HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » H2O Man » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 96 Next »

H2O Man

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 08:49 PM
Number of posts: 66,212

Journal Archives

DU Sing-A-Long

Okay, sorry. But he calls it a witch hunt.

Take 18

The Court: So you contend the Executive has unlimited power in time of an emergency?

Assistant Attorney General Holmes Baldridge: He has the power to take such action as is necessary to meet the emergency.

The Court: If the emergency is great, it is unlimited, is it?

Baldridge: I suppose if you want to carry it to its logical conclusion, that is true. But I do want to point out that there are two limitations on the Executive power. One is the ballot box and the other is impeachment.

Last night I had an interesting phone call from an associate who has long been active in social-political issues. He said that watching the day's congressional hearings, he felt as if he was caught in a nightmare that combined The Twilight Zone with random scenes from Benny Hill. We discussed the dangers of republicans insisting that Trump's Ukraine actions were perfect, rather than he made a serious mistake that does not warrant impeachment.

The above quote is taken from the USSC case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co, v, Sawyer, commonly known as the “Steel Seizure Case.” The case was about President Truman's efforts to seize private property. This action by the unpopular president brought about an effort by republicans to try to impeach Truman – the second but much more serious effort upon their part – which was resolved when Truman recognized the Supreme Court's authority.

This is but one of several examples of when the Congress opted not to impeach a president, because he recognized his error, took responsibility, and made clear he would not overstep the constitutional authority of his office.

This, of course, is distinct from the current conflict. Republicans think they are obligated to support Trump's claim his actions regarding Ukraine were “perfect.” Thus, as he said yesterday, he insists he has “zero” responsibility for the scandal that has resulted. It is evident that he will continue to engage in the same types of abuses of power and contempt of congress if he is not impeached and convicted.

This raises a simple question: are the republicans purposely violating their oath of office and lying to the public, or are they they so ignorant and stupid that they believe that they are doing the right thing? Not that either option is acceptable, in my opinion.

Today, one republican actually compared the impeachment of Trump to the trial of Jesus. The closest thing to reality I could come up with in response is that the republicans are attempting to crucify the Constitution. They babble about impeachment being an effort to remove a “legitimately elected president.” Obviously, the Founding Fathers intended impeachment to deal with presidents who were elected. They threaten that future presidents – meaning Democrats – will surely be impeached. If any president violates their oath of office like Trump clearly has, I'm good with impeaching him or her.

I'm not good with any person who seeks to give Trump license to continue to run the Oval Office like a petty mobster. No matter what the result of the Senate trial, it is evident that the 2020 elections are going to be the most important in modern history. We need to remove as many of the brain-dead republicans as possible.

Speaking of the Unspeakable

“The world is full of great criminals with enormous power, and they are in a death struggle with each other. It is a huge gang battle, using well-meaning lawyers and policemen and clergymen as their front, controlling papers, means of communication, and enrolling everybody in their armies.”
Thomas Merton; November 17, 1962

Yesterday morning, I started an essay on the two situations that resulted in failed efforts by House republicans to impeach President Truman. This marked the actual dawn of the modern impeachment era, often mistakenly assigned to Nixon's presidency. However, as I was writing, I had numerous phone calls, e-mails, and texts on a couple other related topics, which resulted in my setting the original theme aside for the time being.

Most of the people I spoke with were experiencing a combination of excitement and anxiety about tomorrow's scheduled vote to impeach Trump. How would the republicans attempt to disrupt the vote? I suspect we have already witnessed their mode of disruption. Will “at risk for re-election” Democrats vote to impeach? In our district, the communications I've had in the last 24 hours confirm our Representative is solid.

Still others express concerns about the pretrial statements from various republican leaders in the Senate. As “jurors,” it is obviously wrong for them to say they will vote against conviction before the trial. Clearly, no prospective juror would be seated in either a criminal or civil trial if they made similar statements. It would seem that U.S. Senators should be held to a similar standard. Is it really too much to ask of them?

