Results 1 to 15 of 666

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,385

    The Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

    Trump impeachment probe: Pelosi announces official inquiry

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that Democrats were moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

    "The actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections," Pelosi said. "Therefore, today I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry."

    Nancy Pelosi quotes Thomas Paine: "The times have found us."

    "The times have found us today. Not to place us ourselves in the same category of greatness as our founders—but to place us in the urgency of protecting and defending our Constitution."

    Trump tweeted as soon as Pelosi finished, saying, "They never even saw the transcript of the call," referring to the call he had with Ukraine's president that is the focus of the latest impeachment controversy.

    The fast-moving developments came amid new questions about whether Trump had made aid to Ukraine contingent on Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky agreeing to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

    Trump, who had said previously he was concerned about sending aid to Ukraine because of corruption he alleged there, gave a new explanation Tuesday, saying he had ordered the aid frozen -- before the call -- because he was unhappy with how much European countries were contributing to Ukraine.

    Pelosi said the Trump administration blocking the whistleblower complaint from being sent to Congress was a "violation of the law" and said Trump calling on a foreign leader to interfere in a U.S. election was "a breach of his constitutional responsibilities."

    "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution," Pelosi said. "The president must be held accountable."
    _________

    And so it begins. Where will it end? If the impeachment probe recommends it, then the House will vote on it and Trump will almost certainly be impeached.

    Of course, the trial in Senate will be a farce unless something drastic is revealed that threatens their own reelection.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,611
    The walls are crumbling on a wannabe Putin. Long may rest in prison.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,385
    Senate Unanimously Passes Measure Urging Release Of Ukraine Whistleblower Complaint

    The Republican-controlled Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed a non-binding resolution calling on the Trump administration to release a complaint by a whistleblower from the intelligence community concerning President Donald Trump’s conduct with a foreign leader.

    The measure, introduced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), expresses the sense of the Senate that the complaint, which the intelligence community’s inspector general deemed of “urgent concern,” ought to be provided to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

    The lack of any GOP objections to the resolution ― a single senator could have sidelined it ― was an unexpected development on a day where calls for impeachment swelled in both the House and Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who himself often blocks such Democratic unanimous consent requests, panned the effort in a speech as a “made-for-TV moment,” but did not object to the resolution.

    Since news of the whistleblower’s complaint surfaced last week, the administration has rebuffed demands by Democratic lawmakers that it be released. The whistleblower reportedly expressed concerns that, in a July phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump pressed him to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, who is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and Biden’s son, Hunter. But the complaint also reportedly covers other presidential conduct not related to the Ukraine matter.

    Trump, while confirming he urged the probe, has denied speculation that his comments to the Ukraine leader carried with them the explicit or implicit threat that U.S. military aid to the country could be withheld if the Biden investigation was not undertaken.

    Trump announced Tuesday he has authorized the release on Wednesday of a “complete, fully declassified and unredacted” transcript of his phone conversation with the Ukrainian president. But Democrats said that isn’t enough.

    “We need the complaint,” Schumer said at the Capitol. And he questioned whether the entire transcript of Trump’s conversation will be declassified “or just some” of it.


    Many Democrats say even if Trump did not carry out an explicit quid pro quo concerning the aid to Ukraine, his request that a foreign government conduct a probe that could help his reelection chances is grounds for impeachment by itself. They also maintain the Trump administration is in violation of whistleblower law, which requires the complaint to be transmitted to Congress.

    McConnell had said Monday that Senate Democrats were attempting to “politicize” the issue. He offered no broader defense of Trump, however.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to receive a closed-door briefing from the intelligence community inspector general, Michael Atkinson, about the complaint on Thursday, according to Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel. It’s not clear, however, whether Atkinson will be bringing the complaint with him.

    The Trump administration’s unwillingness to release the complaint to Congress has spurred additional calls for impeachment among Democrats in both the House and Senate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reportedly now has decided that an impeachment inquiry will be launched. Link
    _____________

    Did NOT see that one coming. It's meaningless in the sense that it's non-binding but the fact that not a single GOP Senator blocked it is rather astounding. Even Turtle McShitface offered only a (barely) faint defense of Trump.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,385
    Does Donald Trump Want to Be Impeached?
    Four reasons the president might welcome articles of impeachment.
    When it comes to determining when it makes sense to impeach a president, congressional Democrats are working with 200 words in the Constitution, three significant historical precedents, the fervor of impeachment advocates, the anxieties of swing-state members of Congress and all the polling data that a modern political party can buy.

