Tag Archives: impeachment

Current Events, Recent Posts

The Not So Magnificent Seven

1 Comment

Remember the movie with a similar name? Yes, they were magnificent, great actors, all seven. But how about these seven. Did you do your research to see who they were? Well, I did and there were no surprises. Hmm, wonder how they’ll do in their next re-election? Of those seven, two are retiring and only one — Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski — faces her state’s voters in the next election cycle, 2022.  But they’ll all do well since Americans have short memories. Anyway, here they are. 

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) attends a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee nomination hearing for Michael Stanley Regan to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC, on February 3, 2021. (Photo by BRANDON BELL / POOL / AFP) (Photo by BRANDON BELL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  Political situation: Burr, who’s served in the Senate since 2005, announced years ago that this term would be his last. Two days after his vote to convict Trump, the North Carolina Republican Party unanimously voted to censure Burr.WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 12: Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) talks to reporters in the Senate subway on his way to the fourth day of the Senates second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol on February 12, 2021 in Washington, DC. Trumps defense team begins their presentation of the defense that Trump should not be held responsible for the January 6th attack at the U.S. Capitol on First Amendment grounds and the fact that he is no longer in office. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)Political situation: The backlash to Cassidy’s vote to convict was swift. The state GOP voted unanimously to censure him, releasing a statement saying it condemns Cassidy’s action.

WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 04: Senator Susan Collins, R-ME, speaks during the confirmation hearing for Labor secretary nominee Marty Walsh testifies before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill February 4, 2021 in Washington, DC. Walsh was previously the mayor of Boston. (Photo by Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images)Political situation: Collins’ next election is in 2026. Like Cassidy, Collins just won reelection in 2020, though her race was much closer in a state Trump lost (he won one electoral vote in the state for winning its 2nd Congressional District).

WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 13: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) talks to a reporter in the Senate subway at the conclusion of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial February 13, 2021 in Washington, DC. The Senate voted 57-43 to acquit Trump. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)Political situation: Murkowski, a senator since 2002, is up for reelection next year, but as Alaska Public Media recently reported, her state’s new election rules likely mean she’ll be in less danger of losing her primary.

WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 10: U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) enters the reception room ahead of the second day of Trumps second impeachment trial on February 10, 2021 in Washington, DC. Today is the second day in Trumps second impeachment trial addressing remarks that he made ahead of the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6. (Photo by Brandon Bell – Pool/Getty Images)Political situation: This wasn’t Romney’s first time harshly criticizing Trump or breaking ranks with his party. He was the only Republican to vote to convict Trump on one article during the former president’s first impeachment trial in early 2020, and in recent weeks was called “a joke” and a “traitor” by Trump supporters while traveling from Utah to Washington, D.C.

Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE speaks during a hearing for Janet Yellen, President-elect Joe Bidens nominee for Secretary of the Treasury,as she participates in a Senate Finance Committee hearing in Washington DC, on January 19, 2021. – Biden, who will take office on January 20, 2021, has proposed a $1.9 trillion rescue package to help businesses and families struggling amid the pandemic, and Yellen would be tasked with getting that massive bill through a Congress where some are wary of the skyrocketing budget deficit. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker / POOL / AFP) (Photo by ANNA MONEYMAKER/POOL/AFP via Getty Images).Political situation: Sasse has spoken out against Trump in strong ways in recent months. In a call with constituents in October, Sasse worried out loud that Trump would bring down the Republican-controlled Senate in November.

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 30: Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) leaves the Senate chamber during a recess in the Senate impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump continues at the U.S. Capitol on January 30, 2020 in Washington, DC. On Thursday, Senators continue asking questions for the House impeachment managers and the president’s defense team. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images).Political situation: Toomey — who like Maine’s Collins represents a state Trump lost in the presidential election — announced in October that he would not seek reelection in 2022.

Any from your State (AK, ME, NE, UT, PA, LA, NC)? None from mine.

Originally posted 2021-02-21 09:47:40.

