Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

The trials and tribulations of an ex-president (including SCOTUS on the 14th amendment)

13468958

Comments

  • There was an interesting exchange at the close of today's statements from the Prosecution. They had mentioned Trump's phone calls to Sen. Tommy Tuckersomething, the coach who got elected last year. Both Trump and Giuliani had called Sen. Mike Lee, because they thought his number was Tuckerville's (?). The prosecutors related the content of the conversation in their statements.

    Lee got to his feet and asked the Presiding Officer to strike that part of the Prosecution's statement from the record, on the grounds that they were wrong.

    I expected the Presiding Officer or the Prosecution to tell Sen Lee to give evidence, or shut the hell up. But that didn't happen, and I was wondering why not. My gut told me to get that bloke in the box and ask him about a million questions about that day, and other communications with Trump too. He strikes me as a bloke who could be bamboozled under heavy cross examination.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    There was an interesting exchange at the close of today's statements from the Prosecution. They had mentioned Trump's phone calls to Sen. Tommy Tuckersomething, the coach who got elected last year. Both Trump and Giuliani had called Sen. Mike Lee, because they thought his number was Tuckerville's (?).
    Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Alabama.

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I watched some of the Defence lawyers and I though I was watching a really badly written skit. I had difficulty believing it was the real thing - they are so inept.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    There was an interesting exchange at the close of today's statements from the Prosecution. They had mentioned Trump's phone calls to Sen. Tommy Tuckersomething, the coach who got elected last year. Both Trump and Giuliani had called Sen. Mike Lee, because they thought his number was Tuckerville's (?). The prosecutors related the content of the conversation in their statements.

    Lee got to his feet and asked the Presiding Officer to strike that part of the Prosecution's statement from the record, on the grounds that they were wrong.

    I expected the Presiding Officer or the Prosecution to tell Sen Lee to give evidence, or shut the hell up. But that didn't happen, and I was wondering why not. My gut told me to get that bloke in the box and ask him about a million questions about that day, and other communications with Trump too. He strikes me as a bloke who could be bamboozled under heavy cross examination.

    I'm wondering if "bamboozled" doesn't mean something different where you are than where I am.
  • Lee probably just wants to keep his head down and not be cited as providing some kind of evidence against Trump.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    The party that repudiated Nixon can't repudiate Trump. Is that because by the letter of the law he committed no unconstitutional offence? Whereas Nixon lied and conspired on tape.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    The party that repudiated Nixon can't repudiate Trump. Is that because by the letter of the law he committed no unconstitutional offence? Whereas Nixon lied and conspired on tape.

    Nope.

    It comes down to the fact that they've never properly repudiated Nixon. Look at Iran-Contra for the lessons the GOP learned from that affair.

    By the letter of the law, Trump has committed multiple High Crimes and Misdemeanours. This is only in doubt due to the unbelievable blinkers worn by some who are too deeply down the rabbit hole to notice or too cynical to care.

    AFZ
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited February 2021
    The GOP dropped Nixon. And yes, they certainly learned for Iran-Contra. So what High Crimes and Misdemeanours has Trump committed comparable to lying on tape about Watergate and the cover-up three days after it happened, deleting 18.5 even more incriminatory minutes, and suppressing that for over two years? Apart from doubling down on his five years of public lies for the Presidency?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    The GOP dropped Nixon. And yes, they certainly learned for Iran-Contra. So what High Crimes and Misdemeanours has Trump committed comparable to lying on tape about Watergate and the cover-up three days after it happened, deleting 18.5 even more incriminatory minutes, and suppressing that for over two years? Apart from doubling down on his five years of public lies for the Presidency?

    Isn't there a hole in the logic here? Impeachment isn't just for 'behaving like Nixon'. It's for 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors' which can include a whole host of things. In this particular case it's for 'incitement of insurrection'.

