom break.

    But listening to T improvise (reportedly) for over 2 hours? A new chamber in one of the lower rings of hell. Bad enough to make the devil run away screaming. ('Course, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 21

    College enrollments here are falling precipitously due to people finally figuring out that it's impossible to pay back gazillions of dollars of student loans on the salaries earned in the occupations they hope to enter. College, for the US non-wealthy, is now a form of permanent indentured servitude.

    Student Loan payments could be a topic of its own IMHO
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    This seems overdetermined.
    In the weeks after Hurricane Harvey’s catastrophic sweep through the Houston area — which resulted in chemical spills, fires, flooded storage tanks and damaged industrial plants — rescue crews and residents complained of burning throats, nausea and dizziness.

    Fifteen hundred miles west in the high desert city of Palmdale, NASA scientists were preparing to fly a DC-8, equipped with the world’s most sophisticated air samplers over the hurricane zone to monitor pollution levels.

    The mission never got off the ground. Both the state of Texas and the EPA told the scientists to stay away.

    According to emails obtained by The Times via a public records request and interviews with dozens of scientists and officials familiar with the situation, EPA and state officials argued that NASA’s data would cause “confusion” and might “overlap” with their own analysis — which was showing only a few, isolated spots of concern.

    “At this time, we don’t think your data would be useful,” Michael Honeycutt, Texas’ director of toxicology, wrote to NASA officials, adding that low-flying helicopters equipped with infra-red cameras, contracted by his agency, would be sufficient.

    For those having trouble translating from corporate-suckup to English, it can best be rendered as "we have the data we want, so don't give us more that might tell us something we don't want to know".

    So we have unconcern with public health, worry about data that might cost the oil industry money, and contempt for basic science. Do we also have blame shifting when all this comes to light?
    An EPA spokesman said the decision to wave off the Hurricane Harvey mission was made by Texas state officials, whose own pollution monitoring efforts included mobile bus units and crews with hand-held devices on the ground.

    <snip>

    “NASA is equipped to gather atmospheric chemistry data, not ground-level data, which is why we declined their offer,” Honeycutt wrote in an email.

    “I did not tell NASA they could not fly their DC-8,” he said. “I don’t have that kind of authority; I’m just a state employee.”

    Of course we do!
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    yeah. that's not good at all.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Meanwhile, it would appear that Michael Cohen lied to Congress once again when he said he had never asked the current occupant of the White House for a pardon.

    Of course, his lawyer claims that "never" doesn't really mean "never".
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 7
    Meanwhile, it would appear that Michael Cohen lied to Congress once again when he said he had never asked the current occupant of the White House for a pardon.

    One of the complicating factors is hinted at, but not really spelled out, in this sentence of the Rolling Stone article:
    Lanny Davis, who currently represents Cohen but did not at the time of the pardon inquiry, confirmed the WSJ's reporting, which at least on the surface appears to contradict some of his client’s testimony.

    At the time of the pardon inquiry Cohen was represented by a legal team paid for by Donald Trump. Having legal counsel that's financially beholden to another party that you're (allegedly) covering up for seems problematic at best. For starters, this kind of joint defense agreement can make it difficult to determine if Cohen's lawyers approached Trump's lawyers or vice versa, given that there's not a clear line between the two legal teams.

    Of course, this is one of those criticisms of Cohen that, while it looks bad for him, actually makes Trump look even worse. Dangling a pardon in front of someone in exchange for their testimony in a matter relating to you seems like textbook obstruction of justice. Another intriguing factor here is that Bill Barr, the newly installed Attorney General, has a fairly expansive view of presidential authority (as most Attorneys General do) and has claimed that a president cannot be held criminally liable for exercising powers granted him by the Constitution. There was, however, one explicit exception to this rule that the Senate Judiciary Committee was able to tease out of him.
    Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Barr if a president can "offer a pardon in exchange for the witness's promise not to incriminate the president."

    "No, that would be a crime," Barr replied.

    We'll see if Barr sticks to this, assuming firmer evidence of such an offer surfaces.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Nice one Leahy. Up the Irish!
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And now, Mr. Cohen is suing the Trump Organization for at least $1.9 mil for all the investigations Mr Cohen has been involved in--after he turned on Trump. Copy of lawsuit here.

