Page 43 of 45 FirstFirst ... 343536373839404142434445 LastLast
Results 631 to 645 of 665

Thread: The Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

  1. #631
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,234
    Quote Originally Posted by surfgun View Post
    Can't wait to see what kind of shit Trump dives into after the Senate votes to acquit.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  2. #632
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,234
    Prepare for an even more unhinged President Trump as this impeachment trial comes to an end

    On Wednesday, Alan Dershowitz basically argued that President Trump was a king. By Thursday, Senate Republicans were indicating they would happily pick up the crown and place it on Trump's head.

    We've long known the acquittal of President Trump was all but certain, but how we got there mattered. The arguments from House impeachment managers and Trump's lawyers mattered. Whether the trial was fair mattered. In the end, what the American people were given was more akin to a coverup than a trial. Senate Republicans have now acknowledged that President Trump is guilty of what he's accused of and they just won't do anything about it.

    The two days of the Senate trial's Q&A session can be summed up in three sentences: President Trump's lawyers made an authoritarian argument that he's above the law. The House impeachment managers argued he's not. Senate Republicans sided with Trump and put a rubber stamp on authoritarianism. As House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) put it, what we saw in Trump's defense over the course of this trial was "a descent into constitutional madness."

    The crux of Dershowitz's argument was that even if President Trump was looking out for his own personal interests when withholding the aid from Ukraine and pushing for the probes, that's not impeachable. Dershowitz claimed that if a president believes his own re-election is in the public interest he can essentially do anything in pursuit of that end.

    In other words, Dershowitz said that when you're a president, you can do anything, and Congress should let you do it. You can just grab foreign countries by their points of leverage and extort them to get re-elected. Dershowitz subsequently tried to walk back what he said, putting more emphasis on the claim that a crime would be impeachable. But even his clarifying argument is false, given the fact no statutory crimes existed at the time the impeachment clauses were adopted in the Constitution.

    Schiff argued that if the Senate accepted Dershowitz’s argument, they would be validating President Nixon’s claim that if a president does it, then it is not illegal. Schiff said it would be a “normalization of lawlessness" and a "bastardization of the Constitution." But Schiff's powerful counterarguments appeared to ring hollow as Senate Republicans made statements signaling an endorsement of the core of Dershowitz's argument.

    On Thursday night, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced that he would be voting "no" on the resolution to subpoena witnesses and documents. Alexander's statement was truly stunning, as it conceded that the House impeachment manager's proved their "overwhelming" case: "It was inappropriate for the President to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation." Lamar said the Senate shouldn't remove a president for "inappropriate" behavior, reducing Trump's alleged abuse of power down to the word "inappropriate."

    Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), in what appeared to be a hall pass from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to aid her struggling re-election bid, said she will vote "yes" on witnesses. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) said he would vote "yes." But Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said she would vote "no," likely killing the witness vote.

    Ahead of today's proceedings and the vote on witnesses, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) released a statement conceding that President Trump’s conduct is impeachable but he still won't remove: "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office." Rubio said the voters should decide in November, but the fact it’s an election year is precisely why President Trump must be removed. Trump's corrupt conduct was an effort to cheat in the election.

    After this trial, prepare for an even more unhinged President Trump. The day after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he told Russian officials in the Oval Office that he fired "nutjob" Comey and the "pressure" from the Russia investigation was taken off. The day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller's hearings, Trump called President Zelensky and pressured him to investigate the Bidens. What will Trump do the day after his acquittal?

    If Senate Republicans acquit Trump, they will be emboldening a lawless president and weakening the legislative branch as a whole. It's a shortsighted, self-defeating move. They're saying it's OK for a president to extort countries for personal gain and to obstruct Congress. They're saying a president can do anything as long as he's a Republican.

    Impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) captured what this all boils down to by quoting Thomas Jefferson: “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”

    What the Republican Party is endorsing is nothing short of tyranny, and Americans will remember this cowardice in November.
    ____________
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  3. #633
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    From Mr John Harwood, White House Correspondent for @CNN

    "of 51 Republican senators who voted to block John Bolton’s testimony in Trump impeachment trial, 25 represent states of the Confederacy during the Civil War

    the old Confederacy represents the bulwark of the 21st century GOP"

    I guess we all know CNN's approach to this election :-)
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  4. #634
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,558
    So it does not matter that it was nothing to do with the law or justice - or even a trial? The only impeachment 'trial' with documentary evidence or witnesses.

  5. #635
    Regular
    Join Date
    19 Mar 08
    Location
    US & Canada
    Posts
    64
    17 witnesses for the prosecutor (House).

