Reid Says Chief Justice Roberts Lied to Congress in Confirmation Hearings

225px-harry_reid_official_portrait225px-official_roberts_cjSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid insisted this week that it was not the fault of the Democrats in confirming John Roberts and not using their power to block the nomination. Rather, they were tricked by Roberts who lied to them in suggesting that he was a moderate and that we are now “stuck” with him as chief justice.

Reid’s comments are the latest revisionist history from the Congress — much like blaming AIG executives for an amendment that the Democrats inserted into the stimulus legislation protecting bonuses.

Reid and his colleagues refused to listen to many critics stating that Roberts was a hard-right nominee. Indeed, they did not even call such critics to the hearing to avoid the issue entirely. They preferred to pretend that Roberts was a moderate to quell demands that they block the nomination.

At the time, I wrote columns detailing how Roberts was likely to vote on the far right of the court, and here. I was blasted by supporters who insisted that this was mere speculation and that such predictive votes on specific issues were illusory. Later, the predictions proved accurate, here and here.

I still believe that Roberts is remarkably well qualified for the Court. However, I objected to the ludicrous confirmation hearings held by the Senate where they allowed Roberts to refuse to answer virtually any substantive question. To have the Senate democrats now claim to be hoodwinked if quite exasperating. They participated in one of the least substantive confirmation hearings in history and steadfastly refused to press Roberts on areas of importance.

What is remarkable is that, after not blocking Roberts or Alito, the Democrats appear again to be campaigning on the need to keep them in power to protect the Court. Reid stated “Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was. But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

For the full story, click here

27 thoughts on “Reid Says Chief Justice Roberts Lied to Congress in Confirmation Hearings

  1. JT

    Your third paragraph covers the whole issue.

    “Reid and his colleagues refused to listen to many critics stating that Roberts was a hard-right nominee. Indeed, they did not even call such critics to the hearing to avoid the issue entirely. They preferred to pretend that Roberts was a moderate to quell demands that they block the nomination”.

    What was Reid smoking at the time to think for a second that Bush would even consider a moderate? The Bush/Cheney/Rove cabal had no intention of ever appointing a moderate to any judgeship, let alone the Chief Justice’s seat. Their stated goal was to create a right wing hegemony at every level of government. Did Reid and the Democrats think Bush appointed relatively young men to the bench so they would extend his legacy of being a moderate?

  2. JT and rcampbell,

    You are right. This is a pattern with Congress. They didn’t know nothing. They’re about to know nothing concerning our now openly admitted two front war in Pakistan and Afghanistan (in addition to Iraq). They are about to know nothing concerning Treasury’s and the Fed’s power grab under the name of regulation and they’re going to know nothing while the poor and middle class go down in the name of saving the super rich.

    Except for their cronies in the press I don’t know who believes this crap. Our govt. is betraying us and all Congress can say is they could never have guessed? William Greider was on Bill Moyers last night. He said it’s time to stop asking politely and I agree. He said, get the pitchforks and make peaceful. loud, unruley protest. Obama allowed only 13 prescreened reporters to ask question at his press conference. These reporters shared the competence of Congress in their choice of non-questions. Neither the behavior of the President nor the Congress should be tolerated by a free people.

  3. JT,
    I remembered yours and other comments from the time. There was never a question of Roberts being a moderate and being appointed mainly because of his young age, to ensure a long term at SCOTUS. Reid and the Democratic Senators exhibited cowardice in not blocking the man’s nomination. Cowardice is apt because does anyone doubt when Obama finally has to appoint someone, the Republicans will pull out everything to stop it.

    The stupidity and selfishness of the Democratic Senators in this is unforgivable. The ability to do harm to real people’s lives and to programs to benefit them dictates that when the party has the power to advance their stated ideology, that power should be used. We are unfortunately awash in Legislators and media people who have become enthralled with their status and the narrow views from inside the Beltway. Their comfort with the “system” is such that they are loath to change it. Their ethical motivations are subsumed by “club” membership and the largesse of lobbyists. Their inability to do the “peoples business” is a factor of their “go along, to get along mindset.”

  4. Jill:

    “Our govt. is betraying us and all Congress can say is they could never have guessed?”

    You sound surprised.