    CNN explanation of suit here
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort has been sentenced to just under four years in federal prison for tax evasion, bank fraud, and failure to report foreign assets. This is notable because federal sentencing guidelines specified a sentence of 19 to 24 years imprisonment for the various things Manafort was convicted of. In justifying his departure from sentencing guidelines Judge Ellis claimed Manafort has led "an otherwise blameless life".

    You can argue that American prison sentences are draconian and overly long, and I'd be likely to agree with you. However, being selectively lenient to people judges find sympathetic (in this case a fellow politically well-connected, affluent, white man) is a terrible way to correct this problem. In fact it's counterproductive since it insures that those with disproportionate influence to change the system (politically well-connected, affluent, white men) have the least motive to do so because they have assurances that such a system will never be applied to them. For the sake of comparison, Judge Ellis recently sentenced a man to 40 years for selling meth and claimed to be powerless to depart from sentencing guidelines. He also sentenced Rep. Bill Jefferson to 13 years for bribery after Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in unexplained cash in his deep freeze. (13 years remains the longest sentence ever handed out to a federal Congressman in a bribery case.) Of course, Jefferson was black and a Democrat, so obviously there are some differences between his case and Manafort's.

    Manafort will be appearing in DC District Court next week when Judge Amy Berman Jackson will sentence him to additional time for conspiracy against the United States (a.k.a. being an unregistered foreign agent and money laundering) and conspiracy to obstruct justice (a.k.a. witness tampering and lying to the Special Counsel's office). Those charges could add up to another ten years on his sentence. At 69 years old, Manafort has an additional life expectancy of 15.4 years according to the Social Security life expectancy calculator. This obviously does not take in to account any particulars of Mr. Manafort's health.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I agree that the sentence appears to be excessively lenient and appears to show bias on the judge's part, which he appears also to have shown throughout the trial. But Manafort is in poor health, and even three years (subtracting time served from the 47 month sentence) in a federal prison is bound to take a very harsh toll on him -- a toll that, in my opinion, he deserves every bit of. That, plus whatever sentence Judge Jackson imposes next week, is sure to make whatever life he might have left most unpleasant indeed.

    So I don't think we need to get our knickers in too much of a twist over this. Any way you look at it, Manafort is going to suffer.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    A public defender from New York City remarked that one of his clients--who was black--received ten years for stealing $100 in quarters from a Laundromat. Where is the justice?
  • edited March 10
    Anyone see the interview of Erik Prince? He's the man who owned the Blackwater mercenary company, and is starting up another. trumpy supporter. The actual interview is here. I didn't intend to watch is all, but I did. It gives a startling portrait of how manipulation, lies and violence work. I'm not going to post anything about this man's character myself given the need to protect the Ship from controversy: you may make your own conclusions.
    (from first link)
    In front of a live audience of grinning Englishmen at the Oxford Union, Hasan manages to get Prince to admit he met at Trump Tower in August 2016 with Stephen Miller, George Nader — a former Blackwater colleague and Saudi back-channel contact— and Donald Trump Jr. It’s a detail that Prince failed to mention when he spoke to the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee last year, and one that he fumbles over repeatedly, when Hasan asks him why he did not bring it up during his testimony... “I don’t know if they got the transcript wrong” is, to say the least, an unconvincing answer. Later in the interview, he tries a similar angle, claiming that “not all of the discussion that day was transcribed.”

    Noting that this guy has been involved since the Bush 2 era, and all of their dirty activities.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A public defender from New York City remarked that one of his clients--who was black--received ten years for stealing $100 in quarters from a Laundromat. Where is the justice?

    Where is the justice? Why, we have all kinds of justice. One for rich people, one for poor people, one for white people, one for brown or black people, one for mentally ill people, one for people not born here . . . soon we'll have a new brand: justice for people Tyrannosaurus Wrecks likes. You name a kind of justice, we've got it (and just in case we don't, we'll roll you some).
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Do people think manafort's sentence will be appealed? I was wondering if they were waiting for the other case to finish, but I'm not sure why they would...
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    So Judge Amy hands down another lenient sentence for Manafort, and New York State immedidately brings their action against him -- unpardonable by the current occupant of the White House, as it's a state, not federal, action.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Personally, I am appalled but no longer surprised that Trump can say he feels bad for manafort without condemning his crimes at the same time.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Personally, I am appalled but no longer surprised that Trump can say he feels bad for manafort without condemning his crimes at the same time.