Recent Posts

Schumer the hypocrite

5 Comments

This post would actually be funny if it weren’t true with just about all politicians across the board. It is amazing how something a politician says or writes can come back and hit them square in the nose, and that happens all the time with this POS and his cohorts in crime. Slimeball Chuckie Schumer’s letter to Clinton about his impeachment in 1999 is not aging well. He held different beliefs about impeachment of a president when it was a Democrat on trial. If you read this letter not knowing who wrote it, these arguments would easily apply to President Trump’s impeachment trial.

Here is the whole letter from Senator Schumer via the Town Hall: (Emphasis theirs)

Statement for the Record of Senator Charles E. Schumer
The Trial of the President
February 11, 1999

Mr. President, this is a day of solemnity and awe. I rise humbled that we are participating in a process that was mapped out more than 200 years ago by the Founding Fathers and that the words we say today will be looked upon by historians and future Congresses for guidance. That is quite a responsibility.

I began this process in the House where it degenerated quickly into bitter acrimony. I would like to say to Majority Leader [Trent] Lott and Minority Leader [Tom] Daschle, and to my new colleagues who have wrestled with this case, that I deeply appreciate your fairness and patience and the way this has been handled with such dignity in the Senate.

Growing up, our country and its government seemed like a mighty oak — strong, rooted, permanent, and grand.

It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in late 20th century America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.

Most troubling to me are the conditions that allowed this to happen, than the small group who precipitated them.

The small group is not the House Managers or particular officeholders of the Republican party.

It is the small group of lawyers and zealots who decided that they would invest time and money to exploit a personal weakness that people knew the President had, find a case to air it publicly, investigate the President’s private life to the point of obsession, and use it to bring him down.

So they found Paula Jones. And whether she was truly wronged or not, we all knew it was a politically motivated case. The people who financed it had no interest in helping Paula Jones. They never lifted a finger to fight for civil rights or for strong sexual harassment laws. It was opportunism pure and simple.

What is so profoundly disturbing is not that this small group of Clinton-haters hatched this plan. It’s that this group — or any group equally dogmatic and cunning — came so close to succeeding.

If you had asked me one year ago if people like this with such obvious political motives could use our courts, play the media and tantalize the legislative branch to achieve their ends of bringing down the President, I would have said “not a chance — that doesn’t happen in America.”

But it almost happened. And in the future it could be a left wing zealous organization or another right wing group or some other group with strong narrow beliefs.

We’ve got to understand how we’ve reached the point where any small group could have so much power.

Of course, mechanically, we can point to a myriad of bad decisions that brought us to the brink.

In all due respect Mr. Chief Justice, the Supreme Court allowed the Paula Jones suit to go forward arguing that it would not lead to politically motivated cases against future presidents and that the case was unlikely to occupy a substantial amount of the President’s time. What a miscalculation. The next President, even if he or she is a saint, will be sued 25 times if we don’t change the law.

Judge Webber Wright ruled that the Jones attorneys were entitled to depose any state or federal employee with whom the President may have had sexual relations. That’s a fishing license.

Ken Starr, the Independent Counsel, was chosen despite a known and documented bias against the President. He behaved like a special prosecutor; not the even-handed, down-the-middle counsel the law required.

But there is something deeper and more troubling at work than the individual mistakes and decisions by the courts and the personal behavior of the President and the Independent Counsel.

What Bill Clinton did was wrong and arrogant — we all agree. We are all angered.

But let’s express some sympathy.

Bill Clinton is an extraordinary but flawed individual. But so are many other revered leaders, including other presidents. And when we knew about their flaws or suspected as much, we didn’t make that a cause celebre — not because we condoned whatever character flaw they might possess, but because we realize that none of us are superhuman.

We are all flawed. “Let him without sin cast the first stone” is no more a cliche today than it was almost 2,000 years ago.

This democracy would not exist if only the perfect among us were allowed to contribute.