  5. Bob,

    I’m not suprised but that doesn’t mean I’m going to give up and do nothing. One doesn’t equate to the other. I think peaceful, unruley protest is a very good idea. There’s only a slim chance of success but I’m willing to try anyway. It’s as Buddha stated, better to regret doing something that failed than to do nothing at all. I see people suffering all around me and I’m not willing to just let my govt. betray person after person after person. This citizen isn’t going down and I’m not watching other people going down, without a fight.

    Elizabeth Warren, Please Resign in Protest. Do not give cover, aka, main street cred, to a horrify betrayal of the poor and working class.

  6. This is from Glenn Greenwald today. He’s speaking on Jim Webb’s stand on priciple against USA “prison planet”. It applies here as well.

    “Webb’s actions here underscore a broader point. Our political class has trained so many citizens not only to tolerate, but to endorse, cowardly behavior on the part of their political leaders. When politicians take bad positions, ones that are opposed by large numbers of their supporters, it is not only the politicians, but also huge numbers of their supporters, who step forward to offer excuses and justifications: well, they have to take that position because it’s too politically risky not to; they have no choice and it’s the smart thing to do. That’s the excuse one heard for years as Democrats meekly acquiesced to or actively supported virtually every extremist Bush policy from the attack on Iraq to torture and warrantless eavesdropping; it’s the excuse which even progressives offer for why their political leaders won’t advocate for marriage equality or defense spending cuts; and it’s the same excuse one hears now to justify virtually every Obama “disappointment.”

  7. The Beltway crew act like George Schultz, they know nothing. They don’t anticipate anything – hurricanes, levees breaking, economic downturns, planes going in to towers, etc. Roberts’ record said it all, if Reid had taken the time to examine it. Reid was duped in to the Iraq war authorization, as well. Last week he attacked the Democratic base that is exerting pressure on the yellow-line democrats (the ones not supporting Obama’s budget). It is time for Reid to move along if he is that blind and deaf to the world around him.

  8. Note to Harry Reid, RE: John Roberts

    Duh! What the Hell did you expect, you spineless half-wit? Are you so myopic that you didn’t see Roberts for what he is – a fascist enabling Neocon? Rhetorical. You, Harry Reid, need to retire and take up a new post at AEI – Master of the Obvious. Moron.

  9. Harry Reid,
    If you didn’t realize that Roberts was lying, then maybe you are deaf, dumb and blind. It is long past time to have a new Senate Majority Leader in place in order to usher in a real progressive program through the Senate. Buddha, you hit the nail on the head.

  10. How long is a China man? Think about it. I am a Texan and W is not. I don’t care how hard you try. You can pretend to pretend until you can’t pretend anymore.

  11. Jill,
    Amen sista’. At least Europeans still have that old time religion:

    Check out Biden’s appeal:
    “I would hope that the protesters give us a chance, listen to what we have to say and hopefully we can make it clear to them that we’re going to walk away from this G20 meeting with some concrete proposals,” Biden said at a news conference after a meeting of center-left politicians in Chile.”

    What the entire political class in this country either doesn’t get or is flat out ignoring is that we do know what they have done and how well it worked and we know what they have said they plan to do and have an educated guess at how well that will work (over the whole range of political issues) and we’re just not buying it anymore. I’d rather see a complete lack of consensus than consensus on the wrong plan.

    And yes, Congress, a Congress made up of self-serving and venal politicians is the problem. To watch them retake their oaths of office was stomach turning. Most of them are unworthy to speak the words.

  12. Jill,

    I simply said you sound surprised, out of sarcasm; not that you didn’t care.

    Although I’m not sure what you mean by “peaceful unruley protest.”

    How does that compare with Michele Bachman’s idea of revolution?

  13. Hey Bob,

    I spoke up about it because I am cynical about most people in power and I love sarcasm too but sometimes these qualities will paralyze people from taking action. I’m not willing to stop acting just because it seems pretty hopeless. That’s the message I wanted to convey.

