Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mitt Romney votes to convict and remove Donald Trump


timschochet

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Sand said:

The Democratic block vote for obstruction is an offront to the judiciary and the Constitution.  Absolutely horrific vote. Sheeple voting in action.

Is your position that the President didn't instruct the White House to refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas and didn't instruct all executive branch personnel to refuse to cooperate with House committee impeachment proceedings?

Or is your position that, yes, the President did that, but that Obstruction of Congress can never be the basis for removal? ("It's a process high crime!")

Or that while Obstruction of Congress might sometimes justify removal, wholesale refusal to produce a single document or to countenance testimony from a single witness is such an obviously mild form of obstruction that no person in good faith could possibly believe it's real (impeachable) obstruction, so any vote for removal must be simple partisan hackery?

  • Like 6
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Is your position that the President didn't instruct the White House to refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas and didn't instruct all effective branch personnel to refuse to cooperate with House committee impeachment proceedings?

Or is your position that, yes, the President did that, but that Obstruction of Congress can never be the basis for removal?

Or that while Obstruction of Congress might sometimes justify removal, wholesale refusal to produce a single document or to countenance testimony from a single witnesses is such an obviously mild form of obstruction that no person in good faith could possibly believe it's real (impeachable) obstruction, so any vote for removal must be simple partisan hackery?

The position is that these grievances were for a court to decide and that was not allowed by those controlling the process in the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sand said:

The position is that these grievances were for a court to decide and that was not allowed by those controlling the process in the house.

A court lacks impeachment power, so whether obstruction of Congress is an impeachable offense cannot possibly be for a court to decide.

As for the subpoenas themselves, they are lawful on their face, and the President, to my knowledge, never raised any kind of privilege that a court could rule on. He simply refused to comply without moving for a protective order.

But in any case, that doesn't answer my question. To believe that the votes for removal based on obstruction were just unprincipled partisanship, you have to believe not only that failing to comply with subpoenas is non-obstruction, but that it's so obviously non-obstruction that no reasonable person could disagree. That's not realistic.

I think a reasonable case can be made for Romney's position on obstruction and a reasonable case can be made for Schiff's position. Neither position can be fairly characterized as so obviously wrong that it can be explained only by partisanship.

(Compare that to the decision not to call witnesses, which cannot be reasonably justified.)

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, timschochet said:

Never gonna happen.

And BTW- there is no alternative to the Trump wing of the party. It doesn't exist.

To make sure I'm understanding you.

You're saying the entire Republican party is the Trump Wing? 

You don't think there are any Republicans who in 2024 will be looking for a more traditional Republican candidate? You think the entire Republican Party will be looking for Trump 2.0?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

 

Well, it would depend.  Voting to acquit would be unpopular with Diane Feinstein's constituents, for example.  Considering she'd be nuking her seat, we might assume (absent evidence of some conflict of interest) that she voted her conscience in that instance.  For the same reason, we can probably assume that Manchin's vote to convict, which will be very unpopular with his constituents, was a vote of conscience. 

You can argue that Mitt was motivated by personal animus, I suppose, but it's very, very hard to argue that he was motivated by political expediency.  Trump is broadly popular in Utah and with registered Republicans nationwide.  Mitt has not taken policy positions to endear him to liberals.  If you were to try to convince me that Mitt was trying to serve his own political interests, I'd have to conclude that Romney is an idiot.  

Without a doubt mitt’s safest play was to express concern, suggest there were better tactics to employ to seek out corruption, but ultimately vote to acquit by finding that it doesn’t rise to a level of a high crime. 

Edited by Zow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Sand said:

The position is that these grievances were for a court to decide and that was not allowed by those controlling the process in the house.

That is a position, I suppose. It’s just, legally-speaking, a dumb one. 
 

ETA: or what Maurile said in a much more eloquent and substantive fashion. 

Edited by Zow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

To make sure I'm understanding you.

You're saying the entire Republican party is the Trump Wing? 

You don't think there are any Republicans who in 2024 will be looking for a more traditional Republican candidate? You think the entire Republican Party will be looking for Trump 2.0?

I think there is zero chance that any credible 2024 candidate will run as a Republican based on his or her opposition to Donald Trump unless Trump and the GOP are absolutely creamed in the 2020 election. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

To make sure I'm understanding you.

You're saying the entire Republican party is the Trump Wing? 