    And nothing more than 2 vague accusations about a President's foreign policy, when taken to the jury (Senate).

  6. #636
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,558
    Trump did not hand one thing of the list of documents that Congress requested or allow WH Staff to give evidence under a specious 'absolute immunity' lie. The facts were proven - read the manuscript (which is not a 'manuscript') listen Ambassador Taylor, Colenel Vindman.

  7. #637
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,234
    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    17 witnesses for the prosecutor (House).

    And nothing more than 2 vague accusations about a President's foreign policy, when taken to the jury (Senate).
    FYI - You need to choose a new avatar. Advocating for the lynching of journalists is a no-no.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  8. #638
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,234
    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    17 witnesses for the prosecutor (House).
    I think you mean grand jury....and those were the witnesses that defied the accused's attempts to prevent any witnesses or documents from being delivered to the grand jury (see Article of Impeachment #2)

    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    And nothing more than 2 vague accusations about a President's foreign policy, when taken to the jury (Senate).
    Article 1. Abuse of Power - Asking the president of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election

    Article 2. Obstruction of Congress - Already defined.

    Good try, keep guzzling that Kool-Aid.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  9. #639
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,243
    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    17 witnesses for the prosecutor (House).

    And nothing more than 2 vague accusations about a President's foreign policy, when taken to the jury (Senate).
    Since when did insisting that a foreign nation interfer in the US presidential election become something about "foreign policy"?
    Have you never encountered the word "treason"?
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  10. #640
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,234
    Republican Senator Murkowski spares few in fiery impeachment speech

    Moderate in a polarized Washington, on Monday declared she will vote to acquit Donald Trump, but not before leveling an attack against the president and fellow lawmakers of both parties during a partisan impeachment ordeal.

    "The president's behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedent over those of this great nation," Murkowski declared in a speech to a near-empty Senate chamber.

    On Wednesday the Senate is scheduled to wrap up a two-week impeachment trial and vote to either acquit or convict Trump on charges leveled by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives that the Republican president abused his powers and obstructed Congress' investigation of his dealings with Ukraine.

    It was no surprise that the 62-year-old senator attacked House Democrats, accusing them of a slapdash investigation of Trump's actions toward Ukraine and his alleged withholding of U.S. aid in order to pressure Kiev to investigate one of his political rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    But Murkowski, with her fellow senator from Alaska presiding over the chamber after other senators had left for the night, took on not only Trump, but also fellow Republicans, Senate Democrats and the media.

    Alluding to a "demon" burning its way through Washington during the impeachment process that began late last September, Murkowski blamed "a careless media" that she said "cheerfully tried to put out the fires with gasoline."

    Long one of the few moderate voices in the Senate, Murkowski shocked the political establishment in 2010 when she became the first senator in more than 50 years to win re-election with a write-in campaign after the Republican Party tried to dump her in favor of a more conservative challenger.

    In the summer of 2017, Murkowski again was in the spotlight when she and two other moderate Republican senators -- Susan Collins and the late John McCain -- ruined Trump's push for a partial repeal of the "Obamacare" healthcare law.

    On Monday she said, "I cannot vote to convict" Trump, and indicated a preference for a much softer penalty than the removal from office that Democrats have been clamoring for -- a "censure" by Congress.

    She went on to list transgressions on both sides of the political divide that she saw unfolding during this impeachment process, only the third in U.S. history:

    She cited Trump supporters' eagerness to "have just dismissed the case as soon as it reached" the Senate and Trump's detractors' acting as if "the only way the trial could have been considered fair was if it resulted in the president's removal from office."

    With a broad-brush criticism of both political parties, Murkowski spoke of their "apparent willingness...to destroy not just each other, but all of the institutions of our government. And for what? Because it may help win an election?"

    Having castigated the House, the Senate, Trump and the media, Murkowski wrapped up her approximately 11-minute diatribe on a note of faint optimism: "It's my hope that we finally found bottom here."
    ________

    No Senator, we haven't found bottom here. We won't find bottom until Donald Trump is out of office and we can finally begin to truly assess the damage he has done to this country.

    Until then, acquittal will only embolden him more than ever before.

