It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
President Trump's Senate Impeachment Options - DISMISS or ACQUIT or FULL-BLOWN TRIAL.
page: 4share:
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: chr0naut
It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.
If someone does something against the law, they cannot argue that others also broke the law. It does not excuse them of their actions.
It comes back to what did Trump do illegal? Was it illegal for Trump to ask for an investigation into Biden, Hillary, 2016 elections etc? The left's logic is because Biden happened to be one of 16 (at the time) candidates he should be untouchable by Trump and anything else is wrong. It is funny they think this way when they felt it was OK for Hillary to pay for an investigation while creating fake narratives on Trump to have the FBI wiretap and use the FICA court etc. NOT while he was just a candidate of a dozen BUT as the Republican nomination..holy crap...we don't see eye to eye on much but if you can't see this then I'm not sure what to think.
If Joe Biden did something illegal by threatening to withhold aid, then Trump is tarred by the same brush. He did the same thing (as many pro-Trump posters have said). The difference between the two situations is potential motive and political outcome.
If Joe Biden did something wrong, then he should be prosecuted. And, so then should Trump, for doing the same.
The argument that Trump is excused for the same crime he is suggesting Joe Biden did, is childish. If what they both did was wrong, they both are guilty.
originally posted by: DanDanDat
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust
It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.
If someone does something against the law, they cannot argue that others also broke the law. It does not excuse them of their actions.
It sounds like Guiliani is suggesting that Biden's actions somehow excuse the President. They don't.
As the head of the executive branch of government it is a presidents job to seek out and investigate corruption. This does not change if the corruption is being perpetrated by a political rival. If it did all a nonferrous person
Ah, the iron-y (or absence therof).
need do is become a politician in order to save himself from criminal charges.
As head of the executive branch of government it is the a presidents job to use diplomatic means (withholding aid) to get other countries to act in a manner best for America. Investigating American corruption for example.
Ascertaining Biden's guilt is vitally important to knowing whether Trump abused his power or was carrying out the job he was elected to do.
I am fairly sure that the oath of office defines the Presidential role:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Constitution clearly gives investigatory powers to Congress (Article 1, Section 8,"to establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court") and Senate (in the case of impeachment Article 1 section 2, clause 5) but is less clear as to the investigatory powers of the President.
Giuliani said that Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution gives the President the imperative to investigate but it says no such thing. Here is the text:
"He (the President) shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."
What I expect is dismissal or automatic acquittal, what I want is a full blown trial trumps ego will necessitate him burning down the house to get the
people coming for him.
a reply to: chr0naut
Yes.
If someone uses a company in New Zealand to launder money, does New Zealand have the authority to investigate it?
Burisma is a Ukrainian company. The investigation was into Burisma. Hunter Biden just happened to be sitting on the Board of Burisma at the time and was CEO. Doesn't matter that he was a US citizen, if Burisma is located in Ukraine. He is still bound by Ukrainian law when he does business there.
You are really clutching at straws this time.
TheRedneck
If some evidence of corruption directly involving Joe Biden was discovered in the Ukraine, do the Ukrainians have jurisdiction to prosecute?
Yes.
If someone uses a company in New Zealand to launder money, does New Zealand have the authority to investigate it?
Burisma is a Ukrainian company. The investigation was into Burisma. Hunter Biden just happened to be sitting on the Board of Burisma at the time and was CEO. Doesn't matter that he was a US citizen, if Burisma is located in Ukraine. He is still bound by Ukrainian law when he does business there.
You are really clutching at straws this time.
TheRedneck
edit on 1/13/2020 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)
a reply to: chr0naut
No one is making that claim except you.
There is no evidence that Donald Trump withheld funds appropriated for an investigation into a political opponent, despite a House investigation that ignored about every legal principle in existence. The claim is that there was sufficient suspicion to investigate. Doesn't need to be evidence for an investigation... the investigation is supposed to find out if there is evidence so future prosecution can happen.
Suspicion - > Investigation - > Evidence - > Prosecution. Not Evidence - > Investigation - > Prosecution.
TheRedneck
The argument that Trump is excused for the same crime he is suggesting Joe Biden did, is childish.
No one is making that claim except you.
There is no evidence that Donald Trump withheld funds appropriated for an investigation into a political opponent, despite a House investigation that ignored about every legal principle in existence. The claim is that there was sufficient suspicion to investigate. Doesn't need to be evidence for an investigation... the investigation is supposed to find out if there is evidence so future prosecution can happen.