    None of this, unfortunately, tells them what to do when the president in question actually wants them to impeach him.

    That Donald Trump actually wants to be impeached is an argument that Ben Domenech, the publisher of The Federalist, has been making for some time — that the president isn’t stumbling backward toward impeachment, but is actually eager for the fight.

    In his email newsletter Monday morning, Domenech cited the last few days of Ukraine-related agitation as vindication, arguing that the circus atmosphere of congressional hearings, scenes of Joe Biden talking about corruption instead of health care or the economy, and wavering House Democrats getting forced into an impeachment vote by their angry colleagues and constituents are all exactly what Trump wants.

    For my own part I think wants is probably an overstatement, since it implies a strategic purpose, a permanent intention and a stable mental state, none of which should be assumed when analyzing the president of the United States. But let’s go this far with Domenech: A president who escapes unscathed from an investigation into his campaign’s collusion with a foreign government and then the day after Robert Mueller’s testimony is on the phone jawboning a foreign government to help out his presidential campaign — does that president seem like a man who’s particularly worried about being impeached? Who’s terribly concerned with avoiding having articles filed, a Senate trial, the works? I would say … not.

    And why might Trump be so unconcerned? Maybe, as impeachment advocates insist, he just thinks Democrats are too gutless to defend the Constitution, too weak to oppose his lawlessness. But it’s also possible (and yes, now I’m going to assume his rationality, having just warned against that, sorry) that he might see four upsides to impeachment, four gifts to his presidency and perhaps his post-presidency that an impeachment and a trial might bring.

    First, if the Democrats impeach him they will be doing something unpopular instead of something popular. Maybe the polls showing impeachment’s unpopularity will alter as the Ukraine story develops. Maybe public hearings will deliver a series of blows that persuades the large anti-Trump, anti-impeachment constituency that his expedited removal from office is desirable or necessary. But the current shape of public opinion is the boring, basic reason that Trump seems to want to be impeached more than Nancy Pelosi wants to impeach him: The Democratic agenda is more popular than the Republican agenda (whatever that is), the likely Democratic nominees are all more popular than Trump, and so anything that puts the Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion may look better, through Trump’s eyes, than the status quo.

    Second, Trump is happy to pit his overt abuses of power against the soft corruption of his foes. This is an aspect of Trumpism that the president’s critics find particularly infuriating — the way he attacks his rivals for being corrupt swamp creatures while being so much more nakedly compromised himself. But whether the subject is the Clinton Foundation’s influence-peddling or now the Biden family’s variation on that theme, Trump has always sold himself as the candidate of a more honest form of graft — presenting his open cynicism as preferable to carefully legal self-dealing, exquisitely laundered self-enrichment, the spirit of “hey, it’s totally normal for the vice president’s son to get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Ukrainians or the Chinese so long as every disclosure form gets filled out and his dad doesn’t talk to him about the business.”

    In fact this sort of elite seaminess is bad, but what Trump offers isn’t preferable: Hypocrisy is better than naked vice, soft corruption is better than the more open sort, and what the president appears to have done in leaning on the Ukrainian government is much worse than Hunter Biden’s overseas arrangements. But no one should be surprised that some voters in our age of mistrust and fragmentation and despair prefer the honest graft — some in Trump’s base, and also some in the ranks of the alienated and aggrieved middle, the peculiar Obama-Trump constituency.

    Indeed, history is replete with “boss”-style politicians who got away with corruption because they were seen as the rough, effective alternative to a smug, hypocritical elite. Trump’s crucial political weakness is that unlike those bosses, he hasn’t delivered that much to many of his voters. But that may make him all the more eager to return to the politics of comparative corruption, to have the argument again about whether he’s more ethically challenged than the swamp. He may not win it, but at least he’s playing a part that he knows well.

    Third, an impeachment battle would give Trump a last chance to solidify his hold on the souls and reputations of his possible Republican successors. To understand what I mean, consider Jonathan V. Last’s explanation of why so few Republican elected officials are likely to break with Trump, no matter how Nixonian his straits become:

    One of the reasons Republicans were able to pressure Nixon to resign was that they knew Nixon cared about the institution of the Republican Party.