You don't think there are any Republicans who in 2024 will be looking for a more traditional Republican candidate? You think the entire Republican Party will be looking for Trump 2.0?

We'll see what happens after Trump is out of office, but right now they absolutely are.  Just a week ago Mike Lee tweeted in praise of Mitt Romney for his thoughtfulness and integrity, and today during Trumps disgraceful victory speech was slobbering all over Trump as he insulted Romney.  The Republican base is being fed the hateful rhetoric of Hannity, Levin and Limbaugh.  Trump just amplifies their message and the more traditional Republicans are too afraid to speak out against it because everyone else who has, has been blacklisted by the party.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

To make sure I'm understanding you.

You're saying the entire Republican party is the Trump Wing? 

You don't think there are any Republicans who in 2024 will be looking for a more traditional Republican candidate? You think the entire Republican Party will be looking for Trump 2.0?

Butting in to say that I'll stop believing that to be the case when those who are opposed to Trump stop getting tossed out of the party.

Do I think every single GOP voter will be looking for Trump 2.0? No, but enough of them that the minority view will find little to no support in the 2024 primaries.

To put it another way: Show me the plausible 2024 GOP candidates who have not already prostrated themselves at Trump's feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I agree, by the way, with Romney's position.

He said he voted to acquit on obstruction because the House failed to exhaust the remedies it had available to compel compliance with its subpoenas.

That's true.

It's not true because the House failed to go through the courts. That's dumb for legal reasons that are kind of boring so I won't explain them more than I did above.

But it's true because the House never held anyone in contempt. The House has its own power of enforcement but didn't use it.

If I'm in the Senate, I'm questioning the House's seriousness about the obstruction charge. Removal from office is an extraordinary, extreme remedy. Why is the House asking the Senate to remove the President from office when the House wasn't even willing to pursue the much less extreme remedy of holding people in contempt? Let's start with something reasonable before jumping right to the highest extreme.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think I agree, by the way, with Romney's position.

He said he voted to acquit on obstruction because the House failed to exhaust the remedies it had available to compel compliance with its subpoenas.

That's true.

It's not true because the House failed to go through the courts. That's dumb for legal reasons that are kind of boring so I won't explain them more than I did above.

But it's true because the House never held anyone in contempt. The House has its own power of enforcement but didn't use it.

If I'm in the Senate, I'm questioning the House's seriousness about the obstruction charge. Removal from office is an extraordinary, extreme remedy. Why is the House asking the Senate to remove the President from office when the House wasn't even willing to pursue the much less extreme remedy of holding people in contempt? Let's start with something reasonable before jumping right to the highest extreme.

Seems reasonable.  I can't imagine what would have happened if Congress had thrown Mick Mulvaney in prison for contempt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems kind of odd to complain that impeachment was a waste of time given the outcome was known and complain that the house didn't "go through the courts" given that outcome was also very likely known.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Seems reasonable.  I can't imagine what would have happened if Congress had thrown Mick Mulvaney in prison for contempt.  

I believe the White House and Mulvaney at that point would have moved for a protective order and for a preliminary injunction barring Mulvaney's imprisonment pending a decision on the merits. If a court ruled against the White House and Mulvaney still refused to comply, imprisonment would be the natural, appropriate next step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, joffer said:

seems kind of odd to complain that impeachment was a waste of time given the outcome was known and complain that the house didn't "go through the courts" given that outcome was also very likely known.

The outcome of going through the courts would have been Trump losing badly but refusing to comply with court orders anyway.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

I believe the White House and Mulvaney at that point would have moved for a protective order and for a preliminary injunction barring Mulvaney's imprisonment pending a decision on the merits. If a court ruled against the White House and Mulvaney still refused to comply, imprisonment would be the natural, appropriate next step.

What makes you think they would have sought a protective order and preliminary injunction?  They didn't move to quash the subpoenas.  Obviously we'll never know for sure but my guess is that in that situation the White House and Mulvaney would have just ignored the finding of contempt and basically dared Congress to put him in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

What makes you think they would have sought a protective order and preliminary injunction?  They didn't move to quash the subpoenas.  Obviously we'll never know for sure but my guess is that in that situation the White House and Mulvaney would have just ignored the finding of contempt and basically dared Congress to put him in prison.