Suspicion - > Investigation - > Evidence - > Prosecution. Not Evidence - > Investigation - > Prosecution.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: chr0naut
If Joe Biden did something illegal by threatening to withhold aid, then Trump is tarred by the same brush. He did the same thing (as many pro-Trump posters have said). The difference between the two situations is potential motive and political outcome.
Neither did anything wrong by the actual act of holding aid, we do that all the time, every time and never considered wrong until the left went crazy with Trump's call. The only thing with Biden is whether he used his influence in Ukraine as VP and leading the investigation of the corruption in Ukraine. They also asked for completely different things...Trump asked for some investigations and Biden actually did threaten, gave them 6 hours to fire the prosecutor...
I find it strange you are trying to relate these two completely separate incidences.
If Joe Biden did something wrong, then he should be prosecuted. And, so then should Trump, for doing the same.
The argument that Trump is excused for the same crime he is suggesting Joe Biden did, is childish. If what they both did was wrong, they both are guilty.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Trump asked to look into Hunter Biden who became a multi-millionaire from a Ukraine company deep in corruption while his dad was VP and leading the investigation into Ukraine corruption. You can't make this crap up...lol
Trump didn't accuse anyone of anything and only said if there was anything there "it would be terrible" end quote...
Trump was investigated, transcripts released... not much more to say there. Now when are we going to look into Biden's son as per what you suggest?
edit on 13-1-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: chr0naut
If the charges are found to be unconstitutional, Justice Roberts can throw them out. The House will need to build a better mousetrap next time.
Justice Roberts can possibly throw them out, but I'm not sure how the charges could be argued to be unconstitutional?
Definitely if the articles of "Obstruction of Congress" and "Abuse of Power" are unconstitutional, it would follow that any others could make similar defense and get off. This means that the articles must be taken seriously or they will create a precedent of a futile impeachment process and therefore a powerless and broken Constitution.
The charges can legitimately be about misdemeanors under the Constitution. Many seem to only read the first part of the sentence and to say that they are not high crimes, but the whole sentence stands. A judge or lawyer cannot uphold partial sentences as a defense.
Also proper procedure has been followed in the framing and investigation of the articles.
What the Senate can do is to determine if the charges are true, or not.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
There is no evidence that Donald Trump withheld funds appropriated for an investigation into a political opponent, despite a House investigation that ignored about every legal principle in existence. The claim is that there was sufficient suspicion to investigate. Doesn't need to be evidence for an investigation... the investigation is supposed to find out if there is evidence so future prosecution can happen.
Suspicion - > Investigation - > Evidence - > Prosecution. Not Evidence - > Investigation - > Prosecution.
TheRedneck
The reality is if they did investigate and found nothing it would actually be in favor of Biden to use as fodder on his campaign, and boy would he ever. Until the investigation was complete it would be neither good or bad for Biden.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Justice Roberts can possibly throw them out, but I'm not sure how the charges could be argued to be unconstitutional?
Definitely if the articles of "Obstruction of Congress" and "Abuse of Power" are unconstitutional, it would follow that any others could make similar defense and get off. This means that the articles must be taken seriously or they will create a precedent of a futile impeachment process and therefore a powerless and broken Constitution.
I don't think any article would be unconstitutional. What we learn from this impeachment is the house can do pretty much anything they want. They could have done an article for Jay walking.... What could drive Roberts to throw them out is they switch the articles from illegal acts to what we have now that could be just about anything... In the end they were worried they might not get the votes. "Obstruction of Congress" will not pass anything as they did not follow the path to subpoena anyone, something they could have done, so that one is out quickly. "Abuse of Power" is another wide paint brush thing that Roberts could just say better luck next time.
With that said, I see this going to trial for like 2 weeks then it will be over in Trump's favor.
edit on 13-1-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Xtrozero
"Obstruction of Congress" could be considered unconstitutional, because the actions in the Article of Impeachment are completely Constitutional. Nowhere does it state that the President must provide all requested information to Congress... indeed, the Founding Fathers specifically stated in their writings that the main purpose of the Judicial Branch was to mediate differences between the Executive and Legislative. With such a cure for the disagreement existing as an integral part of the Constitution, impeachment becomes unconstitutional on that grounds.
"Abuse of Power" is likely another matter completely. The phrase "maladministration" was actually rejected by Madison because it was felt to be too broad, and "Abuse of Power" is essentially the same thing. However, I don't think such a charge in impeachment is unconstitutional because there is no other remedy in the Constitution as there is in "Obstruction of Congress." The problem with this charge in this case is that no abuse of power can be shown; Trump was actually following the law itself when holding funding to verify Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts.
Following the law cannot be abuse of power by definition.
TheRedneck
I don't think any article would be unconstitutional.