    Another reason is that they knew that Nixon would go away and keep quiet in a self-imposed exile after his presidency. He wasn’t going to spend his winter years taking shots at [Charles] Wiggins and Goldwater and Ford on Twitter 15 times a day.

    Neither of those assumptions are operable with Trump.

    This doesn’t just explain why Trump thinks he can survive an impeachment fight; it also explains why he might relish it. He knows that he could well lose the next election, but there’s no reason a mere general-election defeat will prevent him from wielding power over the Republican Party, via Twitter and other means, for many years to come. And what better way to consolidate that power (or at least the feeling of that power) in the last year of his administration than seeing all his would-be successors, all the bright younger men of the Senate especially, come down and kiss the ring one last time?

    Come on down, Marco Rubio! Step right up, Ben Sasse! Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, the history books are watching: Tell us one more time, just one more time, how completely Donald Trump the Great owns your vote, your principles, your honor!

    Which brings us to the last reason Trump might kind of like to be impeached: Because the circus is the part of politics that he fundamentally enjoys. Throughout the Mueller investigation my Twitter feed was alight with liberal and NeverTrump fantasies about how Trump must be bed-wetting, flop-sweat terrified by the tough G-man’s investigation. And maybe at times he was. But I’m pretty sure that when he ranted on Twitter about the “Twelve Angry Democrats” and “WITCH HUNT” and “NO COLLUSION,” he was more engaged, more alive, more fully his full self than at any point during the legislative battles over tax reform or Obamacare repeal.

    And Robert Mueller’s was a legal investigation, with the power to actually put people in Trump’s inner circle in prison. A merely political trial, where the worst-case scenario is a political martyrdom that Sean Hannity will sing of ever after, seems to offer Trump a much lower-stress variation on that experience. Why, the nicknames for the impeachment managers alone will be a Trumpian banquet, a veritable feast!

    None of this, I should stress, adds up to an airtight argument that the Democrats should not impeach. Nine months ago I made a case against impeachment, and many of the arguments in that essay might apply to this case — depending on how far it turns out Trump went in pressuring Ukraine. But politics is a contact sport, a field for combat as well as for maneuver, and just because someone wants a fight doesn’t mean that you should never, ever give him one. The dictum about wrestling a pig (you get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it) doesn’t hold up if the pig keeps punching you; the dictum that it’s better to beat Trump at the polls than lose a Senate vote probably doesn’t hold up if you talk yourself into looking permanently supine in the face of indubitable corruption.

    Much of the Trump era has consisted of politicians of both parties waiting for someone else to give Trump a knockout blow. So there’s something to be said, at the level of spiritedness if not necessarily strategy, for House Democrats to take a swing themselves.

    But my ultimate guess is that none of this matters quite as much as some impeachment arguers suppose. An impeachment effort could be both foredoomed and unlikely to influence the 2020 outcome all that much, so Nancy Pelosi might be wise to forestall one but also find herself with few regrets if one gets forced on her.

    The nature of the Trump era is that yuge events recede far more rapidly than anyone expects. So it might be with impeachment: Have the vote or don’t have it, we’ll be arguing about something completely different by the time Americans are going to the polls. Link
    _______________
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,340

    Democracy (In)Action

    Senate GOP vows to quash impeachment articles

    BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 09/24/19 06:25 PM EDT

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...hment-articles
    “Senate Republicans are vowing to quickly quash any articles of impeachment that pass the House and warn that Democrats will feel a political backlash if they go forward and impeach President Trump.”

    Number of minutes of actual impeachment investigation completed: zero.
    Number of prosecution witnesses called: zero.
    Number of defense witnesses called: zero.
    Credibility of GOPer-controlled Senate verdict: zero.

    Stay classy, GOPers.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  6. #6
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,385
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Senate GOP vows to quash impeachment articles

    Stay classy, GOPers.
    Eh, to be expected. A knee-jerk response to any threat to their Orange God Emperor.

    Let's see if the full whistleblower's complaint (not merely the transcript) is released by the Trump "Administration" or not.
    Even the GOP-controlled Congress thinks it should be. Trump's reaction to that will be telling.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  7. #7
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,914
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    And so it begins. Where will it end? If the impeachment probe recommends it, then the House will vote on it and Trump will almost certainly be impeached.