I don't think they'd have wanted Mulvaney to be imprisoned. If the House asked Mulvaney, through his lawyer, to surrender at such-and-such time and place for incarceration, I believe Mulvaney's lawyer would not say "Okay, he'll be there," or, "No, come and take him by force, I dare you," but would instead say, "Hold on, we're going to file a motion in court. Will you stipulate to not imprisoning him until the merits are resolved? If not, that's part of what we'll ask for in our motion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

I think there is zero chance that any credible 2024 candidate will run as a Republican based on his or her opposition to Donald Trump unless Trump and the GOP are absolutely creamed in the 2020 election. 

Agreed.

Latest gallup has Trump at 94% approval amongst Republicans. This after impeachment. Every significant national Republican that has voiced opposition Trump has either retired from office or changed party affiliation.

Also I’d think that if a significant portion of Republicans wanted a more traditional Republican in office then there’d be a serious GOP primary challenger for 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
41 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

What makes you think they would have sought a protective order and preliminary injunction?  They didn't move to quash the subpoenas.  Obviously we'll never know for sure but my guess is that in that situation the White House and Mulvaney would have just ignored the finding of contempt and basically dared Congress to put him in prison.

I don't think they'd have wanted Mulvaney to be imprisoned. If the House asked Mulvaney, through his lawyer, to surrender at such-and-such time and place for incarceration, I believe Mulvaney's lawyer would not say "Okay, he'll be there," or, "No, come and take him by force, I dare you," but would instead say, "Hold on, we're going to file a motion in court. Will you stipulate to not imprisoning him until the merits are resolved? If not, that's part of what we'll ask for in our motion."

Could the House re-open hearings, subpoena Mulvaney, and then hold him in contempt and/or try to have him arrested if he refuses to comply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Of course, the great irony is that the Administration in the McGahn case is explicitly arguing that the federal courts don’t have jurisdiction to compel compliance with a Congressional subpoena and that congress’s remedy is impeachment. 

I haven’t been keeping up with the McGahn case, but is this for real?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Nope. Indirectly calling him a toady was enough to get him to say it was terrible posting. That of course got him reported and now he's suspended. Good job.

if you're so ready for the insults, you're welcome to bring it and see how that goes. 

As a mod (let alone an owner trying to bring about a new, friendlier era at FBG message boards) are you really goading a poster to act in a manner that will earn a suspension?

I imagine your job sucks, but, please pull the plug  on this before you become what you hate.

Edited by Lutherman2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think I agree, by the way, with Romney's position.

He said he voted to acquit on obstruction because the House failed to exhaust the remedies it had available to compel compliance with its subpoenas.

That's true.

It's not true because the House failed to go through the courts. That's dumb for legal reasons that are kind of boring so I won't explain them more than I did above.

But it's true because the House never held anyone in contempt. The House has its own power of enforcement but didn't use it.

If I'm in the Senate, I'm questioning the House's seriousness about the obstruction charge. Removal from office is an extraordinary, extreme remedy. Why is the House asking the Senate to remove the President from office when the House wasn't even willing to pursue the much less extreme remedy of holding people in contempt? Let's start with something reasonable before jumping right to the highest extreme.

 

I think you have convinced me. I leaned the other way, but this makes a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

To make sure I'm understanding you.

You're saying the entire Republican party is the Trump Wing? 

You don't think there are any Republicans who in 2024 will be looking for a more traditional Republican candidate? You think the entire Republican Party will be looking for Trump 2.0?

Yes. But @Ramsay Hunt Experience, @zftcg, and @Dickies put it much more eloquently than I can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Yes. But @Ramsay Hunt Experience, @zftcg, and @Dickies put it much more eloquently than I can. 

The results from Iowa are pretty clear. Trump got about 98% of the Republican vote while Weld and Walsh got about %1 each. I wouldn't expect anything different from other states. It's impossible to win a state-wide Republican primary right now by representing the anti-Trump wing of the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't think they'd have wanted Mulvaney to be imprisoned. If the House asked Mulvaney, through his lawyer, to surrender at such-and-such time and place for incarceration, I believe Mulvaney's lawyer would not say "Okay, he'll be there," or, "No, come and take him by force, I dare you," but would instead say, "Hold on, we're going to file a motion in court. Will you stipulate to not imprisoning him until the merits are resolved? If not, that's part of what we'll ask for in our motion."

This is what normal people would do.  I'm not as convinced as you that it's what Mulvaney and the White House would do.  They may very well have concluded that it would be politically advantageous to force the House to throw him in jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The results from Iowa are pretty clear. Trump got about 98% of the Republican vote while Weld and Walsh got about %1 each. I wouldn't expect anything different from other states. It's impossible to win a state-wide Republican primary right now by representing the anti-Trump wing of the party.