    I take peaceful unruly protest to mean 1. creative, non-violent, we’re not playing by the govt.s’ rules of protest (free-speech pens, etc.) I think smaller but more disruptive protest might be a good starting point. In France, workers block the roads. This country worships commerce so I say go into the houses of worship and stop the money changing. If you want to disrupt the workings of this govt. against its people you have to go to the source–the engines of capital. The workers strike in Chicago and protests outside the homes of executives are good examples. But it’s time to block the flow of capital to the wealthy. That isn’t best accomplished by “play by the old or govt. rules” of protest. I think things like surrounding your neighbor’s house when the sheriff comes is good. Leaks, Leaks and more leaks with as much exposure as possible. Others have mentioned the “white collar America’s most wanted”–produce that and get it on Youtube. Geek skills are good. Try anything that doesn’t have violence in it–something is bound to work.


    I tried your link and I’ll try it again later (but thanks for putting it up). It wouldn’t go through on my computer. Biden needs to listen to the protestors, not the other way around!

  14. I just want to ad my experience of two days ago. The marine recruiters are working very hard on a young person I know. The only job he has does not pay a living wage and really, he can’t make it. They tell him he owes his country, he’ll have a great job as an officer and they’ll pay for his school. They also tell him he’s unlikely to see combat. In this area of a real unemployment rate of 27% he’s lucky to have a job. I know he’s not making ends meet. It’s hard to argue with, I don’t have money for food and rent along with appeals to “partiotism” and dreams of respect as an officer.

    That’s part of the reason why I’m absolutely enraged about Obama and this lackey group of Congress who will send this young person to die. They don’t care about him, they care about making the war contractors fat with cash. Obama’s new two front war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a disaster. It’s really an attempt to put puppet govts. in place. If that takes this young man’s death/dismemberment, what do they care? He’s nothing to them. Nor is anyone else on the ground. Yet people are desperate. The army recurits are going up because it’s one of the few places the poor and middle class have for getting a job. Are they supposed to starve? Our govt. knows this and they are using it. To use the lives of the poor and middle class, to take up their desperation and put it to no good purpose–to me that is evil. I won’t back off using the word, evil, because that’s what it is.

    Here’s a good anaylsis of Afghanistan:

  15. The War Crime trail is going down–in Spain:Spanish Judge Accuses “Six Top Bush Officials of Torture
    Legal moves may force Obama’s government into starting a new inquiry into abuses at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib

    by Julian Borger and Dale Fuchs

    MADRID – Criminal proceedings have begun in Spain against six senior officials in the Bush administration for the use of torture against detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Baltasar Garzón, the counter-terrorism judge whose prosecution of General Augusto Pinochet led to his arrest in Britain in 1998, has referred the case to the chief prosecutor before deciding whether to proceed.

    [A Spanish court has agreed to consider opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seen in this photo from Aug. 28, 2007, over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay, a lawyer in the case said. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)]A Spanish court has agreed to consider opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, seen in this photo from Aug. 28, 2007, over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay, a lawyer in the case said. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)”

  16. Bob, Esq., “How does that compare with Michele Bachman’s idea of revolution?”. I think you specifically directed your question to Jill as a request for clarification of her use certain language but I’d also like to comment on a more fundamental level regarding Bachman et al because I have a question.

    I dislike Bachman as a person (a twit actually) to the point of disgust and could add a dozen more of the usual suspects name to hers and make a list but I absolutely defend their right to state their political opinion as protected speech. I do not find it offensive to hear bald, outright cries for revolution including violent revolution. These are legitimate (albeit last ditch) methods to force “a more perfect union” and as purely political acts, speech about them should be protected as vigorously as any other speech. IMO. The fact that political speech (even if it is extreme by conventional standards) seems to be increasingly under attack is greatly disturbing to me.

    That’s how I feel. But I’ve actually forgotten if I’m correct legally. I used to know the answer to this question. Is a call to revolution protected political speech anymore? I know, I know, – it is if you win, but I would like the legal answer if I may be so indulged.

  17. It took me, with my HS education, about five minutes to find all I needed to know about Roberts when the chimp nominated him. No staff, just an old computer. How can Reid expect anyone to buy his bullshit? Really, Harry.

  18. I’ve paid more than my demonstration dues in the 60’s and all it accomplished was Nixonland (See Rick Perlstein’s book). Demonstrations no longer work and the MSM simply doesn’t cover them anymore. Secondly, I found from long contact that those on my side, the progressive side, can be just as wrong-headed as any of the Faux Conservative Clique. The difference is we’re generally smarter, but no less gullible. This blog and the Internet in general are where it’s at now and not on the streets. Organizations like MoveOn, CAF, the ACLU are where the action is. They can provide effective leadership. Demonstrations get hijacked by egotists, who though they spout the right memes, are really in it for their greater glory, or become convinced of their own necessity to lead. Our enemies love our demonstrations so they can focus the news cameras on the craziest people out there, or interview those who are starstruck by their own being.