    To put it slightly more generally, Nixon was accused of trying to rig the election. Trump is accused of trying to violently overthrow the result of the election. If we put it even more generally, both Nixon and Trump are accused of subverting democracy. So ultimately they are challenged for the same reason - but the facts that the details are different doesn't make impeachment inappropriate for Trump.

    And this is all before pointing out that expecting all impeachments to be just like Nixon fails in that he resigned before he was impeached. So it would be trying to take a precedent from a case that never actually happened.

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    The GOP dropped Nixon. And yes, they certainly learned for Iran-Contra. So what High Crimes and Misdemeanours has Trump committed comparable to lying on tape about Watergate and the cover-up three days after it happened, deleting 18.5 even more incriminatory minutes, and suppressing that for over two years? Apart from doubling down on his five years of public lies for the Presidency?

    1. Read the Mueller Report.
    2. Bribery and Corruption (Impeachment 1)
    3. Inciting Sedition (Impeachment 2)

    In the Mueller Report, there is clear documentation that he was welcoming Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Whilst the evidence there does not quite reach the level of criminal proof, the second part of the report demonstrated 10 episodes of obstruction of justice (i.e. abuse of power by the president). At least 7 of these would result in a conviction in the opinion of a large number of experienced prosecutors.

    In the case of Trump's first impeachment, it is documented that he used the resources of the government of the US to attempt to convince a foreign government to cause damage to a political rival.

    In the current case, the connection between Trump and the violence unleashed on the Capitol building is inescapable. (As is being very well laid-out, expertly by the Impeachment Managers as we speak).

    This is a very short post, there are pages that could be written. The better question is which High Crimes and Misdemeanors has Trump not committed?

    AFZ
  • No doubt the Republican Senators who will be up for reelection this next go-around will have to answer for their vote. The Democrats will hit hard if they refuse to vote to convict, but the Trumpians will also hit hard if they vote to convict. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

    However, the prognosticators are pointing out that while only five Republicans voted to continue the trial, now it appears 11 Republicans just may vote to convict. The video tapes are very hard to refute.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    No doubt the Republican Senators who will be up for reelection this next go-around will have to answer for their vote. The Democrats will hit hard if they refuse to vote to convict, but the Trumpians will also hit hard if they vote to convict. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

    However, the prognosticators are pointing out that while only five Republicans voted to continue the trial, now it appears 11 Republicans just may vote to convict. The video tapes are very hard to refute.

    Yep. I don't think it will be 17. But I wouldn't rule it out, either.

    I know you didn't mean it this way but I don't like the rock and hard place metaphor here, very much. I mean, in an electoral sense it's clearly true but if you take anything close to a moral position, it's really obvious what they need to do.

    AFZ
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    The GOP dropped Nixon.

    Again, not really. One of the later talking points by the GOP is that "Nixon did nothing wrong". Seriously, Google that exact phrase and see what pops up. There are even t-shirts.

    For those who are interested in watching day 3 of the second Senate trial of the impeachment of Donald Trump (Impeachapalooza!) the livestream is here. Proceedings are scheduled to begin at noon Eastern Time (17:00 UTC).
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited February 2021
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The GOP dropped Nixon.

    Again, not really. One of the later talking points by the GOP is that "Nixon did nothing wrong". Seriously, Google that exact phrase and see what pops up. There are even t-shirts.

    For those who are interested in watching day 3 of the second Senate trial of the impeachment of Donald Trump (Impeachapalooza!) the livestream is here. Proceedings are scheduled to begin at noon Eastern Time (17:00 UTC).

    Yeah, but he got caught. He was stupid enough to break the 11th commandment. That's why they dropped him. Trump has broken no commandments apart apart from the 9th every time he's opened his mouth for at least the past five years, facilitated by Twitter, Fox et al and doubled down whenever challenged. And certainly no law. So the GOP has no political reason to 'convict' in the Senate. Any more than it did on the previous impeachment. There is no other reason is there?

    Of course he's guilty. So what?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The GOP dropped Nixon.
    Again, not really. One of the later talking points by the GOP is that "Nixon did nothing wrong". Seriously, Google that exact phrase and see what pops up. There are even t-shirts.

    Yeah, but he got caught. He was stupid enough to break the 11th commandment. That's why they dropped him.

    He spoke ill of fellow Republicans?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Trump has broken no commandments apart apart from the 9th every time he's opened his mouth for at least the past five years, facilitated by Twitter, Fox et al and doubled down whenever challenged.

    Trump frequently badmouths fellow Republicans who he feels are disloyal to him.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    There was an interesting exchange at the close of today's statements from the Prosecution. They had mentioned Trump's phone calls to Sen. Tommy Tuckersomething, the coach who got elected last year. Both Trump and Giuliani had called Sen. Mike Lee, because they thought his number was Tuckerville's (?). The prosecutors related the content of the conversation in their statements.

    Lee got to his feet and asked the Presiding Officer to strike that part of the Prosecution's statement from the record, on the grounds that they were wrong.

    Lee and Tuberville may have inadvertently drawn attention to something that might have gone unnoticed otherwise.
    Newly elected Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) told reporters Wednesday night, following the second day of the former president’s impeachment trial, that Trump had called for his help in delaying election certification the afternoon of the U.S. Capitol attack but he had told Trump that Pence had just been taken from the Senate and he couldn’t talk just then.

    “He didn’t get a chance to say a whole lot because I said, ‘Mr. President, they just took the vice president out. I’ve got to go,’” Tuberville said.

    According to video footage from that day, Pence was removed from the Senate at 2:14 p.m. after rioters had broken into the Capitol, meaning that when Trump lashed out at Pence at 2:24 p.m., he already knew Pence’s life was in danger.

    “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,” Trump wrote in his tweet.

    So not only does Trump speak ill of fellow Republicans, he tries to get them lynched.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And certainly no law.

    Violent overthrow of the government is illegal. So is incitement.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited February 2021
    So charge him. Arrest the son of a bitch and charge him. A convene a grand jury at least. And over this side of the pond, the 11th is don't get caught.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Or... (I've not touched a drop.)
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Trump has broken no commandments apart apart from the 9th every time he's opened his mouth for at least the past five years, facilitated by Twitter, Fox et al and doubled down whenever challenged. And certainly no law.

    This is just nonsense. He's broken literally dozens...

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited February 2021
    Uh huh. What jury has found that? In what court?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Uh huh. What jury has found that? In what court?

    Give it time...

    But it's not really a matter of debate. Never mind the stuff I've already mentioned, he has committed a felony in Georgia.

    The law says it's a crime to request, encourage, pressure, bribe etc. anyone to enter a vote tally that you know to be false. In the recorded phone call with the Governor, Trump said that he won by 400,000 votes and that he wanted the Governor to enter a tally of 11,800 more. I.e. a number he knew was wrong. He cajoled and threatened the Governor.

    Of course, it's also pretty clear that he's committed both tax and insurance fraud.

    It is accurate to state he has not been convicted of a crime. It is a HUGE stretch to say he's never committed a crime.

    AFZ
  • Even if it goes to criminal court, no matter where it is going to be damned hard to find an impartial jury to convict. Nearly everyone has an opinion of Trump, pro or con. It only takes one juror to disagree with the findings of the rest of jury to send the case into a mistrial. Trump has boasted he could shoot someone in the center of New York and he would not be convicted.

    Trump has long glorified violence for his cause. He has no soul.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Of course he has AFZ, but the Devil looks after his own.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Of course he has AFZ, but the Devil looks after his own.

    Are you gonna stop now, with this ridiculous nonsense?

    No one is arguing that he should be imprisoned without due process. However, I will stipulate that much as he has tried to place himself such that he is above the law. He isn't. Or rather shouldn't be. On that particular issue, USA, the jury is most definitely out.

    Or to put it another way, apparently I am not allowed to be aware of the facts and draw a conclusion.

    AFZ
  • I think that given a large enough jury pool, an impartial jury could be seated. Lord knows I've been called to more than one voir dire where literally hundreds of candidates were called because the case was a notorious one. Or it could always be a bench trial, where only the judge would decide the verdict.
  • I'm pretty sure that, given the choice, he'd go for a jury trial every time just to drag things out and fuck up the system.
  • I'm pretty sure that, given the choice, he'd go for a jury trial every time just to drag things out and fuck up the system.

    I'm putting an outside bet on him going full Sovereign Citizen if it goes to trial.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Of course he has AFZ, but the Devil looks after his own.

    Are you gonna stop now, with this ridiculous nonsense?

    No one is arguing that he should be imprisoned without due process. However, I will stipulate that much as he has tried to place himself such that he is above the law. He isn't. Or rather shouldn't be. On that particular issue, USA, the jury is most definitely out.

    Or to put it another way, apparently I am not allowed to be aware of the facts and draw a conclusion.

    AFZ

    Why are you kidding yourself? It's politically impossible for him to face the consequences of his naked fascism. This is partisan party political theatre with no consequences whatsoever. What can affect him - yeah I know, a majority vote in the Senate, when? - or fascist .... like Cruz or that other .... fascist ...... Hawley from becoming president in 2025?
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Of course he has AFZ, but the Devil looks after his own.

    Are you gonna stop now, with this ridiculous nonsense?

    No one is arguing that he should be imprisoned without due process. However, I will stipulate that much as he has tried to place himself such that he is above the law. He isn't. Or rather shouldn't be. On that particular issue, USA, the jury is most definitely out.

    Or to put it another way, apparently I am not allowed to be aware of the facts and draw a conclusion.

    AFZ

    No, he'll continue to post bollocks (he's within his rights if he sticks to forum rules) while people respond. Just scroll past.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Of course he has AFZ, but the Devil looks after his own.

    Are you gonna stop now, with this ridiculous nonsense?

    No one is arguing that he should be imprisoned without due process. However, I will stipulate that much as he has tried to place himself such that he is above the law. He isn't. Or rather shouldn't be. On that particular issue, USA, the jury is most definitely out.

    Or to put it another way, apparently I am not allowed to be aware of the facts and draw a conclusion.

    AFZ

    No, he'll continue to post bollocks (he's within his rights if he sticks to forum rules) while people respond. Just scroll past.

    So, the white hats are going to win are they? Fascism isn't inextricable from the GOP mainstream. You know something that I don't? An antithesis to the 'bollocks', i.e. the way the world works? Yeah. Scroll on. You've got NOTHING to say after all.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    There was an interesting exchange at the close of today's statements from the Prosecution. They had mentioned Trump's phone calls to Sen. Tommy Tuckersomething, the coach who got elected last year. Both Trump and Giuliani had called Sen. Mike Lee, because they thought his number was Tuckerville's (?). The prosecutors related the content of the conversation in their statements.

    Lee got to his feet and asked the Presiding Officer to strike that part of the Prosecution's statement from the record, on the grounds that they were wrong.

    I expected the Presiding Officer or the Prosecution to tell Sen Lee to give evidence, or shut the hell up. But that didn't happen, and I was wondering why not. My gut told me to get that bloke in the box and ask him about a million questions about that day, and other communications with Trump too. He strikes me as a bloke who could be bamboozled under heavy cross examination.

    I'm wondering if "bamboozled" doesn't mean something different where you are than where I am.

    I don't think so... I'm using it to mean 'to confuse, frustrate or throw off completely'.
  • Ah. The most common use in my experience is "to trick people into giving up money or some other good".
  • Wesley JWesley J Circus Host
    I'm with Mr S Toad on this one.
  • I reckon we are both right :smile: Pond difference as to more frequent meaning?
  • 'To confuse' as ST says is what I thought.
    I can see it could be taken as 'to confuse for trickery or financial gain.'
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I reckon we are both right :smile: Pond difference as to more frequent meaning?
    Not sure it’s a Pond difference. I don’t know that in my experience one use is more frequent than the other.

  • For those who are interested, day 4 of the second Senate trial of Donald Trump will be livestreaming here, starting around noon Eastern Time (17:00 UTC). Today is supposed to be the start of Trump's defense presentation. They have 16 hours to make their case which would mean stretching it over two days, but the legal team said they'd likely only need one. I guess you don't get what you (most likely) won't pay for.
  • Wesley JWesley J Circus Host
    And here's a link to the NY Times live text commentary, with live video (if so desired): NYT. I'm just glancing at the text every now and then, don't think I want to see and hear the defence attorneys really.
  • Looks like they're going with the Whatabout Defense.
  • Wesley JWesley J Circus Host
    Yep. And the NYT have a 'supreme' court reporter. - Wait. A 'supreme court' reporter.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Now they're on to "the impeachment procedures laid out in the Constitution are un-Constitutional".
  • And on another legal front:
    “This letter is notice that the Fulton County District Attorney has opened an investigation into attempts to influence the administration of the 2020 Georgia General Election,” [ Fulton County District Attorney Fani ] Willis wrote in correspondences delivered Wednesday morning to Raffensperger, Gov. Brian Kemp, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan and Attorney General Chris Carr.

    Willis told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday that her office was best suited to handle the investigation since all other relevant state investigative agencies have conflicts. In her letter, Willis said her office “is the one agency with jurisdiction that is not a witness to the conduct that is the subject of the investigation.”

    <snip>

    “This investigation includes, but is not limited to, potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration,” Willis wrote.

    The Donald called down to Georgia
    He was lookin' for some votes to steal
    He was in a bind 'cause he was way behind
    And he was willin' to make a deal . . .
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The Donald called down to Georgia
    He was lookin' for some votes to steal
    He was in a bind 'cause he was way behind
    And he was willin' to make a deal . . .

    That's very good. The Donald's fiddle was made of gold, too (of course) - but he lost it. He's not gonna like not being the best there's ever been...
  • Wesley JWesley J Circus Host
    He's lost it. But to be frank, I don't think he'd ever got it. Anything.

    Short extract from the NYT text feed, link further up:
    Maggie Haberman, White House Correspondent

    This entire argument from Castor is the same one the Trump White House made for four years – for every controversy, Trump was either joking or being taken out of context.

    Sadness.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Crœsos wrote: »
    And on another legal front:
    “This letter is notice that the Fulton County District Attorney has opened an investigation into attempts to influence the administration of the 2020 Georgia General Election,” [ Fulton County District Attorney Fani ] Willis wrote in correspondences delivered Wednesday morning to Raffensperger, Gov. Brian Kemp, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan and Attorney General Chris Carr.

    Willis told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday that her office was best suited to handle the investigation since all other relevant state investigative agencies have conflicts. In her letter, Willis said her office “is the one agency with jurisdiction that is not a witness to the conduct that is the subject of the investigation.”

    <snip>

    “This investigation includes, but is not limited to, potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration,” Willis wrote.

    The Donald called down to Georgia
    He was lookin' for some votes to steal
    He was in a bind 'cause he was way behind
    And he was willin' to make a deal . . .

    Fire on the mountain, run boy, run!

    Bliss.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Do you over that side of the pond think this is a waste of time, in that Trump will not be impeached or will it actually be useful. Was it not worth sending him straight to NYC ?
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Do you over that side of the pond think this is a waste of time, in that Trump will not be impeached or will it actually be useful. Was it not worth sending him straight to NYC ?

    Politically speaking, I think it's a waste of time. The US is about to embark on several years worth of federal-court trials, involving dozens of defendants, in which many of the defense lawyers will be blaming DJT for their clients' actions.