    Republicans have always been soft on crime, provided it's white collar crime committed by white people, of course.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Personally, I am appalled but no longer surprised that Trump can say he feels bad for manafort without condemning his crimes at the same time.

    Republicans have always been soft on crime, provided it's white collar crime committed by white people, of course.

    I'm not sure it's a question of being "soft on crime." If we take a peek under the hood of Big Business (as practiced currently by Tyrannosaurus Wrecks, Big Pharma, Big Oil Extinction, er, Extraction, and that Phiz-Tome fella and their ilk, anyway), the more kleptocratic aspects appear to be acceptable GOP business models and not crimes at all.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    12 Republican senators broke with Trump and voted to over rule his state of emergency on the wall.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    That's a pretty huge break with party discipline, especially by modern standards. Here are the Republicans who voted against the Trumped up emergency:
    • Lamar Alexander (TN) - 2020*
    • Roy Blunt (MO) - 2022
    • Susan Collins (ME) - 2020
    • Mike Lee (UT) - 2022
    • Jerry Moran (KS) - 2022
    • Lisa Murkowski (AK) - 2022
    • Rand Paul (KY) - 2022
    • Rob Portman (OH) - 2022
    • Mitt Romney (UT) - 2024
    • Marco Rubio (FL) - 2022
    • Pat Toomey (PA) - 2022
    • Roger Wicker (MS) - 2024

    I've helpfully added in the year in which their seat is next up for election. Senator Alexander gets an asterisk because he's already announced his retirement so he won't be running again no matter what. One of the interesting things about this list, which may be purely coincidental, is that the only Senator on that list whose name will ever appear on a ballot along with the name "Donald Trump" is Susan Collins.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    With the terrorist attack in New Zealand Trump says he sees no rise in white nationalism. Is he blind or is he right?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    He could be right, unusual as that may be. White nationalism/supremacy may not have actually increased; it may simply be more visible these days.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    (Sorry; missed edit)

    I'm POSITIVE he's right about his not seeing more of it. It's probably not easy to see what one is busy denying the existence of
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    With the terrorist attack in New Zealand Trump says he sees no rise in white nationalism. Is he blind or is he right?

    Your question makes me wonder if there's a vat of kool-aid nearby. That it could even be a question at all.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Trump won't see white supremacism because he thinks it's normal - it's his default setting.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    Trump won't see white supremacism because he thinks it's normal - it's his default setting.

    That's a very good insight.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Thank you, MT! :blush:
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The person who claims to be president is decompensating fast. Over the last few days he has launched a tweetstorm against John McCain. He blames John McCain started the Mueller investigation by giving the Steele Dossier to the FBI instead of him.

    Today he claimed he did not even get a thank you from the McCain family for authorizing the funeral for Senator McCain.

    No sir, Senator McCain was given the funeral that was required by law and military custom for a man of his position.

    I know this does not compare to Brexit, but the man does have the nuclear codes.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    And, when he claimed it today, he was at a tank factory. At one point in his tirade, the audience there went silent.

    I sometimes wonder if much of his behavior boils down to "stop me before I president again" (i.e., variation on "stop me before I kill again").
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Meanwhile, our illustrious (hah!) Arizona senators have been woefully silent in the wake of the current occupant of the White House's diatribes against the dead man.

    The totally despicable Republican Martha McSally, who waged a disgusting campaign, full of lies and hate speech, against Democrat Kirsten Sinema (Sinema won the election but McSally ended up in the Senate anyway, when our governor appointed her to fill McCain's seat) did manage to mouth a lackluster defense of McCain without excoriating you-know-who for his remarks. Sinema, however, in whom we had such high hopes as the only Democrat to be elected senator from Arizona in a long time, has remained totally silent on the matter.

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, as they say in French. (I don't think it needs translation, but to be on the safe side: The more things change, the more they remain the same.)

    I've written them both but I don't expect to see any results.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Michael Cohen's testimony is just a joy for all us Trump haters to read. I cannot contain my glee. My favorite part is this:
    "Donald Trump," Cohen's prepared statement continued, "is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation -- only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Mr. Trump would often say, this campaign was going to be the 'greatest infomercial in political history.'"
    That's what I've said from the very first. I never believed he cared one way or another about the Wall, abortion, gun rights, or any of the other issues he uses to keep his voters happy. Donald Trump loves himself and his money and just wanted to be president so he could promote his name and make better deals.