    We are in a battle with a first rate propaganda machine, run by people with limitless pockets, who believe fervently in their own mythology. Can they be beaten, perhaps, at least this old Hippie isn’t giving up hope. However, I’ve dealt with more than enough “leaders of the revolution” to know how shallow they were and how much they were ultimately committed to themselves. The smartest revolutionary of the last 70 years was Saul Alinsky and Obama trained in his program. I wouldn’t count President Obama out quite yet after only 70 or so days in office. Does that mean I think people should shut up. I would say my comments in the last 30 days would belie that.

    What I would hope for is that instead of reacting out of anger that things don’t seem to be going in the right direction, perhaps a little dialectic reasoning, as my Marxist friends used to call it, would be helpful. Obama’s threat to this establishment was such that a financial crisis was staged to go off before he took office. Its’ purpose was to have the financial community suck once more on the public teat and to spend so much money that there wouldn’t be enough left for social change programs.

    The second major hurdle he faces is the fact that although the Democrats control congress, many leading Democrats like Chuck Shumer are in the financiers pockets, or represent fairly conservative constituencies and are thus loath to act progressively. So while he has a Democratic congress, many aren’t up to the task.

    Third, we have a media that doesn’t do issues, it does political gossip, perhaps excepting Keith, Rachel and David Sirota among the more well-known. For instance, in that Internet chat last week had President Obama come out for legalizing pot, this would have been the main topic of media discussion for the next two months. I am and always have been for the legalization of Pot and for ending the War on Drugs. However, if President Obama had come out and agreed I would have choked at the stupidity. Yet advocates heard it and said words to the effect of “You see, he really is a phony.” I lived through this short-sightedness of people I agreed with in the 60’s and they were wrong then and the inheritors of their tradition are wrong now. I’ve had my fill of people pushing “hipper than thou” political purity and watched as causes I believed in went down to defeat and the thugs took over the country and ran it into the ground.

    True change in the US is a difficult task to accomplish and 70 days out is too short a time to judge. If you’ve read what I’ve written recently, like calling for the firing of Geithner, perhaps you might realize I’m right there and my mouth is big and backed up by my real identity. I’ve agreed with everything JT has said on the air and written in this blog, so the point isn’t my saying “hush now” while Obama acts.

    What I am saying is look at the enormity of the problems and the institutional blockages of viable solutions and try to understand that the means of dealing with them require some political art. Lincoln was vilified by the Anti-Slavery radicals of the time for not being militant enough. Guess what he ended slavery and would have ensured the success of that freedom, if he hadn’t been shot. That’s because of positive political art. Some of you may look at the President as a sell-out, I see it differently and I’m not some starry-eyed follower, as some might make me out to be.

    Please disagree with me if you will, I’m no genius, but please do it with words that refute me and not links to authoritative sources. We’re a smart group here and being retired I get around on the Net as much as anyone. I am an iconoclast and while it may not show as much, I’ve got an ego also and at this point in my life I’ll take my political analysis over anyone’s. Fatuous on my part perhaps, but we’ve all got our foibles don’t we?

    Does that

  19. Mike S.:

    “Obama’s threat to this establishment was such that a financial crisis was staged to go off before he took office. Its’ purpose was to have the financial community suck once more on the public teat and to spend so much money that there wouldn’t be enough left for social change programs.”

    I have a few problems with this statement:

    1. The anti-Obama forces must be incredibly prescient. The run-up to the present crisis begins in the Reagan Administration, & goes through Bush I, Clinton & Bush II.

    2. How come Obama hired on Larry Summers & Tim Geithner if he’s such an anti-Establishment figure?

    3. Obama’s largest contributions came from the defense, financial & telecom industries –each of which he has rewarded handsomely.

    4. To say the financial crisis has tied Obama’s hands in the area of social reform is patently false. During this financial crisis he has found money to increase our involvement in Afghanistan & to open a third front in Pakistan.