If @D_House is correct that the recent Gallup poll showed 94% approval among Republicans, then there is little opportunity for Weld or Walsh to gain any ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The results from Iowa are pretty clear. Trump got about 98% of the Republican vote while Weld and Walsh got about %1 each. I wouldn't expect anything different from other states. It's impossible to win a state-wide Republican primary right now by representing the anti-Trump wing of the party.

some of that has to be not voting out of a feeling of futility, but i agree anti-Trump on the right is a lost cause right now.

Edited by joffer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sand said:

The position is that these grievances were for a court to decide and that was not allowed by those controlling the process in the house.

Then I would suggest that it isn't Democrats who don't understand the judiciary or the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think I agree, by the way, with Romney's position.

He said he voted to acquit on obstruction because the House failed to exhaust the remedies it had available to compel compliance with its subpoenas.

That's true.

It's not true because the House failed to go through the courts. That's dumb for legal reasons that are kind of boring so I won't explain them more than I did above.

But it's true because the House never held anyone in contempt. The House has its own power of enforcement but didn't use it.

If I'm in the Senate, I'm questioning the House's seriousness about the obstruction charge. Removal from office is an extraordinary, extreme remedy. Why is the House asking the Senate to remove the President from office when the House wasn't even willing to pursue the much less extreme remedy of holding people in contempt? Let's start with something reasonable before jumping right to the highest extreme.

This I probably agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, joffer said:

Jeffrey Toobin made this point on CNN yesterday.  Said voting No had some merit or could be explained but the idea that Trump has learned his lesson is laughable.  That's what makes this such an ugly situation.  Far more than 50 Senators think what Trump did was wrong but they either want to skate on a technicality, claim that Trump has learned his lesson or (and this makes the most send) claim he did it but it isn't worthy of removal.  They are scared of reelection and scared of Trump so they are trying to sit on the fence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think I agree, by the way, with Romney's position.

He said he voted to acquit on obstruction because the House failed to exhaust the remedies it had available to compel compliance with its subpoenas.

That's true.

It's not true because the House failed to go through the courts. That's dumb for legal reasons that are kind of boring so I won't explain them more than I did above.

But it's true because the House never held anyone in contempt. The House has its own power of enforcement but didn't use it.

If I'm in the Senate, I'm questioning the House's seriousness about the obstruction charge. Removal from office is an extraordinary, extreme remedy. Why is the House asking the Senate to remove the President from office when the House wasn't even willing to pursue the much less extreme remedy of holding people in contempt? Let's start with something reasonable before jumping right to the highest extreme.

I'm torn on this. I agree with you in theory, and the argument that you have to have an absolutely airtight case before you can throw a president out of office makes sense.

On the other hand, every single action Trump has taken since the 2018 elections demonstrates that he refuses to recognize Congress as a coequal branch of government which has the right to conduct oversight of his administration. I think that is incredibly dangerous, and it was important for Congress to at least attempt to hold him accountable for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dickies said:

If @D_House is correct that the recent Gallup poll showed 94% approval among Republicans, then there is little opportunity for Weld or Walsh to gain any ground.

Gallup link

Another thing to look for is what Romney’s approval rating does after his vote for conviction. I bet it tanks.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dickies said:

We'll see what happens after Trump is out of office, but right now they absolutely are.  Just a week ago Mike Lee tweeted in praise of Mitt Romney for his thoughtfulness and integrity, and today during Trumps disgraceful victory speech was slobbering all over Trump as he insulted Romney.  The Republican base is being fed the hateful rhetoric of Hannity, Levin and Limbaugh.  Trump just amplifies their message and the more traditional Republicans are too afraid to speak out against it because everyone else who has, has been blacklisted by the party.  

You’re giving these Medal of Honor recipients way too much credit. It’s more likely that they believe most everything they heard, stood and cheered for on Tuesday night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

I think there is zero chance that any credible 2024 candidate will run as a Republican based on his or her opposition to Donald Trump unless Trump and the GOP are absolutely creamed in the 2020 election. 

Sure. I don't think not being Trump 2.0 means they have to run based on their opposition to Trump 1.0. 

My guess is we'd have candidates that are like Trump. And we'll have candidates that are much more like the other Republican candidates that ran in 2016 primaries. 