    Sorry I missed this, but while Donald Trump does love himself, he cannot love his money because most of it is not his. It is tied up in companies and trusts and is mostly the banks money.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    I've developed the habit of wondering, when Trump goes off the deep end and does stuff like yelling at dead senators, whether it is a calculated ploy to distract us from something else. The trouble is, I am not sure what exactly he is trying to distract us from this time. It is a bit late to worry about the utter failure of the Korean summit. It can't be Mueller because Trump keeps mentioning him anyway. The budget? He is proposing dramatic slashes in things that actually help average Americans, but it is not like that budget is going to get passed anyway.

    My best guess is that he wants to distract us from noticing that, in 2018 (i.e., under his watch) the U.S. trade deficit hit a ten-year high. Or, in other words, despite Trump's frequent ranting about how he wants to level the trade deficit, it has actually gotten worse under him. Or, phrase yet another way, Obama was better on controlling the trade deficit than Trump is.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 21
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    I've developed the habit of wondering, when Trump goes off the deep end and does stuff like yelling at dead senators, whether it is a calculated ploy to distract us from something else. The trouble is, I am not sure what exactly he is trying to distract us from this time. It is a bit late to worry about the utter failure of the Korean summit. It can't be Mueller because Trump keeps mentioning him anyway. The budget? He is proposing dramatic slashes in things that actually help average Americans, but it is not like that budget is going to get passed anyway.

    My best guess is that he wants to distract us from noticing that, in 2018 (i.e., under his watch) the U.S. trade deficit hit a ten-year high. Or, in other words, despite Trump's frequent ranting about how he wants to level the trade deficit, it has actually gotten worse under him. Or, phrase yet another way, Obama was better on controlling the trade deficit than Trump is.

    Good point. Another factoid he does not want to mention is that in the Mid-West, the very region he promised to help, farm bankruptcies for 2018 were up by about 19 percent. With the flooding this year, the farm bankruptcies will go much higher. It says something he sent Pence to commiserate with the people affected by the flooding instead of himself.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Today he claimed he did not even get a thank you from the McCain family for authorizing the funeral for Senator McCain.

    From blogger Shakezula:
    Far be it for me to make a suggestion here, but I wonder if he’s considered tracking down McCain and demanding a thank you.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    It says something he sent Pence to commiserate with the people affected by the flooding instead of himself.

    Maybe Pence can toss them some paper towels.

    :angry:
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    I've developed the habit of wondering, when Trump goes off the deep end and does stuff like yelling at dead senators, whether it is a calculated ploy to distract us from something else ...
    I've been wondering that too - what other excuse could he have for being so gratuitously despicable? Apart from anything else, if he had a shred of humanity, wouldn't he consider the effect of his tweet-fests on the feelings of Mr. McCain's family?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 21
    Piglet wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    I've developed the habit of wondering, when Trump goes off the deep end and does stuff like yelling at dead senators, whether it is a calculated ploy to distract us from something else ...
    I've been wondering that too - what other excuse could he have for being so gratuitously despicable? Apart from anything else, if he had a shred of humanity, wouldn't he consider the effect of his tweet-fests on the feelings of Mr. McCain's family?

    First off, anything premised on Trump "consider[ing]" the "feelings" of someone else is based on faulty assumptions.

    Maybe he's just bored? There's no more shutdown, election 2020 is just ramping up and there are too many Democratic names for him to remember, and the North Korea talks have flamed out. Nothing to keep him the center of media attention. Nothing to hold his attention other than yelling at the television and rage-dialing Sean Hannity. At times like this back when he was a simple New York real estate grifter he'd start a Twitter beef with Rosie O'Donnell or demand to see the president's college transcripts or some other crazy thing from out of right field to regain the media spotlight. Trump is just returning to form.

    I'm still waiting for Trump to demand to see John McCain's long-form death certificate.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for Trump to demand to see John McCain's long-form death certificate.
    Priceless.

    The GOP, with a few honourable exceptions, remains pretty silent about the Trump outbursts re McCain (and KellyAnne's husband to boot). It's just Emperor's new clothes territory.

  • He was born in Panama ....
Sign In or Register to comment.