  20. Jill,
    I saw that story about the Spanish court looking into the torture issue. I am hopeful that they will indict the Bush crowd and that the indictment will push the issue to the forefront here in the states.

  21. Rather than whine and play and politically grandstand, what substantive decision does Reid disagree with? Where was Roberts wrong? I think its rather disingenuous to cry foul if Reid cannot delineate the substantive error.

    Per Turley’s evaluation of the “ludicrous” hearings, I wonder what his standard was. Considering ‘precedence’ from the Ginsburg hearing, I can’t hardly call his failure to answer some questions “ludicrous.”

    Well…perhaps it really was ludicrous. But at least it was also consistent.

  22. Flower Child,

    “1. The anti-Obama forces must be incredibly prescient. The run-up to the present crisis begins in the Reagan Administration, & goes through Bush I, Clinton & Bush II.”

    You are of course right this financial mess has been brewing since Reagan and right through until Bush II. It is a crisis begotten by lowering the taxes of the wealthy and the corporations, while increasing defense expenditures and raiding the Social Security coffers (SS taxes are mostly the equal of payroll taxes in a regular worker’s pay check)to use in the General Government Fund. It is a tactic which in Grover Norquist’s parlance is to strangle/drown government.

    You might notice though that I said “A financial crisis” which was to indicate that what occurred was a singular, seeming catastrophic occurrence, rigged to engender fear. I’ve written enough about the effects of the Reagan Revolution on other comments on this site to perhaps assure people that i’m aware of the strategy and the stakes. It remains my opinion, based on the methodology announcing it, the panic that ensued and the imprudent solution given that this was orchestrated.

    “2. How come Obama hired on Larry Summers & Tim Geithner if he’s such an anti-Establishment figure?”

    Summers was a campaign supporter that had experience and was not threatening to the powers that be. Geithner had credibility with the financial community. I’ve even written a comment calling for G’s firing and have now called the White House twice saying the same thing. In truth I don’t care either way if he’s fired, I was sending a message that I want more action. The President needs evidence of this public pressure to move further with the cover of being forced by events. That’s strategy and I think the guy is a master at it.

    Why appoint people soothing to the financial crooks, you might reasonably ask? Because our corporatist controlled MSM would go bananas if the market started to tank even further. Even though anyone with half a brain knows that the Dow Jones is not a valid economic indicator, we’ve seen the panic engendered by large fluctuations. Fixing this mess, against the interests of the arrayed financial powers, with some bought and paid for congress people in place, is no easy task and requires subtlety and not a sledge hammer. Summers and Geithner are feints. We’re building up towards nationalizing these major banks and breaking up these companies “too big to fail.” The climate must be established.

    “3. Obama’s largest contributions came from the defense, financial & telecom industries –each of which he has rewarded handsomely.”

    President Obama received $656,357,601 in individual contributions for his Presidential Campaign. $334,636,346 of those contributions (51%)were under $200. The contributions from $201 to $499 were $71,669,117 (11%). Thus 62% of his campaign contributions came from small donors. From donors of $2,000 and over came $111,514,236 (17%). The high donors were significant, but the percentage is not huge. I frankly wouldn’t care though who he got the money from because that doesn’t necessarily transpose into influence. George W bush said the “Haves and the Have Mores are what he calls his base.” Do you really think President Obama feels the same way? The guy was trying to get elected via a campaign system set up to favor people with wealthy backers, yet he found a way to be backed by the average citizen to the tune of 61% of his money.

    Now I’m sure you could give me umpteen instances of what you feel is rewarding handsomely and I’d be totally unimpressed.
    I’ve read all the same stuff you have, as I said being retired and disabled gives me a lot of PC time, and I still reply to you that 70 days out doesn’t prove anything. This is the early opening round of a 4(hopefully 8) year chess match with the stakes being the revival of America’s true possibilities and the opponent being ego-driven bastards who border on sociopathy. It takes time and patience.

    “4. To say the financial crisis has tied Obama’s hands in the area of social reform is patently false. During this financial crisis he has found money to increase our involvement in Afghanistan & to open a third front in Pakistan.”