"Obstruction of Congress" could be considered unconstitutional, because the actions in the Article of Impeachment are completely Constitutional. Nowhere does it state that the President must provide all requested information to Congress... indeed, the Founding Fathers specifically stated in their writings that the main purpose of the Judicial Branch was to mediate differences between the Executive and Legislative. With such a cure for the disagreement existing as an integral part of the Constitution, impeachment becomes unconstitutional on that grounds.
"Abuse of Power" is likely another matter completely. The phrase "maladministration" was actually rejected by Madison because it was felt to be too broad, and "Abuse of Power" is essentially the same thing. However, I don't think such a charge in impeachment is unconstitutional because there is no other remedy in the Constitution as there is in "Obstruction of Congress." The problem with this charge in this case is that no abuse of power can be shown; Trump was actually following the law itself when holding funding to verify Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts.
Following the law cannot be abuse of power by definition.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DanDanDat
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust
It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.
If someone does something against the law, they cannot argue that others also broke the law. It does not excuse them of their actions.
It sounds like Guiliani is suggesting that Biden's actions somehow excuse the President. They don't.
As the head of the executive branch of government it is a presidents job to seek out and investigate corruption. This does not change if the corruption is being perpetrated by a political rival. If it did all a nonferrous person
Ah, the iron-y (or absence therof).
need do is become a politician in order to save himself from criminal charges.
As head of the executive branch of government it is the a presidents job to use diplomatic means (withholding aid) to get other countries to act in a manner best for America. Investigating American corruption for example.
Ascertaining Biden's guilt is vitally important to knowing whether Trump abused his power or was carrying out the job he was elected to do.
I am fairly sure that the oath of office defines the Presidential role:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Constitution clearly gives investigatory powers to Congress (Article 1, Section 8,"to establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court") and Senate (in the case of impeachment Article 1 section 2, clause 5) but is less clear as to the investigatory powers of the President.
Giuliani said that Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution gives the President the imperative to investigate but it says no such thing. Here is the text:
"He (the President) shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."
Criminal Investigation is a law enforcement duty; clearly a function of the executive branch of government. We would have a lot of unconstitutional goings on if your trying to convince people our Legislatures should be doing criminal investigations rather than our law enforcement officers.
We aren't talking about the impeachment proceedings of Joe Biden; if where all that you quoted might apply.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
What I expect is dismissal or automatic acquittal, what I want is a full blown trial trumps ego will necessitate him burning down the house to get the people coming for him.
Senator McConnell issued this statement a few hours ago.
twitter.com...
Does it mean he will have a trial, but no new witnesses? (i.e. push "acquittal"?)
edit on 1/13/2020 by carewemust because: ITALICS? WHY???
Can someone explain to me if Trump was looking into Burisma or did he specifically ask about Hunter Biden?
edit on 13-1-2020 by AutomateThis1
because: spelling
a reply to: carewemust
I'm trying to figure out what Pelosi is up to. She said she would hold a vote to send the Articles of Impeachment this week, but why does she even need a vote to do that? Sounds like a delaying tactic, or maybe an exit strategy... thinking enough Democrats will vote against sending the Articles to let her off the hook.
It would be hilarious if the Republicans voted to send them and forced her hand...
TheRedneck
I'm trying to figure out what Pelosi is up to. She said she would hold a vote to send the Articles of Impeachment this week, but why does she even need a vote to do that? Sounds like a delaying tactic, or maybe an exit strategy... thinking enough Democrats will vote against sending the Articles to let her off the hook.
It would be hilarious if the Republicans voted to send them and forced her hand...
TheRedneck
a reply to: AutomateThis1
In the phone call, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Burisma and Crowdstrike. He did mention the Bidens in passing afterwards, but the Bidens only came into play because Hunter was on the board of Burisma and Joe specifically targeted the Ukraine Prosecutor General over his handling of Burisma. If Joe hadn't bragged about how he forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, he would probably never have been mentioned at all.
TheRedneck
Can someone explain to me if Trump was looking into Burisma or did he specifically ask about Hunter Biden?
In the phone call, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Burisma and Crowdstrike. He did mention the Bidens in passing afterwards, but the Bidens only came into play because Hunter was on the board of Burisma and Joe specifically targeted the Ukraine Prosecutor General over his handling of Burisma. If Joe hadn't bragged about how he forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, he would probably never have been mentioned at all.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
"Obstruction of Congress" could be considered unconstitutional, because the actions in the Article of Impeachment are completely Constitutional. Nowhere does it state that the President must provide all requested information to Congress... indeed, the Founding Fathers specifically stated in their writings that the main purpose of the Judicial Branch was to mediate differences between the Executive and Legislative. With such a cure for the disagreement existing as an integral part of the Constitution, impeachment becomes unconstitutional on that grounds.