Put yourself, put any of us in Bill Clinton’s position — where your enemy is trying to expose your most embarrassing private flaw. Where they find a way to use the most public venue to humiliate you. Where they put you in front of a civil court of law in what seems to you to be a bogus, politically motivated case that should have never seen the light of day.

How would you react? Would you do what Bill Clinton did by trying to walk up to the line of perjury without crossing it? What would be going through your mind? Would you be thinking about the humiliation? Your family? The ridicule?

Bill Clinton really believes that he went up to that line and didn’t cross it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t.

It’s a little arrogant on our part to think any one of us could be so certain that if we saw the very real possibility that everything we loved in our lives — and I don’t mean our jobs — but everything we really cherish to the core, burst into supernova on network television, that we wouldn’t consider trying to walk the same line Bill Clinton walked.

There are many of us in politics and many in the media who carry on and opine as if we and they are perfect.

We’re not.

Maybe we’re seeking an impossible duality. We demand, as we should, that our elected leaders be held to the highest standard. And then we shine the brightest light imaginable to expose those who don’t measure up.

But, of course, no one can meet that standard, particularly under the blinding bright glare of late 20th century light.

There is a fundamental question our society must address — how do we keep our standards high but at the same time accept, as the Founding Fathers did, that our leaders are only human.

Related to this is a second underlying cause that has allowed this small group of zealots to almost undo the President.

It seems we have lost the ability to forcefully advocate for our position without trying to criminalize or at least dishonor our adversaries — often over matters having nothing to do with the public trust. And it is hurting the country; it is marginalizing and polarizing the Congress.

In today’s environment, it would be easy, but wrong, for Democrats to lay the blame for this predicament simply on a narrow band of right-wing zealots out to destroy Bill Clinton.

It would be easy, but wrong, for Republicans to say that the only reason Bill Clinton survived this scandal is a strong economy.

What began 25 years ago with Watergate as a solemn and necessary process to force a President to adhere to the rule of law, has grown beyond our control so that now we are routinely using criminal accusations and scandal to win the political battles and ideological differences we cannot settle at the ballot box.

Both parties are to blame.

In what was close to a mirror image of this case — John Tower was a tremendous senator and was perfectly capable of serving our nation as Defense Secretary. He was ruined in a political feeding frenzy that was meant to shame him.

Newt Gingrich came to power by destroying others. He was destroyed by the same means.

The ledger is pretty much even between the two parties, but it has become more partisan and bitter. It is reminiscent of the Oresteia, a trilogy of ancient Greek plays by Aeschylus.

In the Oresteia, the warring factions of the House of Atreus trapped themselves in an escalating chain of revenge such that at the end of the chain, Atreus served his brother a pie that contained his own brother’s murdered children. Each side escalated until both sides were destroyed.
We risk our Congress becoming a House of Atreus.

In conclusion, we have all been shaken by these last six months, but there are two glowing beacons of optimism — two strong oaks that still stand mightily.

The first is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Every year I live, and every year I serve I am ever increasingly amazed at their wisdom and genius.
They didn’t know there would be political parties, but a simple mathematical fraction — two-thirds — a two-thirds majority in the “cooling saucer of the Senate” meant that removal of a President from office would have to involve more than the whims of a narrow band of politicians.

We walked up to the abyss and it was simply the elegant mathematics of the Founding Fathers that kept us from going over.

They have pulled America back from the brink of future chaos that might have occurred if we removed the President for human frailties and low crimes. God bless the Founding Fathers.

The second oak is the American people. They are not necessarily as informed as we are on the intricate particularities of this case. They didn’t follow every twist and turn. They knew that what the President did was wrong.

But they knew that the President’s wrongdoing reflected human frailty rather than malevolence or any abuse of power or duty. They knew from their common sense wisdom that this did not rise to the level of impeachment and removal either as defined by the Constitution or as defined by their common sense of justice, fairness, and right and wrong. They knew that if they were in Clinton’s shoes, they weren’t sure how they would react.
Many of my colleagues excoriate any mention of the polls. But my colleagues on this side of the aisle have cited the polls not as politicians putting their fingers in the wind, but as a measure of what the American people feel.