    Regardless of the outcome, those trials will keep the riot and Trump's culpability for them in the public eye, moreso than a few days of impeachment which will likely result in official vindication anyway.

    Now, that's not to say the impeachment shouldn't take place, from the POV of basic justice. (Though if it does result in an acquital, it probably won't have much deterent effect on any future POTUS who knows he has a majority of Senators willing to back him.)

    CAVEAT: I am literally a citizen of a country "across the pond", but not the USA, and I live in East Asia.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Do you over that side of the pond think this is a waste of time, in that Trump will not be impeached or will it actually be useful. Was it not worth sending him straight to NYC ?

    Politically speaking, I think it's a waste of time. The US is about to embark on several years worth of federal-court trials, involving dozens of defendants, in which many of the defense lawyers will be blaming DJT for their clients' actions.

    Regardless of the outcome, those trials will keep the riot and Trump's culpability for them in the public eye, moreso than a few days of impeachment which will likely result in official vindication anyway.

    Now, that's not to say the impeachment shouldn't take place, from the POV of basic justice. (Though if it does result in an acquital, it probably won't have much deterent effect on any future POTUS who knows he has a majority of Senators willing to back him.)

    CAVEAT: I am literally a citizen of a country "across the pond", but not the USA, and I live in East Asia.

    It depends. It remains likely that the Senate will acquit. The job of the Dems over the next 18 months is to make the Senators who vote to acquit pay the price at the ballot box. It's not easy; it's a big fight* but the long term payoff from winning it vs the long term cost of not even trying is HUGE.

    The historical record that the Impeachment Managers have now established is pretty powerful.

    YMMV - I'm just an interested outsider who pays attention.

    AFZ

    *interpret this word how you wish... :wink:
  • @alienfromzog

    Yeah, I personally don't think there's gonna be a lot of blowback against GOP senators who vote to acquit, no no matter what the Dems do. Those senators likely know their voters pretty well, and know what they can and cannot get away with.

    I mean, MAYBE if you're a voter who really loves Mike Pence personally, AND you've got it front-and-centre in your mind that the mob was chanting "Hang Pence!", AND you've got it front-and-centre in your mind that Trump incited those sentiments, then you MIGHT want Trump convicted.

    But even then, I think there's gonna be a lot of cognitive-dissonance at play: Trump and the mob will blame each other for wanting to kill Pence, and a lot of Republicans will somehow manage to be simultaneously pro-Trump, pro-mob, and pro-Pence.
  • stetson wrote: »
    @alienfromzog

    Yeah, I personally don't think there's gonna be a lot of blowback against GOP senators who vote to acquit, no no matter what the Dems do. Those senators likely know their voters pretty well, and know what they can and cannot get away with.

    I mean, MAYBE if you're a voter who really loves Mike Pence personally, AND you've got it front-and-centre in your mind that the mob was chanting "Hang Pence!", AND you've got it front-and-centre in your mind that Trump incited those sentiments, then you MIGHT want Trump convicted.

    But even then, I think there's gonna be a lot of cognitive-dissonance at play: Trump and the mob will blame each other for wanting to kill Pence, and a lot of Republicans will somehow manage to be simultaneously pro-Trump, pro-mob, and pro-Pence.

    Yep. But I still (wrongly?) believe that not all Republicans belong in the Trump-cult box...

    It does seem to me to be an absolute imperative for the nation to try.

    There are some interesting indicators; GOP registration has fallen by record numbers... in 2020 Trump was less popular than his party. Tie the party to Trump and they're in trouble...

    If. If.

    The alternative of ignoring GOP insanity and hoping for the institutions to save the Republic is the strategy of the past 30-40 years and it has failed.

    Thus I can see no justification for not trying.

    AFZ
  • Have the R Senators had polling done among their voters to see which way the wind is blowing or do they already know based on what the loudest in the party in their states are saying!
Sign In or Register to comment.