"Abuse of Power" is likely another matter completely. The phrase "maladministration" was actually rejected by Madison because it was felt to be too broad, and "Abuse of Power" is essentially the same thing. However, I don't think such a charge in impeachment is unconstitutional because there is no other remedy in the Constitution as there is in "Obstruction of Congress." The problem with this charge in this case is that no abuse of power can be shown; Trump was actually following the law itself when holding funding to verify Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts.
Following the law cannot be abuse of power by definition.
TheRedneck
The biggest problem I see is the full generalization of the articles. They might as well have just listed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as the articles. One thing for EVERYONE to understand is Clinton had 4 articles, and two were voted Yea and 2 voted Nay. The two that received a Yea were based on 12 FELONIES...
a reply to: TheRedneck
Thanks Redneck. I don't see any foul play over this if that's the casd. If I recall correctly Joe Biden announced his presidential candidacy around that time, and if what I recall is correct it's because he learned of Trump's inquiry. So, if anything that shows to me that Joe Biden was either told to run so that Democrats could use this against Trump, or that he wanted some kind of protection against this.
Because, to me, unless Trump specifically asked for dirt on Hunter Biden then it seems fair to me. Maybe politicians and their immediate family should be more aware of their business deals and avoid doing shady stuff. I'm not saying otherwise for Trump and his kin, but I don't see why we as citizens should tolerate it just because of their political affiliation.
In my opinion this really is coming across as "any means necessary," and it makes it increasingly difficult to take the Democrat politicians who are on board with this seriously. I would love to see a presidential candidate, regardless of political affiliation, run against Trump. I just don't see that happening.
I wasn't going to vote for Biden to begin with. Sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Hillary. The other Democrats are running on emotions and big talk, so no there. The Republican candidates are no better.
Honestly, Vermin Supreme seems better than all the other candidates put together, and I would definitely watch a Trump and Supreme debate on TV. I think it just goes to say what a crapshow the political arena has become.
Thanks Redneck. I don't see any foul play over this if that's the casd. If I recall correctly Joe Biden announced his presidential candidacy around that time, and if what I recall is correct it's because he learned of Trump's inquiry. So, if anything that shows to me that Joe Biden was either told to run so that Democrats could use this against Trump, or that he wanted some kind of protection against this.
Because, to me, unless Trump specifically asked for dirt on Hunter Biden then it seems fair to me. Maybe politicians and their immediate family should be more aware of their business deals and avoid doing shady stuff. I'm not saying otherwise for Trump and his kin, but I don't see why we as citizens should tolerate it just because of their political affiliation.
In my opinion this really is coming across as "any means necessary," and it makes it increasingly difficult to take the Democrat politicians who are on board with this seriously. I would love to see a presidential candidate, regardless of political affiliation, run against Trump. I just don't see that happening.
I wasn't going to vote for Biden to begin with. Sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Hillary. The other Democrats are running on emotions and big talk, so no there. The Republican candidates are no better.
Honestly, Vermin Supreme seems better than all the other candidates put together, and I would definitely watch a Trump and Supreme debate on TV. I think it just goes to say what a crapshow the political arena has become.
edit on 13-1-2020 by AutomateThis1 because: (no reason
given)
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut
If some evidence of corruption directly involving Joe Biden was discovered in the Ukraine, do the Ukrainians have jurisdiction to prosecute?
Yes.
If someone uses a company in New Zealand to launder money, does New Zealand have the authority to investigate it?
If the crime is done in New Zealand, the NZ government has the mandate. But if the crime is done in the US, I would imagine that the US law enforcement wouldn't allow NZ police to run around arresting and/or deporting people who should be tried locally, where there is evidence of their guilt and where the crime was committed.
It's about national sovereignty.
Burisma is a Ukrainian company. The investigation was into Burisma. Hunter Biden just happened to be sitting on the Board of Burisma at the time and was CEO.
Taras Burdeinyi was (and is) CEO. Alan Apter was, and is, Chairman of the board of directors. Hunter Biden was a director from 2004 to 2019, among a board of eight or nine other directors.
Doesn't matter that he was a US citizen, if Burisma is located in Ukraine. He is still bound by Ukrainian law when he does business there.
You are really clutching at straws this time.
TheRedneck
Hunter Biden would be accountable to the investigators when he was employed at Burisma and potentially liable to prosecution in the Ukraine, had he been found to be involved in corruption.