I've noted before that some republicans, including Lindsey Graham, have been suggesting that the Senate compromise and agree to censure Trump. This should come as no surprise, as Graham has a long history of totally compromising his values. So much so that one could rightly ask if, at long last, he has any values? I think not. Thus, I'd suggest that the republican stance of “don't confuse me with facts, as my mind is made up” is the type of pretrial negotiating that defense lawyers do. Surely, Graham views himself as Trump's deense lawyer, attempting to cut a deal.

At this point, there appear to be at least four – possibly as many as seven – republican Senators who would like to hear from those closest to Trump during the Ukraine scandal. There are four administration officials that the Democrats are intent upon having testify. While all are important, there is general agreement that John Bolton is the most important. Keep in mind Bolton's attorney has said that there is much more that Bolton knows that hasn't been uncovered.

People were also discussing the two Articles of Impeachment. Should there have been more? My response remains the same as the day the Articles were made public: while I might have wanted more, I have 100% confidence in the Democratic leadership and their legal team. I am fully satisfied that they reached the correct decision.

Tomorrow will be a historic day. I look forward to talking with family and friends – I just had a call from a relative as I was writing this – as well as communicating with others on the internet. Perhaps most of all, I look forward to participating with people on this forum!

What to do between now and then, and in the time before the Senate trial? I know that I'll be reading and re-reading books on impeachment. Also, I'll be reading the works of a variety of men and women who spoke about living through intense eras of history. Indeed, I was happy yesterday to engage in a conversation that one of my nephews began yesterday, that included myself and two others, regarding Thomas Merton.

Enjoy the next 48 hours.
H2O Man

Trump & the USSC

“Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in. “
== Harry S. Truman

I've enjoyed reading some good discussions regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's plan to hear the appeal by Trump regarding his taxes. A number of people think the current USSC will decide in Trump's favor. I understand their thinking, of course, but think that the ruling will go against the president.

We are obviously at a strange time in history, but it is not unique. There have been tense and dangerous times, including since the Civil War. And while the USSC is imperfect, it has been helpful in maintaining constitutional rule in general. And it has not proven to be a firwall to protect corrupt presidents. Let's take a closer look.

The best example of a corrupt president attempting to build firewall is, of course, Richard Nixon. And the USSC was not his only attempt to protect himself. Like Trump, Nixon was recognized by even his closest associates as a pathological liar, so we can safely rule out his considering the Truth to protect him.

His first attempted firewall was named Spiro Agnew. Boomers remember that John Ehrlichman and Nixon privately laughing about Agnews being “the assassin's dilemma.” Of course, Tricky Dick wasn't the only corrupt member of the administration, and Agnew was forced to resign at an inopportune time for Nixon.

Thus, Nixon had to consider who would offer the best cover in order to allow him to serve out his second term. He picked Rep. Gerald Ford, a man who didn't appear to be either a leader or deep thinker. Yet, Nixon overlooked that Ford was considered a friendly, generally honest fellow by his peers. Thus, Ford would replace Nixon.

The second firewall Nixon attempted to create was an intense effort at major changes in foreign policy. Historians still debate who was more influential in this – President Nixon or his Secretary of War Crimes Henry Kissinger? But that isn't the first thing we think of when Nixon's name comes up in conversation.

The last firewall for Nixon was the USSC. Nixon had appointed four justices to the court before push came to shove. Again, Boomers remember that Nixon had nominated four others who were rejected. So it is fair to say that Nixon had not stacked the court in the exact manner he may have hoped to. There is no greater example than Warren Burger becoming Chief Justice.

In the USSC case United States v. Nixon was heard in 1974 (not to be confused with Nixon v. United States in 1993), Nixon believed he had a chance. In private, he told associates that he hoped for at least a split-decision, as he did not intend to follow a divided court's ruling if it went against him.

One of the Justices, William Rehnquist, recused himself. This was NOT because Nixon had appointed him, but rather, because he had served as an Assistant Attorney General in the administration. The other three Nixon appointees remained on the bench for the case.

Nixon's final firewall crumbled under the weight of the Truth. Perhaps no other thing was more offensive to the USSC than Nixon's attorney James St. Clair having previously argued to Judge John Sirica that, “The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”

That sounds familiar, although Trump has the gall to insist he isn't subject to the court of impeachment. We'll see how that works out for him.