    I really would appreciate it if you’re calling me out based on a statement, that you would do me the favor of actually reading what I clearly stated. I didn’t say that it tied his hands, I said that that was its’ purpose. In fact the whole thrust of my comment was asking that people understand what the man is faced with and to try to appreciate the subtlety and strategy that he’s apparently using. As a former flower child, you saw what happened to four men who threatened the powers that be in the 60’s. You hit them directly and they’ll kill you. This is high stakes stuff. I remember well as my cohorts who kept calling our enemy government in the 60’s Fascist Pigs and then professed shock when they shot kids down in Ohio. If you’re only bringing a knife to a gunfight then you’d best figure out a way to get that knife to the other guys throat before he shoots you. Not easy but doable by somebody with brains.

    We’ve only got a knife in this gunfight, so we’d better act smarter than we did in the 60’s. I’m proud of my generation and the courage we showed and I’m proud to call myself an old Hippie. However, we were beaten by our own hubris and failed to take heed of our own analysis, to wit we were battling fascists and you don’t beat them by frontal attack.
    We were like the old French field Marshall in WWI who said”
    Enemies to the right of me, enemies to the left of me, enemies in front of me, excellent I attack.” Brave stuff but highly ineffective.

    I’m not calling for a moratorium on protest. I’m asking a change of methods. How many times have we castigated our opponents by saying that it is insane to keep using the same tactics that clearly aren’t working? Marching en masse in the streets doesn’t work. Organizing on the Net and on a local level does. It’s not easy work and you can’t get your emotional rocks off as you can by being in a group of 100,000 yelling people armed with signs, but it is proven to work and can work.

  23. Jill,

    What can I say? I don’t disagree with you. I suppose the sarcasm stems from my disbelief at how many fronts you spread yourself over; wondering how anyone can keep up that much indignation and still be effective.

    Personally, I’ve tended to focus on the ‘big ones’; i.e. 9/11, Iraq and Katrina for a bit.

    From 9/11 I’ve learned that people willing to accept the world with which they are presented rather than question the ones who presented it to them. I was a physics major in college before switching to philosophy; and the only reason I was a physics major was that I missed a perfect score on the physics regents by two points simply because I forgot to, in haste to finish, re-invert a lens formula. Physics wasn’t just easy; it was/is intuitive. Accordingly, when the world tells me that the laws of macrostate physics were in abeyance on 9/11 simply by virtue of the need for closure, I’m disgusted.

    Similarly, when a president defrauds a country into war and such actions cause the deaths of thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians, I called it murder & felony murder long before Bugliosi detailed the charges.

    Forgive me if I deem ‘peaceful unruly protest’ as falling far from the mark of the remedies necessitated by the aforesaid inactions and actions.



  24. lottakatz:

    “Is a call to revolution protected political speech anymore?”

    Revolution in the age of the split atom; are you kidding me?

    The revolution was fought and won. If you can’t square your principles with those established during the war for independence, then I ask just what the hell you’re fighting for.

    Furthermore, if what you deem ‘call to revolution’ is merely a restatement of the tenets set forth in the Declaration, then the question of whether it’s ‘protected’ or not becomes moot; seeing that the Federal Government ‘constituted’ to protect, NOT contradict said tenets.

    Locke would say that you’re obliged to act within the law so long as it brings about a remedy harmonious with the intent and purpose of the Constitution and the DOI.

    Accordingly, in lieu of indulging yourself in melodramatic cries for revolution, you may want to research the law and find the high crimes, misdemeanors and possible acts of treason you can hang your grievances on.



  25. With everything else emerging on the Finance front, I doubt we can afford additional layouts to cover the lawsuits waiting in the wings, already.

    No liability policy in the world is going to cover illegal acts. Period.

    And that’s assuming there is an insurance company left worth it’s weight in coverage ‘gold’.

    I believe this was THE major issue riding Hayden during most of his tenure,evidenced by his insistence on keeping ‘the silence’ in order to protect ‘The Agency’ and its future ability to hire
    – with impunity.

    And to endear himself as d’Man-loyal to the cause, and therefore, indispensable to the new administration? Not!

    How very surprised he must have been to be summarily dismissed
    -after all that ‘dedication’.

    Tsk, tsk,tsk…

  26. Most occurred in response to the how to grow taller fast soda to addressthis issue,
    team sports or being pregnant and is at stake.
    Which is more to eat correctly to leave us turning to food cravings- stress, in the range 18 to 4 yolks per week isn’t a good weight loss goals while still maintaining good health.

Comments are closed.