Hunter Biden did not threaten to withhold funds to pressure the Ukrainian government to replace a corrupt Ukrainian Prosecutor General. Joe Biden did that. The replacement of the Prosecutor General resulted in an investigation of Burisma during the time Hunter Biden was working there.
Joe Biden's pressuring got his son's company to be investigated. The investigation did turn up some corruption but none that implicated Hunter Biden in any way.
edit on 13/1/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Xtrozero
Clinton was caught red-handed lying under oath. Now, I really don't see that as a 'high' crime, since anyone can be guilty of perjury... but he also was accused of directly attempting to threaten witnesses, as testified to by the witnesses themselves. That could be considered a 'high' crime.
Every single allegation against Trump is based on hearsay and speculation: witnesses against him have, in some cases, actually testified that they never spoke with Trump! They heard someone telling someone else that they heard someone say that Trump said... or the thoughts Donald Trump had running through his head are used as the basis for the allegations, despite no one making these allegations having any idea what he was thinking.
If Joe heard Bob telling Ted that he heard Bill on the phone saying Jerry was going to murder Sam... well, that's not exactly enough to accuse Jerry of anything, especially if Sam is still alive and saying they were talking about video game play. But, it seems to be enough for Schiff and Pelosi.
Go figure.
TheRedneck
Clinton was caught red-handed lying under oath. Now, I really don't see that as a 'high' crime, since anyone can be guilty of perjury... but he also was accused of directly attempting to threaten witnesses, as testified to by the witnesses themselves. That could be considered a 'high' crime.
Every single allegation against Trump is based on hearsay and speculation: witnesses against him have, in some cases, actually testified that they never spoke with Trump! They heard someone telling someone else that they heard someone say that Trump said... or the thoughts Donald Trump had running through his head are used as the basis for the allegations, despite no one making these allegations having any idea what he was thinking.
If Joe heard Bob telling Ted that he heard Bill on the phone saying Jerry was going to murder Sam... well, that's not exactly enough to accuse Jerry of anything, especially if Sam is still alive and saying they were talking about video game play. But, it seems to be enough for Schiff and Pelosi.
Go figure.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut
The argument that Trump is excused for the same crime he is suggesting Joe Biden did, is childish.
No one is making that claim except you.
There is no evidence that Donald Trump withheld funds appropriated for an investigation into a political opponent, despite a House investigation that ignored about every legal principle in existence. The claim is that there was sufficient suspicion to investigate. Doesn't need to be evidence for an investigation... the investigation is supposed to find out if there is evidence so future prosecution can happen.
Suspicion - > Investigation - > Evidence - > Prosecution. Not Evidence - > Investigation - > Prosecution.
TheRedneck
There are e-mails from Michael Duffey, National Security Associate Director, directing the State Department to put a hold on the payment of the military aid money to the Ukraine, while it was under evaluation by the President and the Pentagon.
During the time when those e-mails came into force. the aid was actually stopped.
US halted Ukraine aid 91 mins after call - news.com.au
WILDLY INCRIMINATING EMAILS SHOW THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW TRUMP WAS EXTORTING UKRAINE - Vanity Fair
Why The Trump Decision To Delay Aid To Ukraine Is Under Scrutiny - NPR
Pentagon Letter Undercuts Trump Assertion On Delaying Aid To Ukraine Over Corruption - NPR
edit on 13/1/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
new topics
-
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness: 4 hours ago
top topics
-
Reprehensible Behavior
US Political Madness: 16 hours ago, 11 flags -
This is adorable you guys!
General Chit Chat: 15 hours ago, 9 flags -
Defending the need for adherence to Old Testament commandments under the new covenant of Christ
Conspiracies in Religions: 17 hours ago, 5 flags -
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness: 4 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
Only two Navy destroyers currently operational as fleet size hits record low
Military Projects • 24 • : Freeborn -
Defending the need for adherence to Old Testament commandments under the new covenant of Christ
Conspiracies in Religions • 27 • : FlyersFan -
Those Fake Death Numbers From Hamas Out Of Gaza
Middle East Issues • 193 • : FlyersFan -
Rant. I am sick of people saying the police are revenue raising.
Rant • 13 • : PorkChop96 -
Light from Space Might Be Travelling Instantaneously
Space Exploration • 28 • : Lazy88 -
More Bad News for Labour and Rachel Reeves Stole Christmas from Working Families
Regional Politics • 9 • : covent -
Democrats send letter to Biden urging him to ratify Equal Rights Amendment
US Political Madness • 2 • : VariedcodeSole -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7914 • : Cymru -
George Stephanopoulos and ABC agree to pay $15 million to settle Trump defamation suit
Mainstream News • 25 • : Echo007 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3713 • : 777Vader