Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to take up two cases involving claims that President Donald Trump illegally profited off of his presidency by violating the Emoluments Clause. The Court directed two federal appeals courts to dismiss the case as moot.

[..]  

That doesn't make sense as they’re not moot. He still has the money. When any other federal employee violates the emoluments clause they have to forfeit the money. 

And this is weird logic...So while a president is committing a crime, he can’t be indicted because he’s the president? But after he’s gone, he can’t be prosecuted for those very same crimes, because those crimes are now moot? Ok...:crazy:

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • knowledge dropper

    2527

  • timschochet

    1863

  • SaintsInDome2006

    1688

  • The General

    1670

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For anyone who has ever wondered how authoritarians manage to take power in "modern" democracies, here's your first hand evidence that the USA is not immune. Thankfully it appears that the system is h

Following in the footsteps of Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, and Google Plus, the Footballguys Forum hereby suspends President Trump's posting privileges. The suspension takes effect immediat

Are we sure it isn't Alamo Landscaping?

8 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Looks like another big swing and miss.  

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/01/25/supreme-court-strikes-emoluments-clause-cases-against-trump-n1409440

NEWS & POLITICS

Supreme Court Strikes Emoluments Clause Cases Against Trump

BY TYLER O'NEIL JAN 25, 2021 11:05 AM ET 

 

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to take up two cases involving claims that President Donald Trump illegally profited off of his presidency by violating the Emoluments Clause. The Court directed two federal appeals courts to dismiss the case as moot. Both sides had agreed the issue became moot after Trump’s term ended on January 20, 2021.

The Supreme Court declined to take up Trump v. CREW and Trump v. District of Columbia, remanding the cases to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, respectively. The Court instructed the appeals courts to “dismiss the case as moot,” citing United States v. Munsingwear(1950), in which the Supreme Court upheld a dismissal for mootness after both parties claimed the matter was moot.

Both cases could potentially have carved a path to access Trump’s financial records if the cases had gone through during his presidency, Axios reported.

Last February, a federal appeals court dismissed an Emoluments Clause case brought by 215 congressional Democrats, claiming the Democrats lacked standing.

Unlike other presidents, Trump did not use a blind trust to maintain his business assets while in office, but instead, retained an interest in his business and allowed those businesses to take money from foreign and domestic governments, sometimes hosting foreign and domestic officials at the Trump International Hotel. The Emoluments Clause states that “no person holding any office … shall, without consent of Congress” accept gifts or other benefits from foreign governments.

The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open questions about emoluments for future presidents who retain business interests while in office. However, it was wise for the Court not to take up such a divisive issue at the present time, considering the fact that the Senate will try former President Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors even after his term in office.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

Good to see, this argument that he benefited financially from his presidency is such a complete joke. All you have to do is look at the unhinged behavior of those that obsessively hate him and the MSM....being POTUS clearly damaged his brand and hurt him financially. It’s not even close to making any sense except for just sad and jealous behavior. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Both sides had agreed the issue became moot after Trump’s term ended on January 20, 2021.

I can see why the SCOTUS declined to take it up, if both sides agreed it was moot.  But WHY did the District of Columbia decide that it was moot?  Because he was no longer in that position?  So POTUS can simply run out the clock on an emolluments charge?  Free grift in the last year of your term?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

this argument that he benefited financially from his presidency is such a complete joke

I think if he hadn't actively sabotaged his brand by showing little leadership in the fight against COVID, coupled with a combative and narcissistic personality, he probably would have benefited financially from his term. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Good to see, this argument that he benefited financially from his presidency is such a complete joke. All you have to do is look at the unhinged behavior of those that obsessively hate him and the MSM....being POTUS clearly damaged his brand and hurt him financially. It’s not even close to making any sense except for just sad and jealous behavior. 

Which is irrelevant as a defense to violating the Emoluments Clause (or any law or statute).

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

Trump has more executive level experience than any President ever to have held office.  

Real Estate and The Apprentice are not quite exec experience relevant to running a Government...especially a country IMO

And Sanders also has zero of that.  Which is my point...which had nothing to do with Trump or Obama

39 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

 

Both you guys.  Quit moving goalposts and antagonizing posters in the pro-Trump thread.  TIA.  

No goalposts moved man.  I asked about her experience.  I don't believe she has any.  And I refuse to keep going with some back and forth with accusations about people...have a good one.