Bluster's Last Stand

“Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.”
Clive Staples Lewis

I found myself thinking of the above C. S. Lewis quote while watching today's House committee hearing. I find it beneficial to have some saying to repeat like a mantra while listening to republicans spouting utter nonsense and outright lies. Earlier in the week, I thought of Michelle Obama's saying that “when they go low, we go high.” Yesterday, I began thinking about why the Trump base has been so hostile to the best First Lady of my lifetime, and something clicked in relating to the hearings.

There are good Democrats who ask, in all sincerity, what good it does to impeach Trump, since the Senate is most likely going to find him guilty? And might that not harm the chances of some of the Democratic House members to win re-election? Those are valid questions that I think are worthy of serious discussion among Democrats.

In the context of impeachments, it would be silly to think that elected officials do not think of personal position, party, and country. Indeed, the republicans clearly see this in that exact order. But patriotic people view it in the opposite order: nation, party, and then personal position. We are seeing that daily with the Democratic members of Congress, and if their presentations are not making you mighty proud to be a Democrat, I don't know what could.

Being impeached will place a stain on Trump's presidency. That is a good thing. While the odds are against the Senate republicans putting our country first, I still think it is a possibility. Yet even if not, it stains Trump's place in history. And I respect that House Democrats are doing the honorable thing.

Now, back to Michelle Obama, long one of my favorite human beings to think and talk about. Why do those of the Trump base despise her? Because she is a woman? Black? Much more intelligent and successful than them? Because she was married to a man they still believe was born in a foreign nation? The first three are obvious, but the last one is worthy of consideration.

To understand this more fully, I attempted to identify the thinking of those who are watching the House hearings, and think the republicans are winning the debate. I keep in mind that these same people approve of Trump's asinine tweet about a 16-year old female today, completely unaware that this served to expose his anger that she was named Time's “Person of the Year.”

The Democrats on the House committees that have held public impeachment hearings represent Americans, I think more than at any previous time in our history, because they reflect what Americans are today. Many of them are women. They are not all white. They are intelligent, and know the Constitution. And a number of them were born in other countries, coming to America at a young age with their families. In other words, they are everything the alt-right fears and hates.

I've been alive for a long time. I've seen a heck of a lot of members come and go in the House of Representatives. And I've read a good many books on the House from before I was born. There have been numerous Representatives that I have a high regard for. And some terrible human beings, as well, such as Newt Gingrich. But I have never been as impressed with the Democrats as I currently am. I'm thankful that I've lived long enough to see this day.

I should add that I have the utmost respect for the witnesses to Trump's corruption that came forward to testify. That took courage.

I'm going to be contacting the offices of the House Democrats, and thanking them. And I will let them know that – no matter what happens in the Senate – I will be working to elect Democrats in 2020.

We often hear people talk about the risks of America turning into a dictatorship under Trump. I take that very seriously. I view it largely in the context of “systems.” What type of people enable a cruel dictator to rise? I'd say we are seeing the answer when the republican representatives aggressively and indignantly attempt to justify Trump's behaviors. Let's remove as many as possible in 2020.

H2O Man

The Shallow State of Donald Trump

Among the many interesting issues being discussed in today's Senate committee hearing is the strange case of Carter Page. Numerous layers of misinformation and disinformation have been piled upon his role in the Trump campaign by the administration. Some are contradictory – Trump, for example, has both claimed that Page was the victim of FBI spying on one hand, and has claimed Page was spying on the campaign for the FBI on the other hand. A rational person might correctly note that both of these cannot be true. In fact, it is possible that neither are accurate.

Older forum members may recall previous discussions here, dating back to what now seems the distant past, about Carter Page in January, 2018. Ancient forum members might even recall similar conversations on Page dating back to late 2017. Then, in February 2018, Malcolm Nance spoke about what was becoming evident regarding Carter Page. And now, like an unlucky penny, he keeps popping back up.

We know that Page has a curious history of ties with Russian intelligence that date back years before he served on the Trump campaign. In fact, it has been documented that Russian intelligence had – at very least – thought they could exploit him, and possibly turn him into serving as an asset for their use. A couple of articles in the New York Times addressed this: “Russian Spies tried to Recruit Carter Page before he Advised Trump's Campaign” (4-4-17) and What (if anything) does Carter Page Know?” (12-18-17).