In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, that is a legitimate consideration in deciding whether a President should be removed. And for six months, the American people in every segment of the country have been unwavering in their view that the President should not be removed.

They remain unshakable in their belief that the Congress, the Courts, and the press had gone too far. They were the only, truly rational actor in the whole drama. God bless them.

The people and the founders are the twin oaks that stand tall amidst this sad episode of American history. But if the cycle of political recrimination and scandalizing continues, the American people will become more alienated and cynical and shaken by the political process and they, too, will lose faith in the great instrument the Founding Fathers have given us.

If it gets to the point where the American people become too cynical we could lose it all.

After this is over let’s end the recriminations. Let’s not blame Ken Starr, or bash the President, or scapegoat the House Managers. Let’s instead think about what brought us to this point.

Let us shake hands and say we are now going to forego bringing down people for political gain. Let us understand that our leaders have foibles, and though we must be held to a higher standard, let us not make it a sport to expose those weaknesses.

The American people have saved us from ourselves. Let’s not ask them to do it too many more times.

Originally posted 2020-01-22 14:08:58.

Recent Posts

Impeachment Coup Analytics

2 Comments

A very well written article by someone with a brain and knows how to use it, oh, and BTW, a Californian.

The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.

Victor Davis Hanson

– September 29th, 2019

Aside from the emotional issue that Democrats, Never-Trumpers, and celebrities loathe Donald Trump, recently Representative Al Green (D-Texas) reminded us why the Democrats are trying to impeach the president rather than just defeat him in the 2020 general election.

“To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice, would do our nation a disservice,” Green said.  “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.”

Translated, that means Green accepts either that Trump’s record is too formidable or that the agendas of his own party’s presidential candidates are too frightening for the American people to elect one of them. And that possibility is simply not permissible. Thus, impeachment is the only mechanism left to abort an eight-year Trump presidency—on a purely partisan vote to preclude an election, and thus contrary to the outlines of impeachment as set out by the Constitution.

Consider it another way: Why is it that the House is controlled by Democrats, yet its leadership is not pushing through any of the policy proposals voiced so openly on the Democratic primary stage?

Why aren’t progressive representatives introducing bills to pay reparations to African Americans, to legalize infanticide in some cases of late-term abortion, to offer free medical care to illegal aliens, to confiscate AR-15s, to extend Medicare for all, to impose a wealth tax and raise top rates to between 70 and 90 percent, to abolish student debt and ensure free college for all, or to grant blanket amnesty to those currently living in the country illegally?

Simple answer: none of those issues poll anywhere near 50 percent approval. And no Democratic candidate would expect to beat Trump as the emissary of such an agenda.

If the economy was in a recession, if we were embroiled in another Iraq-like or Vietnam-sort of war, and if Trump’s polls were below 40 percent, then the Democrats would just wait 13 months and defeat him at the polls.

But without a viable agenda and because they doubt they can stop Trump’s reelection bid, they feel they have no recourse but to impeach. If Trump were to be reelected, not a shred of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” would be left, and the strict constructionist Supreme Court would haunt progressives for a quarter-century.

Why Impeachment Now?

The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.

Think of what we have witnessed since the 2016 election. Do we even remember charges that voting machines in the 2016 election were rigged, and the efforts to subvert Electoral College voting, or to invoke the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, and the 25th Amendment?

The “collusion” and “obstruction” fantasies of the Mueller investigation now seem like ancient history. So do the James Comey leaks, the palace coup of Andrew McCabe, the Trump tax records, the celebrity rhetoric about blowing up, shooting, stabbing, burning and variously killing off the president of the United States—along with the satellite frenzies of Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, Charlottesville, Jussie Smollett, the Covington Kids, and the Kavanaugh hearings.

What is left but to try the new “Ukraine collusion”—especially given three other considerations?