 

Edited by sho nuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I think if he hadn't actively sabotaged his brand by showing little leadership in the fight against COVID, coupled with a combative and narcissistic personality, he probably would have benefited financially from his term. 

So........glad you agree he clearly didn’t benefit and the claim is absurd. “Probably would have” I’m pretty sure isn’t a crime and far from what happened in the real world. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

So........glad you agree he clearly didn’t benefit and the claim is absurd. “Probably would have” I’m pretty sure isn’t a crime and far from what happened in the real world. 

Did he benefit while in office would be the question.  Did his properties benefit from government business steered there?  I don't believe Z's post really addresses that.  Nor does the question of what damage his brand have now because of his actions.  That is not what the case is about.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Emoluments Clause doesn't talk about total net worth, which is what I mentioned.  Trump's bisggest asset was the Trump brand, which was irreparably sullied due to his actions over the last 4 years.

The Emoluments Clause says, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

So, did Trump personally receive a gift or income from a foreign state?  Since he never divested himself of his ownership of Trump Inc., which owns a bunch of hotels, I would say it's something that the SCOTUS should rule on.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

The Emoluments Clause doesn't talk about total net worth, which is what I mentioned.  Trump's bisggest asset was the Trump brand, which was irreparably sullied due to his actions over the last 4 years.

The Emoluments Clause says, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

So, did Trump personally receive a gift or income from a foreign state?  Since he never divested himself of his ownership of Trump Inc., which owns a bunch of hotels, I would say it's something that the SCOTUS should rule on.

Sounds like another dead end conspiracy. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GoBirds said:

Sounds like another dead end conspiracy. 

Where is the conspiracy? It is most assuredly true that Trump owns properties all over the world and he did not divest himself. It is a fascinating question and it would be nice to hear from the supreme court on it to clarify what the emoluments clause actually means in this context

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Good to see, this argument that he benefited financially from his presidency is such a complete joke. All you have to do is look at the unhinged behavior of those that obsessively hate him and the MSM....being POTUS clearly damaged his brand and hurt him financially. It’s not even close to making any sense except for just sad and jealous behavior. 

I don't disagree that his presidency is and will be a net loss for his businesses.  During his presidency and long afterwards.  Of course, that is not at all probative of whether he violated the emoluments clause and illegally tried to leverage the presidency for profit.  I'd bet my investment portfolio he did.  Over and over and over again.  Because that is exactly the type of person he is and has always been.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Where is the conspiracy? It is most assuredly true that Trump owns properties all over the world and he did not divest himself. It is a fascinating question and it would be nice to hear from the supreme court on it to clarify what the emoluments clause actually means in this context

No chance, it just wreaks of desperation from those who can’t get him out of their head space. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Where is the conspiracy? It is most assuredly true that Trump owns properties all over the world and he did not divest himself. It is a fascinating question and it would be nice to hear from the supreme court on it to clarify what the emoluments clause actually means in this context

And at this point...Id like to hear from them not really to affect Trump, but to clarify for future POTUS's doing the same thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

I think if he hadn't actively sabotaged his brand by showing little leadership in the fight against COVID, coupled with a combative and narcissistic personality, he probably would have benefited financially from his term. 

Apparently it's okay to take bribes as long as you aren't in office any longer. Of course we will never know for sure since they outright refuse to hear the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the twitters:


“Office of the Former President" is what you create when you are legally barred from starting a charitable foundation because you embezzled money from kids with cancer.

Edited by AAABatteries
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

is the story about kellyanne conway posting topless pics of her 15 year old daughter true or was she hacked or something i sincerely and categorically hope that it is not true take that to the bank brohans 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SWC said:

is the story about kellyanne conway posting topless pics of her 15 year old daughter true or was she hacked or something i sincerely and categorically hope that it is not true take that to the bank brohans 

I withdraw my defense of KAC from earlier in the week 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Former President’s Office.   Brilliantly played 

https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2021/01/26/the-morning-briefing-trump-opens-rent-free-office-space-in-liberals-heads-n1409649

The Morning Briefing: Trump Opens Rent Free Office Space In Liberals' Heads

BY STEPHEN KRUISER JAN 26, 2021 6:26 AM ET 

 

AP Photo/Julio Cortez

The Trump Troll Train Is Right On Schedule

Happy Tuesday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends. I hope you like a lot of bacon in your frittatas.

In times like this it’s important to not lose all touch with fun and whimsy. I’m not losing any, by the way, even if it may seem like it some mornings.

Or most mornings.

We’re in for a long, annoying few years here. Amtrak Joe was right when he said our darkest days were ahead of us. His speechwriters really should have thought more carefully about the wording of that script. He’s the one bringing the gloom and doom, of course. And, as we discussed in yesterday’s Briefing, he seems to have deep reserves of it.

We have to take the occasional bits of good news and milk them for all of the pleasure they can possibly give us.

I think we may be getting a lot of those bits from President Trump, who may be gone but certainly will not be forgotten.

Once I could see the writing on the wall about how the election was going to turn out I immediately began hoping that Trump would spend the entirety of the Biden-Harris (then Harris-Whomever) presidency hogging as much of the spotlight as he possibly can.

The mainstream media isn’t going to stop obsessing over Trump just because he’s out of office. Paraphrasing Brokeback Mountain: they just don’t know how to quit him. Trump knows that and I bet he relishes every minute of it. He’s going to make sure that they never stop thinking about him.

The Democrats and their flying monkeys in the media have been telling a fantasy story about Donald Trump that has him slinking off into a miserable exile, broken because he’s not president anymore, and then getting into legal trouble over bogus claims that he violated the Emoluments Clause.

The reality is that he’s still wealthy, still has his own jumbo jet, and the “Trump goes to jail” thing isn’t going to happen.

The Democrats never could see through their Trump Derangement Syndrome clearly enough to see the fun guy that those of us who supported him did. I saw him speak live during the first month of his presidency and it was an extemporaneous blast filled with a lot of laughs. The Dems see him and us as angry and bitter all the time. Of course, it’s textbook projection. They’re the pinched, miserable ones.

Stacey wrote yesterday about Trump’s first post-presidency public move and it’s a thing of beauty:

For President Trump, turnabout is fair play. Following the election, President Biden opened the Office of the President-Elect in Delaware. He would give speeches and make announcements from behind a podium that looked very much like the one the president uses. It was a blatant attempt to minimize the outgoing administration’s coverage and put to rest any issues raised about election integrity. While the moniker was not new, Biden took it to a new level.

Today, President Trump officially opened the Former President’s Office in an obvious troll to make a broader point. He is not going away, and neither is his policy agenda. While he will need to figure out how to amplify his message off Twitter, it does not appear he intends to stay quiet or take up painting like President George W. Bush.

As Stacey’s headline said, this is an “epic troll” on Trump’s part. He almost certainly had a good laugh when this news was released.

Stacey’s right, Trump’s not going anywhere. To the chagrin of Democrats and the Invertebrate Never Trump Romney wing of the GOP, this is still Trump’s party. Just ask Liz Cheney.

The old phrase about living rent free in people’s heads is about to get the Trump treatment. As he is fond of saying, it’s going to be “yuuuuuuuge.” Trump is has built a mansion in the collective consciousness of the Democratic hive mind and he will be taking up comfortable, rollicking residence there while they foot the bill.

No matter how nasty the MSM is to Trump now it’s important to remember that they’re hitting the day booze hard because ORANGE MAN BAD just won’t go away and live out their miserable dream for him.

There’s still whimsy out there, my friends. And we know who will be bringing it to the party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SoBeDad said:

>>HERO: Kevin McCarthy single-handedly tracked down the mastermind behind the Jan. 6 terrorist attack and is making a citizen's arrest<<

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1354894847035883521

Serious question:  Now they have caught a bunch of the protesters that gained access inside the capitol building, and since corroborated Facebook posts (not Parler) that they had been planning this for months....how was this instigated by Trump? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tonydead said:
12 hours ago, SoBeDad said:

>>HERO: Kevin McCarthy single-handedly tracked down the mastermind behind the Jan. 6 terrorist attack and is making a citizen's arrest<<

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1354894847035883521

Serious question:  Now they have caught a bunch of the protesters that gained access inside the capitol building, and since corroborated Facebook posts (not Parler) that they had been planning this for months....how was this instigated by Trump? 

The position is that Trump gave them marching orders, just like a military general would.  His lieutenants reiterated those marching orders.  Thats the rub as I understand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JAA said:

The position is that Trump gave them marching orders, just like a military general would.  His lieutenants reiterated those marching orders.  Thats the rub as I understand it.

They were planning the attack for months on Facebook (not Parler).   You are saying Trump gave orders on Facebook months ago?

Or are you referencing something during his speech that day?  Because the protesters started in at the capitol before the speech had even ended.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So many questions to answer in this trial.  Dems jumped the shark by just putting in a single charge of inciting violence.  They should have searched around for another phone call they didn't like or something.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tonydead said:

So many questions to answer in this trial.  Dems jumped the shark by just putting in a single charge of inciting violence.  They should have searched around for another phone call they didn't like or something.  

The phone call to Raffensberger was more indefensible and impeachable.

"I just want to find 11,780 votes."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, tonydead said:
53 minutes ago, JAA said:

The position is that Trump gave them marching orders, just like a military general would.  His lieutenants reiterated those marching orders.  Thats the rub as I understand it.

They were planning the attack for months on Facebook (not Parler).   You are saying Trump gave orders on Facebook months ago?

Or are you referencing something during his speech that day?  Because the protesters started in at the capitol before the speech had even ended.

Well, Im not saying anything except explaining the position.  The position is that Trump has been building on election fraud since 2016.  So I guess the answer to your question is "yes".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2021 at 9:59 AM, sho nuff said:

And a serious note...has anyone heard from @Max Power  

Is this a moderated thing...or did something happen to him?  He has not posted since the 5th and had talked about going to the rally in DC.  Hoping he didn't get caught up in stuff there.

Lol, yeah I'm good. I stayed away from the trouble. 

I've just had extra work and family keeping me busy lately.

I do appreciate the concern though. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Lol, yeah I'm good. I stayed away from the trouble. 

I've just had extra work and family keeping me busy lately.

I do appreciate the concern though. 

We almost had some crazy FBG lore, but yea - glad to hear you are OK.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JAA said:
37 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Lol, yeah I'm good. I stayed away from the trouble. 

I've just had extra work and family keeping me busy lately.

I do appreciate the concern though. 

We almost had some crazy FBG lore, but yea - glad to hear you are OK.

:goodposting: * 2 but was kind of thinking a Blue Onion 2.0 was happening

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question and no reason to go off

but I have been wondering, can the family of the deceased (especially of the policeman) bring a civil suit against trump?

surprised we don’t hear much talk on that

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Lol, yeah I'm good. I stayed away from the trouble. 

I've just had extra work and family keeping me busy lately.

I do appreciate the concern though. 

Glad to see if and hope all is well with the family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:
2 hours ago, JAA said:

The position is that Trump gave them marching orders, just like a military general would.  His lieutenants reiterated those marching orders.  Thats the rub as I understand it.

They were planning the attack for months on Facebook (not Parler).   You are saying Trump gave orders on Facebook months ago?

Or are you referencing something during his speech that day?  Because the protesters started in at the capitol before the speech had even ended.

This is a fair question. If an average person had made the same speech at the same time in the same location, he could have easily met the threshold of "reasonable doubt" to beat the incitement rap.

But Trump's status was unique. He had access to some of the planning (either through direct contacts between his staff and rioters, or though his ability to monitor social media posts), and he helped to arrange for the Capitol to be underprotected by security. Then, when his supporters started to attack the police, he refused to call for more police (despite having the power, if not the authority, to do so), and instead went on national TV to tell the violent mob that their attacks were actually peaceful, that he loved them, and that they were special.

So, to pose your question in different manner: Trump knew, or should have known, that they were planning the attack for months? And he didn't demand more security? And he did the speech anyway? And he still urged his own supporters to march on a Capitol that he had helped to weaken? And then he refused to unequivocally condemn their behavior?

It may not meet the criminal code's definition of "Incitement", but it does meet a moral definition of being unfit for office. Trump didn't incite his supporters to start a fire; he just made sure that there was lots of tinder and that the sprinklers were turned off, then he winked at his supporters as the fire burned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Serious question and no reason to go off

but I have been wondering, can the family of the deceased (especially of the policeman) bring a civil suit against trump?

surprised we don’t hear much talk on that

This is a good question (except for the "especially" part). I'd be interested to hear the lawyers weigh in.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, JAA said:

Well, Im not saying anything except explaining the position.  The position is that Trump has been building on election fraud since 2016.  So I guess the answer to your question is "yes".

Wow, if you can draw that conclusion then Bernie should be impeached for inciting the guy that shot Steve Scalise.  You remember what he said don't you?  And Kamala should be impeached for raising bail and giving the green light for all the BLM/Antifa protesters.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tonydead said:
2 hours ago, JAA said:

Well, Im not saying anything except explaining the position.  The position is that Trump has been building on election fraud since 2016.  So I guess the answer to your question is "yes".

Wow, if you can draw that conclusion then Bernie should be impeached for inciting the guy that shot Steve Scalise.  You remember what he said don't you?  And Kamala should be impeached for raising bail and giving the green light for all the BLM/Antifa protesters.  

Who is "you"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

This is a fair question. If an average person had made the same speech at the same time in the same location, he could have easily met the threshold of "reasonable doubt" to beat the incitement rap.

But Trump's status was unique. He had access to some of the planning (either through direct contacts between his staff and rioters, or though his ability to monitor social media posts), and he helped to arrange for the Capitol to be underprotected by security. Then, when his supporters started to attack the police, he refused to call for more police (despite having the power, if not the authority, to do so), and instead went on national TV to tell the violent mob that their attacks were actually peaceful, that he loved them, and that they were special.

So, to pose your question in different manner: Trump knew, or should have known, that they were planning the attack for months? And he didn't demand more security? And he did the speech anyway? And he still urged his own supporters to march on a Capitol that he had helped to weaken? And then he refused to unequivocally condemn their behavior?

It may not meet the criminal code's definition of "Incitement", but it does meet a moral definition of being unfit for office. Trump didn't incite his supporters to start a fire; he just made sure that there was lots of tinder and that the sprinklers were turned off, then he winked at his supporters as the fire burned.

:tinfoilhat:  That's as crazy as the Qanon stuff.  Can't wait to see this play out in the faux trial.  You just went from Trump inciting the riot to Trump should have known about the riot for months.  Not sure I've seen goalpost moved that far in one leap before.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tonydead said:

:tinfoilhat:  That's as crazy as the Qanon stuff.  Can't wait to see this play out in the faux trial.  You just went from Trump inciting the riot to Trump should have known about the riot for months.  Not sure I've seen goalpost moved that far in one leap before.

What do you mean by "faux trial"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tonydead said:
12 minutes ago, JAA said:

What do you mean by "faux trial"?

Fake. 

Unconstitutional, just ask John Roberts.

Dead on arrival, just ask the senate.

Do you are saying following our process disingenuously is "fake"? (Note this is a "gotcha" question)

Edited by JAA
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tonydead said:

:tinfoilhat:  That's as crazy as the Qanon stuff.  Can't wait to see this play out in the faux trial.  You just went from Trump inciting the riot to Trump should have known about the riot for months.  Not sure I've seen goalpost moved that far in one leap before.

I've been consistent in my belief that Trump's actions didn't meet the criminal definition of incitement. His actions prior and during the riot were much more complex than that.

We know that Trump's staff was in contact with the riot planners prior to the speech. We know that Trump had access to their social media accounts. The problem with using "They were planning for months!" as a deflection, is that it opens to door to new questions: What did Trump (and/or his staff) know, and when did they know it?

With any other president, there is a vetting process with this sort of thing, just to make sure that the White House isn't coordinating with anyone who might be planning to commit a crime. Did the White House run any background checks this time? Or was there a certain level of deliberate ignorance so that Trump could claim "plausible deniability" if anything nefarious happened? Perhaps the trial will shed more light on that.

Prior to his speech, Trump told Capitol police that, based on his knowledge, their security measures would not be enough to deal with his supporters, yet at no time did he actually request that security be increased. Why not? Again, perhaps the trial will shed more light on that. In any case, when a leader instructs his followers to descend upon a building that has been weakened, in part, by his own decisions, then it's a sign that the leader is not respecting the interests of the state, and he's no longer fit to lead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tonydead said:
24 minutes ago, JAA said:

What do you mean by "faux trial"?

Fake. 

Unconstitutional, just ask John Roberts.

It's not unconstitutional. The Senate has had impeachment trials for people who already left office. If I were to ask John Roberts, he'd probably just say that Tony is lying and that I should just put him on ignore.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • knowledge dropper changed the title to TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...