    Of course, the trial in Senate will be a farce unless something drastic is revealed that threatens their own reelection.
    Another damp squib in four years time when he is at the end of his second term ?

    So what is the deal here ?

    The opposition has no hope of defeating him in the next election that they have to remove him from the competition. They learnt some new tricks after the 2004 loss.

    How many red herrings have there been. Russian collusion. Now this.

    Obama had to deal with the Birthers thing.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 25 Sep 19, at 13:29.

  8. #8
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,199
    DE,

    The opposition has no hope of defeating him in the next election that they have to remove him from the competition. They learnt some new tricks after the 2004 loss.
    eh...that's literally the opposite of what Dems are thinking.

    IE, the reason why Pelosi held back the impeachment dam was so long was because she felt that impeachment would just fire up the GOP base, kill the chances of moderate Dem House members, and in the end be purely symbolic because it wouldn't go through the Senate.

    multiple things have now changed both on the governance side and the politics side, which influenced Pelosi's calculus. what hasn't changed is the understanding that the GOP Senate will not move to convict.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  9. #9
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,914
    So we end up with a Clinton like result. Impeached by the house, not the senate. He completes his term and possibly wins another.

    or does being impeached by the house prevent him from running for office again ?

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,340
    Impeachment procedings against Bill Clinton began Oct 8, 1998, ... nearly two years into his second term of office.
    America has never reelected a president after impeachment proceedings began (but, only three examples).
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  11. #11
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,914
    And so the idea is to commence proceedings before the elections begin and then he has lost by default.

    Slow clap

  12. #12
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,385
    National Security Council's Alexander Vindman Told To Keep Quiet About Trump Call: Reports
    The National Security Council’s Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified this week that a White House attorney told him to keep quiet about Donald Trump’s controversial phone call with Ukraine’s president, sources told Politico and The Washington Post.

    Vindman told House lawmakers Tuesday that after he expressed his concerns about the July 25 call, John Eisenberg, a top NSC legal adviser, told him to tell no one about his reservations, according to sources familiar with the testimony. Trump’s call — in which he pressed Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden and his son — is now the focus of an impeachment inquiry by the House. Trump was withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine at the time of the call.

    Vindman said Eisenberg took notes on a yellow legal pad about his concerns. Then Eisenberg and his deputy Michael Ellis decided to move a rough transcript of the call to a highly classified computer server, Politico reported. Days later, Vindman testified that Eisenberg instructed him to keep quiet about the call.

    The startling information exposes significant early concern within the White House about Trump’s call — but also reveals possible efforts to keep the contents under wraps not only through use of the classified server, which was first reported by the Post, but by instructing at least one official to keep it quiet.

    Trump has repeatedly characterized his phone call with Zelensky as “perfect.” But one of the Post’s sources asked: “If this is such a perfect call, why is everybody going to these extraordinary lengths? Why is the White House counsel telling people not to talk about it?”

    Vindman, the first witness to testify in the impeachment inquiry who personally listened to Trump’s call, testified that he was troubled about what he viewed as the president’s quid pro quo demands for a Biden investigation in exchange for U.S. military aid.

    Vindman also told lawmakers that the White House’s reconstruction of the conversation had key omissions, The New York Times reported.

    The NSC and Eisenberg have not responded to reports that Vindman was ordered to keep quiet.
    __________________

    The beautiful thing about Donald Trump is that he'll tell you exactly what you want to know, you just have to merely reverse what he's saying, e.g. "It was a beautiful call" = "It was shot through with corruption and extortion and my people are doing everything they possibly can to bury it six layers deep and deny anything untoward happened"
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

  13. #13
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,385
    Trump and His Defenders Keep Tossing Around Legal Terms. Here’s What They Really Mean.

    “Due process.” “The right to confront your accuser.” “Hearsay.”

    In what can only be described as a cynical ploy, President Donald Trump and his supporters keep tossing out legal terminology to attack those who seek to hold him accountable for alleged misconduct in the impeachment inquiry currently underway in the House of Representatives. The idea seems to be to confuse members of the public by using legal terms that sound valid, but have no application to the matter for which they are cited.

    Trump claims on Twitter that Democrats believe that they can “impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights.” White House Counsel Pat Cipollone argues that the impeachment inquiry “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.” Senator Lindsey Graham says that “You can’t get a parking ticket conviction based on hearsay.”