First, volatile and always changing polls appearing to favor impeachment roughly reflect Trump’s own popularity (or lack of same). Around 45-46 percent of Americans do not want him impeached and about the same or slightly more say they do.

Second, the hard left-wing of the party might not yet control all the Democrats, but it does not matter because they are clearly younger, more energized, and better organized. And they want something to show for all their social media and photo-op grandstanding, given their socialist agenda is mysteriously moribund.

Third, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is said to oppose impeachment on pragmatic grounds, but I am not sure that is right. It’s the equivalent of saying Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was opposed to the progressive character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh. Neither is or was true.

A better description would be that Pelosi and Feinstein simply go along with the perceived 51-plus percent surge of their party, and sit back gleefully watching the fireworks happen, willing to jump in or pull back depending on the atmospherics and polling. Impeachment, remember, will make the Kavanaugh hearings look like a seminar on etiquette, and so everything and anything can happen once dozens of unhinged leftists are unbound.

Be prepared for a half-dozen Christine Blasey Ford-type witnesses to pop up, and 20 or so unhinged Cory Booker-esque “I am Spartacus” performance acts, along with a whole slew of new Steele dossiers—all interspersed with breathless CNN bulletins announcing new fake news developments with “the walls are closing in” and “the end is near” prognostications. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is already reading fantasies to the House Intelligence Committee and passing them off as the text of Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s new president. Only after he was called on such absurdities did he describe his performance as a parody.

Facts Won’t Matter that Much

The Left is hellbent on impeachment and the absence of a case won’t matter. They do not care if they will sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

In the coming days, after all, we will probably learn that the whistle blower’s “Schiff dossier” was prepared by ex-Lawfare-type lawyers in service to House Democrats, who just needed a vessel to pass off the hit as a genuine cry of the heart, rather than a scripted attack with all the Steele dossier/Mueller report/Comey memo fingerprints: classification obfuscations, footnotes to liberal media hit pieces, pseudo-scholarly references to court cases, and lawsuit-avoiding, preemptive disclaimers about not actually possessing firsthand knowledge of any of the evidence, prepped hearsay, supposition, and the subjunctive and optative mood composition.

In a sane world, the impeachers would worry their charges that Trump forced Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to investigate his possible 2020 Democratic opponent Joe Biden might boomerang. After all, Trump never actually cut off Ukrainian aid. Nor did he outline a quid pro quo deal. Essentially he is accused of unduly asking a foreign president to clamp down on corruption in his midst going back to 2016. So what? Especially if there is something more to the strange antics of Hunter Biden and CrowdStrike.

Biden’s problems are not such thought crimes, but are confirmed by his own boasting: that he used the clout of the United States to help his own family financially, by threatening to cut off U.S. aid unless a Ukrainian state prosecutor looking into his own son’s suspicious lobbying was fired within six hours. And in Biden’s own words, “Son of a bitch,” he was fired.

In contrast, Trump might have been all over the map in his call, but he kept the aid to Ukraine coming without demanding the scalp of any Ukrainian official. In some sense, Trump’s culpability boils down to one issue: progressives believe that in not-too-veiled a manner, he threatened a foreign government to start going after the Biden family without cause, whose patriarch Joe might be Trump’s 2020 election opponent.

The other half of the country believes that what is material is not Biden’s current transient electoral status (he is not now and may not be the Democratic nominee), but the fact that he was vice president of the United States when he used his office to threaten the loss of foreign aid to stop investigations of his son, who was using his father’s position to further his own profiteering.

Given that Trump denies any quid pro quo and his call supports that fact, while Biden, on the other hand, openly brags that he made threats which made the Ukrainian to cave (“in six hours”), one can draw one’s own conclusions.

For now, we await more documents—with caveats that the canny Ukrainians, for their own self-interest, will predicate their release of information on the likelihood of which party will win the 2020 election.