As a result of Page's dealings with Russian intelligence and publicly expressing disagreements with U.S. Policy towards Russia, he became the subject of a FISA warrant. It is essential to understand that numerous U.S. Intelligence agencies beyond the FBI were interested in just who Carter Page was, and exactly what he was doing. And to fully appreciate this, one must keep in mind that Page had served in the Office of Naval Intelligence for many years, including but likely not limited to his time in the Navy. And that, of course, places him along side with not only Malcolm Nance, but such figures as Mark Felt and Bob Woodward. Prehistoric forum members will recall interesting discussions on the topic of the last two from the Bush-Cheney era.

Now, let's consider the timing of Page's serving in the Trump campaign. Trump announced that Page was a foreign policy adviser in March, 2016. That, of course, was the very same month that Paul Manafort officially joined the campaign. Manafort has proven incapable of telling the truth, of course, but there is ample evidence that one or more of his connections with the Russian-Ukraine mob had assured him that Page was a solid resource.

For three months, Page reported to Corey Lewandowski, who was running the Trump campaign. Poor Corey was fired in June, and replaced with Paul Manafort. Readers may recall that in June of 2016, Manafort met with some friendly Russians in Donald, Jr's office, to hear how the Russian government could help Trump win the election. Page would travel to Russia and meet with a Russian operative during his time on the Trump campaign, before officially leaving the campaign in September.

At the same time the Trump administration has noted the FBI was spying on Page after he left the campaign, they have also stressed that Page actually had no role in the campaign. They say he never met Trump, which removed the possibility that Page was another mere coffee boy. And, as noted, Trump has claimed that Page was a deep state operative sent to spy on the campaign, which is very curious indeed, since Page did not approach the Trump campaign – they approached him.

At the time Page was associated with the Trump campaign, the U.S. Intelligence community was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. It seems likely that this would include using someone connected to the IC who had cover – known in intelligence as a “legend” – that creates the impression that the IC does not trust them. Thus, in Page's case, it would seem to the Russians that he might be trusted. This is one type of a “double-agent.”

Due to the nature of today's technology, that can include having one or more FISA warrants on record, to indicate to invasive computer examinations to believe Page was not an IC operative. This would allow him to be involved in the counter-intelligence operations geared towards investigating the Russians' penetration of the 2016 campaign. And it would be likely that not every domestic IC member would know if a man like Carter Page was an ONI officer working under cover.

Lindsey Graham has enough organic intelligence to understand this. And his character is certainly low enough to try to exploit this, since he is fully aware that no individual from any intelligence agency could speak publicly to the issues. Indeed, that's what we've seen Graham doing today.

101 Refresher

“The duty of a true Patriot is to protect his country from its government.”
-- Thomas Paine

While watching today's House hearing, the kindest thing I can say about the republicans is that their behavior appears surreal on the surface. If we dig a little deeper, it seems bizarre. Let's take a moment to dig even deeper, to see if we might identify why they are acting like petty brats.

“Politics 101” teaches that in every political contest, there are three groups: those who always support you, those who always oppose you, and the undecided. The basic strategy is to campaign in a manner that makes your supporters happy, that doesn't rile your opposition into taking action, and convincing the majority of the “undecided” to support your position.

Now, using that context, what are the republicans doing today? It certainly does not qualify as an attempt to follow the concepts of “Politics 101.” Though it is not quite the exact opposite, it is clear evidence that the republican strategy is coming from a place of weakness. They are appealing only to the conspiracy theorists among their party – those who would support Trump even if republicans in the House and Senate admitted the president was 100% guilty as charged.

By today's performance, the republicans are making Trump's base their exclusive target. Attempts to muddy the waters with emotional turbulence will be unlikely to appeal to moderate republican voters. It will energize Democrats, from the grass roots to Washington, DC. And it will repulse the majority of the undecided citizens. It reeks of desperation.

Thus, it is important that we not be reactive to the republican emotion-based nonsense. We should not follow them there. There is no need to, for they are desperate. Instead, Daniel Goldman provides a proper role model here: a focused response. We can focus on exposing their weakness. In doing so, we help to protect our country from the Trump “government.”