    All those terms may sound vaguely familiar from high school civics classes and true crime novels, but they do not apply here despite what Trump and his defenders suggest.

    Here, then, is your guide to discerning talking points from truth when it comes to legal jargon.

    Talking point: The impeachment inquiry violates due process because the House did not vote to approve it before it began.

    Truth: The Constitution gives “the sole power of impeachment” to the House of Representatives. The House may decide what rules it will use in impeachment, with no requirement that it must take a vote before initiating an impeachment inquiry. In fact, last week a federal judge issued an opinion in which she described this vote requirement argument as politically “appealing,” but “fatally flawed.” Nonetheless, the House took such a vote on Thursday, perhaps in an effort to silence these critics. Are the critics satisfied now? No! They say that the vote just proves that the Democrats knew that the inquiry had been invalid without a vote!

    Talking point: President Trump is being denied the right to confront witnesses against him and present evidence.

    Truth: Again, there is no requirement for the House to provide any of these protections, at least not at this inquiry stage of impeachment. If we are to look by analogy to the criminal justice system, the impeachment inquiry would be parallel to the indictment stage. In a criminal case, the facts are presented to a grand jury. The presentation is limited to the prosecution case. The defense does not attend grand jury sessions, cross-examine witnesses or present evidence. The grand jury then votes on whether to approve an indictment, which is merely a charge. If so, then, and only then, does the case proceed to trial. It is there that a defendant may call witnesses and cross-examine witnesses against him. President Trump is not being denied any rights because he is unable to call and question witnesses at the investigative stage.

    Talking Point: The impeachment inquiry is improper because it is being conducted in secret.

    Truth: In criminal cases, the investigation is conducted in secret for many reasons, including preventing witnesses from coordinating their stories. If the testimony is public, then witnesses can learn what prior witnesses have said, and then tailor their own testimony accordingly. Keeping the proceedings secret ensures that witnesses are incentivized to tell the truth. The subsequent trial is held in the open so that the public can have confidence in the process. The impeachment inquiry is similarly at this investigative stage and need not be conducted in public, where its integrity could be undermined.

    Talking point: The impeachment inquiry is relying on hearsay because the whistleblower did not have first-hand information.

    Truth: Hearsay is an out-of-court declaration used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. With some exceptions, courts require first-hand accounts in court by witnesses who observed the facts themselves. The purpose of the hearsay rule is to promote reliability in witness testimony.

    It is true that the whistleblower whose complaint started the inquiry indeed provided hearsay information that he learned from others. His information is not being used at trial, however. The parallel to the whistleblower in the criminal world is a tipster, who alerts police that a crime has been committed. The police then conduct an investigation, in which investigators talk to eyewitnesses and collect evidence, such as documents and other tangible things. This direct evidence is the evidence that is used at trial. The tipster does not testify at trial if he is not a first-hand witness.

    Here, the whistleblower alerted Congress that criminal or impeachable conduct may have occurred. The House is now gathering evidence by interviewing the officials with first-hand information and obtaining documents that could tend to reflect the events under investigation. That is the evidence that will be presented at a trial before the Senate, not the testimony of the whistleblower.

    Talking Point: The phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky contained no quid pro quo.

    Truth: Literally, quid pro quo means “this for that.” This myth can be debunked on three levels. First, the call is not the full scope of the misconduct. Impeachment investigators need to explore the meeting and calls between Ukrainian officials and Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland, and other diplomats to understand the full scope of the negotiations, and determine whether there was a quid pro quo, among other things.

    Second, impeachable offenses do not all require evidence of an illegal quid pro quo. The Constitution provides that a president may be impeached for “bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment of Trump based on an abuse of power by inviting foreign election interference would require no quid pro quo whatsoever.

    Third, there actually is evidence that Trump was trading military aid for election help. This exchange would be a quid pro quo for purposes of bribery, which includes demanding a thing of value in exchange for the performance of an official duty. A quid pro quo need not be explicit, and usually isn’t. Here, the demand for an investigation into the Bidens in exchange for receiving military aid may very well be a quid pro quo for purposes of bribery, an impeachable offense.
    ______________

    As if Trump gives a single shit about the legal process, unless it can help him stave off lawsuits, cheat a contractor, bury illegal activities and stall for time until a problem just goes away.
    TwentyFiveFortyFive

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: 104
    Last Post: Yesterday, 02:23
  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
  •