The Left hints it has lots of incriminating documents outlining a quid pro quo threat; conservatives suspect that Ukrainian and legal documents will show the prosecutor was neither unethical nor uninterested in Hunter Biden, but was fired precisely because he was not corrupt and very much concerned with Biden.

As far as precedent, there is a good recent example. Barack Obama got caught promising to consider cuts in Eastern-European-based missile defense if Vladimir Putin would give him some room during his reelection campaign.

Translated into Adam Schiff’s Mafiosi parody lingo: Putin would calm down on the international stage to make the U.S.-Russia “reset” look good, Obama would then get rid of Eastern-European missile defense, and Obama would get reelected in 2012.

And all three of those events transpired as planned—one can surmise whether any of the three would have happened without Obama compliance with Russian conditions. Remember, Obama’s quid pro quo was caught on a hot mic on the premise that what he said to Russian President Medvedev was never supposed to be heard. “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved,” Obama said. “But it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space . . . This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Once that understanding was excused, and the media was mute about such collusion, can any notion of collusion as a crime still exist?

Conspiracy Theories

Finally, who are the winners in these impeachment psychodramas, both short-term and long-term?

Short-term, Trump may lose traction due to the media frenzy. He lost some of his ongoing momentum that had recently seen his polls steadily creeping up. He gave a fine speech at the United Nations and sounded presidential in his talks with foreign leaders—all overshadowed or now forgotten due to the impeachment psychodrama.

Trump’s critics have become emboldened, Left and Right. The Drudge Report has flip-flopped and is as anti-Trump as Vox or Slate. Many at National Review call for or anticipate impeachment without much regret. Likewise, some at Fox News—Shepard Smith, Andrew Napolitano, and Chris Wallace—are nonstop critics of Trump and hardly disguise their contempt.

The leftist media is on uppers, and completely ecstatic in moth-to-flame fashion, as if it were May 2017 again and Trump’s demise was a day away.

Because Joe Biden faces far more legal exposure than Trump, he is mentioned (if even to contextualize and exonerate him) in every news account of Ukraine. Whether or not Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or her erstwhile henchwoman, Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), was behind this gambit, does not matter. (Nothing much from either one had worked to slow down Biden in the last six months). Biden is simply not physically or mentally up to a year of cross-examination. And Hunter Biden is more unsteady than Joe and will thus be hard to locate.

We are starting to see the outlines of a progressive fantasy on the horizon: Biden will be sacrificed. The party will unite around Warren. The left-wing media narrative will be, “We took out one of our own, now it is your turn to depose Trump.” Chaos overload for two or three weeks might keep Trump’s polling low.

Long-term, however, Trump wins.

We still have a number of government audits coming from Michael Horowitz, John Durham, and John Huber—and the targets are not Trump. The Senate will not convict the president under any foreseeable circumstances. The full story of the whistleblower has not been told, but there are a lot of narratives to come about the sudden rules allowing hearsay, DNC involvement, and who knew far in advance about the complainant’s writ. Once the Democratic debates continue, the candidates’ screaming and hysterics return, and the impeachment hearings descend into a Kavanaugh-esque farce, the public will begin to get scared again by the Left’s shrieking Jacobins. Schiff’s “parody” is a small foretaste of what’s to come. Voters soon will surmise that the only thing between their 401k plans and socialism is Donald J. Trump.

Warren or her possible facsimile is a weaker candidate than even the enfeebled Biden. Her lack of viability will be of enormous advantage in NeverHillary-fashion to Trump. His fundraising, already ascendant, will hit the stratosphere. The idea that the new and old NeverTrumpers will be on the side of socialism will finally discredit them. Wall Street and Silicon Valley will keep trashing Trump, but privately write checks to stop Warren’s wealth tax that would be only the beginning of her Venezuelization of America.

So if Trump’s health holds out, if we don’t have a recession, if there is not an optional war, and Trump endures the next few weeks of 360-degree, 24/7 targeting, 2020 will be far more favorable than ever imaginable for him.

 

Originally posted 2019-10-06 09:31:20.