H2O Man

The Trial of Donald Trump

“ Stated simply, impeachments are no place for small minds or low politics. …..Although the House and Senate are irreducibly political, the Constitution makes clear that impeachment calls for a profoundly different mentality. ….An impeachment along political party lines would only be acceptable where the president as captured or corrupted his own political party. ....Refusing to impeach a known tyrant out of partisan self-interest would constitute a failure of governance at least as profound as urging impeachment solely for partisan reasons.”
Laurence Tribe; To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment

My daughters asked me to compile a list of the books on impeachment that I do not have, as the holiday season is upon us. Hence, my dining room table has a variety of books, including those specifically on impeachment, and those about the Nixon and Clinton eras, piling up. By way of internet, I have found that there are four on the topic that I do not have in my library.

My son thinks it's a giggle to watch me pouring through those that now force us to consume our evening meal in another room. All of my children are used to hearing me talk to myself when reading or watching television, so I suppose it comes as no surprise when I'm in the middle of a heated debate with some paragraph and the boys say, “Will you please keep it down, Boomer?” My current response is, “Get out here! You won't believe this!” The older son finds it particularly annoying between the hours of 2 and 4 am/est. Last night, he told me if I didn't stop yelling at books, he would have to make an appointment at the local animal shelter to be put to sleep.

Hopefully, this helps to explain my long and tedious essays on DU:GD.

Today, I thought I'd talk about what we might expect in terms of format if and when the Senate hears the trial of Donald Trump in early 2020. While the Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, the ritual has only two examples in our nation's history. Thus, the path the trial will take is not as well defined as, say, a criminal or civil trial.

That is important to keep in mind for several reasons. Among them is the level of “proof” put into evidence needed for a conviction. In a criminal trial, of course, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's an ill-defined level. In a civil trial, it comes down to the preponderance of evidence, which means if it's 51-49, the jury may go with that 51.

But as Laurence Tribe points out, the verdict for impeachment is somewhere in between. He notes that an impeachment of a president is evidence of a national crisis. In theory, every Senator should put country first, though obviously party and personal issues may influence their decisions. Unfortunately, we see republicans putting self first, party second, and country last when it comes to all things Trump. But calling the president rude-but-accurate names in off-the-record conversations clearly isn't enough in times of national crisis.

This was anticipated. Thus, the Senators are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution as the first step of an impeachment trial. This oath is distinct, as it is the only time a federal official is required to take an oath separate from their initial oath of office, for an official duty. This second oath is, in theory, to remind each Senator that their focus should be on country, rather than party of personal employment considerations.

The House will appoint those who will “manage” the case, acting as prosecutors. After the Senators are sworn in, the manager (or managers) will present an outline of the case. After this, the Senate calls upon the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court to oversee the case. In doing so, they remove the vice president from any role in the trial. Initially, this was done in part because the VP was whoever took second place in the election, not necessarily from the same party as the president, and who would have obvious potential conflicts of interest in the trial. More, it signals the importance of the national crisis that the Senate is tasked with resolving.

After that, the process is not defined, as noted before, to the degree that criminal and civil trials are. Thus, the Senate majority leader is in a position to exert great influence. The 2020 impeachment trial of Donald Trump will be under the influence of Mitch McConnell, a uniquely petty man who has been exclusively focused on personal power throughout his political career. His quest for power has overshadowed any beliefs of values that he may have once had.

Thus, in 2020, Mitch will be focused upon personal power, party, and country in that order. He wants to be re-elected and maintain his current position in the Senate. Knowing this, we can conclude that a fair trial in the Senate is not his priority. He wants to maintain the powers of the Elder Tortoise. Because advancing age has diminished his thought capacity, he is currently relying on his aides to help him assess the national mood.

The first thing he has them report upon is, of course, national polls. He is old enough to know that national polls on impeachment are relatively new – the first merely dates back to 1973 – and that they are rarely an accurate measure. If memory serves me correctly, a national poll in 2014 showed that the majority of Americans believed impeachment was mistakenly believed to be about the public's reactions to such things as economic policy. That is an example of the dangers of ignorance.

More important to Mitch are state-wide polls. Yet these, too, often reflect the level of ignorance that the citizens in a state – say, Kentucky – dwell within. Hence, Mitch's aides are also focusing on the levels of contacts that his flock of tortoises receive from the public. This includes phone calls, letters, and e-mails, weighted in that order. On-line petitions are given zero value.

Thus, in the upcoming impeachment trial, it is important to recognize that Mitch will no longer be representing one state. He will be working for all of us, Democrats, independents, and republicans alike, nation-wide. He will be, in other words, our employee. And it is essential that we let him know what job we want him to do – indeed, we forfeit the right to complain afterwards if we do not provide him with specific instructions.

Thus, the best thing that you and I can do this weekend is to write to Senator McConnell at the Russell Senate Office Building, 2 Constitutional Ave NE, Washington, DC, 20002, and tell him what to do. Keep in mind that even snail-mail letters are weighed differently: a hand-written letter is actually given more weight than a typed one.

Will you join me in this effort? Encourage family and friends to do the same?

Thank you for your consideration.
H2O Man

The Foreign Exchange Student

Years ago, when my daughters attended high school, we had a foreign exchange student from France stay with our family. It seemed possible that there would be more than a bit of “culture shock,” considering she came from a well-to-do background in Paris, and we live in the sticks. But from day one, it was a blast for all of us.

My daughters visited her in France this summer, and she is planning to come here next year. I always enjoyed talking about politics with her, and we continue this tradition on the internet. Since Trump “won” the presidency, there has been a lot to discuss. Not surprisingly, she says the people she knows think of Trump as a sick joke, and are concerned that the United States is experiencing a serious illness. I get messages from her that simply say, "Oh, Donald!" is a popular saying among young adults in France.

Last night, I told her to thank Emmanuel Macron for me.Her response has been laughter.

Linsey's Proposed Compromise

“The divisions among Republicans were clear on the television talk shows today as Senator Slade Gorton, a Washington State Republican, defended a plan he had drafted with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, to condense a trial into a matter of days.”
– New York Times; January 4, 1999


“I can say with 100% certainty that Senate republicans have been having these things researched, and have quoted Byrd in recent off-the-record conversations among themselves and with Democrats. They seek to justify voting to not convict Trump, and some are hoping that Democrats will accept the compromise of censure.” – H2O Man; November 22, 2019


Yesterday, I read an OP by Miles Archer, titled, “Lindsey discusses 'bipartisan support' of a censure to spare country of 'trauma' of impeachment trial.” The OP/thread can be found at the link below:


This immediately brought two things to mind: the above quote from an essay I posted in November about an effort by some republican Senators to convince Democrats to compromise on the upcoming impeachment by agreeing to censure Trump, and the long-forgotten effort by two Senators, Slade Gorton and Joe Lieberman to convince the Senate to make a similar compromise in the Clinton impeachment case.

I thought it might be of some interest to review the Gorton-Lieberman compromise plan. This should not be mistaken for an endorsement of the plan then, or more importantly, of the plan that Graham is advocating now. Rather, it is simply to supply some historical context.

After the House had impeached President Clinton, the members of the Senate knew from the giddy-up that there was no chance of it getting the two-thirds of the votes necessary to convict. Rather, they knew that what would unfold was an ugly trial that could only serve to divide the country and damage the public's faith in the institutions of government.

Two Senators, Gorton (republican) and Lieberman (Democrat at the time), put their heads together to try to identify a way forward. The plan they agreed upon was to have the trial's “opening statements” made, to take a preliminary vote that would fail to reach the necessary two-thirds, and to formally end the trial, with a vote for censuring President Clinton.

This plan had significant support among Senators from both parties. However, when House republicans got wind of the plan, they put extreme pressure on the republican Senators to kneecap the effort. The rest is history.

Keep this in mind as the process unfolds in Washington. The fact that Senator Graham would mumble about censure as a compromise, like his saying that Russia, rather than Ukraine, infected the 2016 election, shows a divide between the Senate republicans and Trump. They know that they cannot call Trump's call “perfect.”

H2O Man
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 96 Next »