    Also, your blatantly self-serving and transparent attempt to secure independent and undecided votes for your own reelection by slapping Trump's wrist makes your pious "both sides" claim utterly laughable.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  11. #641
    Regular
    Join Date
    19 Mar 08
    Location
    US & Canada
    Posts
    64
    I reckon it'd been better if he'd wielded executive privilege, like others past.
    Vindman? Well then. Go with that pipe dream.
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Trump did not hand one thing of the list of documents that Congress requested or allow WH Staff to give evidence under a specious 'absolute immunity' lie. The facts were proven - read the manuscript (which is not a 'manuscript') listen Ambassador Taylor, Colenel Vindman.
    Ah, that was from 10 years back; a non issue since you removed it, and policies duly noted.
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    FYI - You need to choose a new avatar. Advocating for the lynching of journalists is a no-no.
    Nah. All I saw was their "witnessing" falling by the wayside. Weak, at best, not to mention the tears.

    Comrade. You sound professionally outraged. "Kool-Aid" ? "Asking the President of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election" Heh. 17,000 odd posts, and you still haven't gotten the fact that investigating a Biden/Obama instigated quid pro quo isn't a crime in itself. Over reaching? Perhaps. Beyond the scope of a POTUS's duty? No.
    Recall the "collusion" nonsense & the FISA abuse?
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    I think you mean grand jury....and those were the witnesses that defied the accused's attempts to prevent any witnesses or documents from being delivered to the grand jury (see Article of Impeachment #2)



    Article 1. Abuse of Power - Asking the president of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election

    Article 2. Obstruction of Congress - Already defined.

    Good try, keep guzzling that Kool-Aid.
    Did any of the members I quoted have anything to do with the Iowa caucus cluster? Empty bleats before actual results?

    Ya'll leaping out of windows won't impact Trump's re-election one whit.
    Luckily for some of the folks here, they're likely parents' basement windows.

    This site used to be a go-to a decade back. What happened? Global warming affecting snowflakes?

  12. #642
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,243
    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    I reckon it'd been better if he'd wielded executive privilege, like others past.
    Vindman? Well then. Go with that pipe dream.


    Ah, that was from 10 years back; a non issue since you removed it, and policies duly noted.


    Nah. All I saw was their "witnessing" falling by the wayside. Weak, at best, not to mention the tears.

    Comrade. You sound professionally outraged. "Kool-Aid" ? "Asking the President of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election" Heh. 17,000 odd posts, and you still haven't gotten the fact that investigating a Biden/Obama instigated quid pro quo isn't a crime in itself. Over reaching? Perhaps. Beyond the scope of a POTUS's duty? No.
    Recall the "collusion" nonsense & the FISA abuse?


    Did any of the members I quoted have anything to do with the Iowa caucus cluster? Empty bleats before actual results?

    Ya'll leaping out of windows won't impact Trump's re-election one whit.
    Luckily for some of the folks here, they're likely parents' basement windows.

    This site used to be a go-to a decade back. What happened? Global warming affecting snowflakes?
    Nah, we just discovered Fake News, and ran it out of town on a rail.
    Wanna a lift?
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  13. #643
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,234
    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    Ah, that was from 10 years back; a non issue since you removed it, and policies duly noted.
    Thank you

    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    Comrade. You sound professionally outraged. "Kool-Aid" ? "Asking the President of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election" Heh. 17,000 odd posts, and you still haven't gotten the fact that investigating a Biden/Obama instigated quid pro quo isn't a crime in itself. Over reaching? Perhaps. Beyond the scope of a POTUS's duty? No.
    Recall the "collusion" nonsense & the FISA abuse?
    Professionally? No, I don't get paid to be outraged. Is that what you meant?

    Still under the delusion that Trump wanted to actually investigate a potential crime by Biden? Or was interested in corruption at all? Well you're entitled to your delusions.

    The record is clear on all of those points:

    Trump didn't give a shit about what Biden did or did not do. He just wanted the words "Biden" and "investigation" to said by the President of Ukraine.

    As for Trump's supposed interest in corruption, it's a proven fact (coming straight from the horse's ass) that he wants MORE corruption, not less.
    This is, after all, the guy that thinks that bribing foreign governments to secure trade deals is perfectly acceptable and the White House is looking into legalizing it.

    Yeah, I remember Mueller detailing the Trump Campaign's enthusiastic embrace of Russian help and also Trump's own admission that he'd accept help from a foreign government during an election. And also Trump's attempted obstruction of the Muller investigation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    This site used to be a go-to a decade back. What happened? Global warming affecting snowflakes?
    I'd say there were two main causes:

    Several of our more prolific posting members have passed away. One was killed in Ukraine, although we haven't all the details. Others decided they were more interested in trolling and flame-baiting or (for example) anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and were asked to leave.