I think Tim's accusation the "Trump Wing" is 100% of the Republican party completely discounts the many Republicans and Conservatives I know that voted for the Republican candidate but don't like Trump very much. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sure. I don't think not being Trump 2.0 means they have to run based on their opposition to Trump 1.0. 

My guess is we'd have candidates that are like Trump. And we'll have candidates that are much more like the other Republican candidates that ran in 2016 primaries. 

I think Tim's accusation the "Trump Wing" is 100% of the Republican party completely discounts the many Republicans and Conservatives I know that voted for the Republican candidate but don't like Trump very much. 

Losing in 2020 changes the following....

But if it ain't broke, why try to fix it?  If Trump coasts thru and gets re-elected in 2020, why would the Republicans NOT follow the same game plan in 2024?  All due respect to the Republicans you know, but if they don't like him,...but are still voting for him,  why are the NOT going to vote for a similar candidate in 2024?*

 

* And lets be honest....does anyone, be it 2020 or 2024, feel that Trumps going to "retire"?...….  Unless he gets ABSOLUTELY smoked in 2020.....he's THE Republican KingMaker until the day he dies.  

Edited by Thunderlips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Neither position can be fairly characterized as so obviously wrong that it can be explained only by partisanship.

 

Sure it can, if you consider the entire process partisan.

As in the WHOLE reason we are here is partisanship.

Edited by matuski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, matuski said:

Sure it can, if you consider the entire process partisan.

As in the WHOLE reason we are here is partisanship.

I don’t know what “we are here” means. It is demonstrably untrue that the witnesses against Trump — Fiona Hill, Lt. Col. Vindman, Marie Yovanovich, Gordon Sonland et al. — were partisan. John Bolton was not willing to testify against Trump for partisan reasons. Mitt Romney did not vote to remove Trump for partisan reasons.

What Trump did was illegal. It was gravely concerning to numerous other Republicans.

If you mean that the only reason Trump wasn’t removed is because of partisan tribalism in Mitch McConnell’s Senate, maybe you can make a decent case for it. But if you mean that Trump was brought to trial only because of partisanship in the House, that seems objectively indefensible based on the facts.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don’t know what “we are here” means. It is demonstrably untrue that the witnesses against Trump — Fiona Hill, Lt. Col. Vindman, Marie Yovanovich, Gordon Sonland et al. — were partisan. John Bolton was not willing to testify against Trump for partisan reasons. Mitt Romney did not vote to remove Trump for partisan reasons.

What Trump did was illegal. It was gravely concerning to numerous other Republicans.

If you mean that the only reason Trump wasn’t removed is because of partisan tribalism in Mitch McConnell’s Senate, maybe you can make a decent case for it. But if you mean that Trump was brought to trial only because of partisanship in the House, that seems objectively indefensible based on the facts.

What did Trump do that was illegal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

Jeffrey Toobin made this point on CNN yesterday.  Said voting No had some merit or could be explained but the idea that Trump has learned his lesson is laughable.  That's what makes this such an ugly situation.  Far more than 50 Senators think what Trump did was wrong but they either want to skate on a technicality, claim that Trump has learned his lesson or (and this makes the most send) claim he did it but it isn't worthy of removal.  They are scared of reelection and scared of Trump so they are trying to sit on the fence.

The number five cause of hemorrhoids in the general population, but the number two cause of roids in politicians.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sure. I don't think not being Trump 2.0 means they have to run based on their opposition to Trump 1.0. 

My guess is we'd have candidates that are like Trump. And we'll have candidates that are much more like the other Republican candidates that ran in 2016 primaries. 

I think Tim's accusation the "Trump Wing" is 100% of the Republican party completely discounts the many Republicans and Conservatives I know that voted for the Republican candidate but don't like Trump very much. 

I tend to think similarly to you Joe.   Plenty of my friends are conservative and not fans of Trump (even if they voted for him).

But then I read articles like this and see who the contenders might be in 2024....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/EE3DCD02-3047-11EA-A104-9520470DA890

Pence

Don Jr

Nikki Haley

Ivanka

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

I think there is zero chance that any credible 2024 candidate will run as a Republican based on his or her opposition to Donald Trump unless Trump and the GOP are absolutely creamed in the 2020 election. 

I'm a little more pessimistic than this.  I think if Trump gets creamed, the lesson Republicans will draw is that they need to find a less obviously crazy version of Trump.  The same white nationalism, but less covfefe.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...