    The other reason is that the board was clobbered thanks to a lack of security updates about 4-5 years ago and spent years thereafter in a very unstable and frequently completely unusable state. People naturally drifted away, because who wants to use a board that can't be used?

    We've been fairly stable for the past several months, since a few corrective measures were taken, courtesy of Ironduke and Astralist, but there are several minor things still missing, such as the emojis and the Like button.

    Unfortunately there's also the glaring and chronic lack of updates to the board software itself. You'll notice that we're on by vBulletin Version 4.2.3, which dates back to 2015 or so.

    And, because we've has been apparently abandoned by our corporate owners, Rochen Ltd, it's only a matter of time before the board is destroyed completely, either through the servers being shut down or the site being attacked yet again by malware or what have you.

    So, no, nothing to do with global warming or snowflakes.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  14. #644
    Regular
    Join Date
    19 Mar 08
    Location
    US & Canada
    Posts
    64
    I commend your passion, even if I don't agree with your speculations.

    Let's agree to disagree; hope you don't ban or censor me for my differing opinion.

    Furthermore - I had no idea so much had transpired with members/board software since I last visited.

    All part of life, I reckon; we've all lost folks who deserve to live, while others less deserving continue to eke on.

    And no, that's not political. At all.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Thank you


    Professionally? No, I don't get paid to be outraged. Is that what you meant?

    Still under the delusion that Trump wanted to actually investigate a potential crime by Biden? Or was interested in corruption at all? Well you're entitled to your delusions.

    The record is clear on all of those points:

    Trump didn't give a shit about what Biden did or did not do. He just wanted the words "Biden" and "investigation" to said by the President of Ukraine.

    As for Trump's supposed interest in corruption, it's a proven fact (coming straight from the horse's ass) that he wants MORE corruption, not less.
    This is, after all, the guy that thinks that bribing foreign governments to secure trade deals is perfectly acceptable and the White House is looking into legalizing it.

    Yeah, I remember Mueller detailing the Trump Campaign's enthusiastic embrace of Russian help and also Trump's own admission that he'd accept help from a foreign government during an election. And also Trump's attempted obstruction of the Muller investigation.


    I'd say there were two main causes:

    Several of our more prolific posting members have passed away. One was killed in Ukraine, although we haven't all the details. Others decided they were more interested in trolling and flame-baiting or (for example) anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and were asked to leave.

    The other reason is that the board was clobbered thanks to a lack of security updates about 4-5 years ago and spent years thereafter in a very unstable and frequently completely unusable state. People naturally drifted away, because who wants to use a board that can't be used?

    We've been fairly stable for the past several months, since a few corrective measures were taken, courtesy of Ironduke and Astralist, but there are several minor things still missing, such as the emojis and the Like button.

    Unfortunately there's also the glaring and chronic lack of updates to the board software itself. You'll notice that we're on by vBulletin Version 4.2.3, which dates back to 2015 or so.

    And, because we've has been apparently abandoned by our corporate owners, Rochen Ltd, it's only a matter of time before the board is destroyed completely, either through the servers being shut down or the site being attacked yet again by malware or what have you.

    So, no, nothing to do with global warming or snowflakes.
    Last edited by ofelas; 04 Feb 20, at 23:54.

  15. #645
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,234
    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    I commend your passion, even if I don't agree with your speculations.
    Thank you, it's probably my greatest strength and biggest weakness.

    And things would be rather boring if you agreed with my speculations. The very last thing I want is an echo chamber.

    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    Let's agree to disagree; hope you don't ban or censor me for my differing opinion.
    That never once occurred to me. Contrary to popular belief, I've never once banned someone simply for their differing opinion on things like political matters.

    Board rules and standards are different story of course and you've presented no problems there whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    Furthermore - I had no idea so much had transpired with members/board software since I last visited.
    It's been pretty devastating, yeah.
    As you said, this place used to be a real go-to...so it's wrenching to both watch the decline and know that we're basically on borrowed time and there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ofelas View Post
    All part of life, I reckon; we've all lost folks who deserve to live, while others less deserving continue to eke on.

    And no, that's not political. At all.
    I agree completely and appreciate the sentiment, no politicking taken.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Cult of Donald Trump
    By TopHatter in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: Today, 00:36
  2. Donald Trump rallies infiltrated by paid Hillary Clinton operatives
    By Parihaka in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08 Nov 16,, 15:21
  3. Donald Trump Tells Friends He Will Run for President, Report Says
    By Julie in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02 Mar 11,, 20:01
  4. Donald Trump Has Disappointed Me
    By THL in forum International Economy
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09 Jan 07,, 21:11

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •