Goose Meets Gander: Pelosi Refuses To Turn Over Tax Records

President Donald Trump’s long opposition to the release of his tax records has been a legitimate matter of concern for people on both sides of the political aisle. Such records are routinely disclosed by modern presidential candidates and the information could prove relevant to some of the allegations facing the President regarding his personal financial interests as well as past business practices. Moreover, the President’s long excuse that the taxes are subject to ongoing proceedings with the IRS (and being withheld by the advice of counsel) seems dubious at best. However, while vociferously demanding such records from the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has steadfastly refused to release her own. Indeed, Chief of Staff Drew Hammill virtually mocked the suggestion of such transparency in the public interest. Hammill dismissed such suggestions and said that Pelosi “will gladly release her tax returns if and when she runs for president.” The problem is that Pelosi succeeded in running for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives which not only gives her great ability to advance her own financial interests but puts her just one slot (after the Vice President) from becoming president in an emergency.

Hammill had to dismiss the notion of full disclosure as some type of joke because there is no good argument for why Pelosi does not want the public to see the same tax disclosures from the Speaker that they do from the President or Vice President.

Pelosi has co-sponsored legislation (H.R. 1) that would require the president and vice president to release their tax returns. That law states that “With respect to each taxable year for an individual who is the President or Vice President, not later than the due date for the return of tax for the taxable year, such individual shall submit to the Federal Election Commission a copy of the individual’s income tax returns for the taxable year and for the 9 preceding taxable years.”

Pelosi coauthored a Jan. 3 op-ed for USA Today to declare “Transparency, ethics and unity will be the guiding light of the Democratic Congress.” Yet, this should be an easy way to distinguish the conduct of the Democratic leaders from Trump. While a couple of reporters have pursued this issue, there has been relatively little written about this glaring contradiction in the position of the Democratic leadership.

269 thoughts on “Goose Meets Gander: Pelosi Refuses To Turn Over Tax Records”


    The Senate voted to advance the anti Infanticide bill with 53 votes but were blocked by a Democratic fillibuster intended to promote the Killing of Babies.

    1. No, they were blocked by the insistence of their gatekeepers that the inane practice of the filibuster continue, just as staffing the administration has been impeded by the witless excess in requiring appointments be subject to confirmation hearings, as well as the ‘courtesies’ Senators insist on in re ‘holds’ and what not. These are clear choices by both parties. The Democrats can do this because for the Republicans, it is failure theatre all the way down.

      1. “No, they were blocked by the insistence of their gatekeepers”

        That too but also by a “Democratic fillibuster intended to promote the Killing of Babies.”

        The fillibuster issue is something that needs to be dealt with but that is a method rather than an intention.


    “President Donald Trump reacted on Twitter Monday evening after the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, which would have ensured that babies who survive abortions are given medical attention, failed to pass the Senate.

    “Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.””

      1. No, Absurd/DSS, we need more CAPITAL LETTERS to counter the splashy HHHNN headlines and lead-ins.😉
        And I think capitalized letters are now in public domain.

    1. They should be careful about eroding taboos against ending life.

      those taboos protect all of us– including those in the prime of our lives.

      That said, they figure any abortion bill is just political theatre because of the POTUS taking that issue over with Roe. I tell you, that’s how both sides’ leadership see that “issue” just theatre

      1. ” that “issue” just theatre”

        It’s fascist theatre and though not all Liberals understand what they support many are followers of fascist leaders. Take note how the Liberal position can change 180 degrees in 10 years. (relevant portion starts at 1minute 30 seconds)

        Note how the Liberal position has changed on abortion and when killing of babies born and separate from the mother is established my next headline will be DEMOCRATS FOR EXECUTING THE ELDERLY.

        Do you think that is not so? Did you ever think they would be executing babies? Allowing criminals and rapists sanctuary and releasing them from jails? Don’t kid yourself. The Liberal / Progressive mindset is psychopathic.

    1. oky, did you hear alex jones challenged rogan to a MMA rules fight?

      alex jones will get whupped by joe rogan. joe is a trained striker and jujitsu player. alex jones is not. this publicity stunt will not end well for him, if it “goes to the mat”

      i feel alex must need more super brain force supplement to think clearly about this foolish challenge!

      1. Mr Kurtz,

        I don’t recall hearing of an offer to fight, but don’t doubt it. The outcome of a fight with Joe, he’s aready phuck’ed up & should be on the phone to AJ ask Jones’s forgiveness.

        Has Forbes Dan the Cuck Diplacido meet Jones legal team yet?

        I’ll read the rest of the Forbes crap later, but what I see it starts of with so many out right lies I think Forbes will be forced to retract large sections of their piece.

      2. Rogan has multiple problems, his being a Nazi (Socialist Democrats like now days in the US) is but one .

        Maybe as a Child Joe Rogan & Google Apple, Twitter, Facebook, etc don’t understand the connection to what Anti-American Nazi Azzholes they seem to be showing them selves to be to many of us,

      3. Mr K,

        I had the time to finish reading Diplacido sorry article, just more BS hatin Trump… But I did see Rogan did try to apologize for what pissed Jones off. I suggest Rogan works on it. (Soros, Sandy Hook, Jones hatred towards Phkin creepy pedos )

        And Diplacido admits he’s stupid when it comes to Infowars & it’s supporters, but he does post this link for anyone to judge for themselves.

        I need to get back to banning those Fake News sites off my PC.

        Below is his link.

  3. Nancy & Paul Pelosi real estate holdings should be investigated

    Those LLC’s & front companies that are foreign government owned.

      1. TIA x 2 said the following about Pelosi:

        “Well, she was using a Chinese spy as her chauffeur.”


        It was Feinstein, not Pelosi, as others have noted.

        “The FBI apparently concluded the driver hadn’t revealed anything of substance.

        “They interviewed him, and Dianne forced him to retire, and that was the end of it,” says our source.”

        1. You mean he skated on criminal charges? Laws are for the clients of little people, I guess.

  4. Never mind about her taxes. I’d like to see Nancy’s real estate portfolio holdings

    Since Nancy Pelosi has been appointed her prestigious position of Speaker of the House, she has been reported of having a net worth of $29 million. That may seem like quite a lot of money for any government official that gets paid $223,500 a year, however, it is not just her political positions that have earned her such an impressive income. Nancy, along with her husband, Paul Pelosi, has spent many years investing in high-end commercial real estate. They own several different properties together that they rent out to other companies for a hefty price each year.

  5. It is not necessary for Pelosi to campaign for President. Under the Constitution, the Speaker of the House is right behind the Vice President in the line of succession for the Oval Office, a responsibility she claimed by accepting the House leadership role.

    1. There is no constitutional provision which places the speaker in that position. That specification is to be found in a federal statutory law enacted in 1947 (which replaced a previous set of statutory provisions).

      That law should be amended to remove the Speaker and the President pro tem from the order of success. A more thorough solution would be an amendment which would replace the quasi-elective vice presidency with a qualified franchise granted the president to appoint vice presidents to supervise blocs of federal agencies (adjusting the 20th and 25th Amendments accordingly).

      The system worked out under the 25th Amendment is inane and should be replaced.

  6. It is not necessary for her to campaign for President. Under the Constitution, the Speaker of the House is right behind the Vice President in the line of succession for the Oval Office, a responsibility she claimed by accepting the House leadership role.

    1. As noted. That is wrong. The Speaker’s position is in federal statutory law.

  7. Off topic. Cardinals. I saw on-line a news article that a Cardinal was convicted of child sex abuse. I am from St. Louis and live in NC now but when I go back home I often go to Cardinal games at Busch Stadium. The seats are too expensive and baseball is starting to fade due to the high prices paid to players. I will not go to another Cardinal game.

      1. interesting commentary from this guy. i will watch zagami some more. some of the stuff he says is sharp. but i see a lot of cranks dig his stuff. cranks are like pepper, a little bit spices things up and too much ruins things

  8. Pelosi is bent on swerving Left to win that constituency.
    Alas they are hemorrhaging support in the rest of America

    Middle Americans be damned


    Who’s Deplorable Now?

    Democrats wonder if they still need the Midwest.

    James Freeman
    Feb. 25, 2019 5:08 p.m. ET

    Election night at the New York Hilton Midtown on November 8, 2016.
    With polls indicating that electoral viability is as important to voters as any policy issue, a handful of the party’s prospects are already holding up their Midwestern credentials to make the case that they are the ones who can turn Big 10 country — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin — blue again.
    But the Timesmen add:

    Yet far away from the mounting snowdrifts that line every curb here, there is a growing school of thought that Democrats should not spend so much time, money and psychic energy tailoring their message to a heavily white, rural and blue-collar part of the country when their coalition is increasingly made up of racial minorities and suburbanites. The party should still pursue voters who have drifted toward Republicans, this thinking goes, but should also place a high priority on mobilizing communities more amenable to progressive politics.
    The numerical swap between the three Rust Belt states that handed Mr. Trump the White House and the most alluring trio of Sun Belt targets is nearly even: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin have a combined 46 electoral votes, while North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona offer 42. And an aspirational “reach” state like Texas would offer a larger trove of electoral votes for Democrats than the combined total of Ohio and Iowa, states that have started to slip away from the party.
    Perhaps Democratic politicos are just trying to play the policy hand they’ve been dealt. If one were to design an agenda to alienate blue-collar voters in the industrial Midwest, it would look a lot like the Green New Deal.

    But deploring traditional Middle Americans who work with their hands might not be any more fun for the Democratic nominee in 2020 than it was for Hillary Clinton in 2016. That’s because assembling a winning coalition without them may require a lot of psychic energy.

    Public broadcaster David Bernstein of WGBH in Boston writes in Politico about the increasing strength President Trump is showing in some recent polls of Hispanic-Americans. Mr. Bernstein throws cold water on the Sun Belt strategy:

    Now, here’s the brutal truth for Democrats: If Hispanic Americans are in fact showing surging approval of Trump, he could be on his way to matching or exceeding the 40 percent won by George W. Bush in his 2004. If Trump does 12 percentage points better than his 2016 numbers with the growing Hispanic vote, it pretty much takes Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina off the table for Democrats, who would need to sweep Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to reach the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the White House. At the same time, that 12-point shift would give Trump a clear shot at winning Colorado and Nevada, states where Hispanic voters make up well over 10 percent of the electorate and where Clinton won by 5 percentage points or less in 2016.
    Democrats may have helped Mr. Trump’s re-election chances when they decided that limiting border wall funding was more important to them than securing legal status for people brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Louise Radnofsky and Natalie Andrews report in the Wall Street Journal:

    Even when lawmakers began meeting behind closed doors to hammer out a 2019 spending deal that would include some money for border barriers, Democrats in both chambers agreed early in the process in a meeting in Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office that the Dreamer issue would stay off the negotiating table unless the president intervened and insisted on it.
    Some argued that temporary protections in exchange for a permanent wall was a bad deal. A senior Democratic aide said the decision was made because there was limited time to resolve a range of spending issues, and throwing immigration policy into the mix could have thwarted negotiations.
    House Democrats now plan to introduce a version of a bill next month to grant permanent protections to the Dreamers, an aide to Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D., Calif.) said. But the measure will be heard by the Judiciary Committee before it has a vote, meaning it could be several weeks, if not months, before a floor vote.
    And of course Democrats gave away their leverage to force Senate passage by refusing to give the President the wall funding he sought. It’s almost as if Democrats would rather use immigration as a political weapon than craft a legislative solution.

    Sean Sullivan of the Washington Post reports on another challenge for Democrats hoping to pursue a Sun Belt strategy. The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela could become an electoral crisis for certain U.S. politicians. Mr. Sullivan writes:

    Adding to the tension is growing concern among Democrats that Trump and his allies, seizing on the party’s leftward shift, will move to portray his potential 2020 challengers as socialists and point to Venezuela’s collapse as a symbol of what’s wrong with the views they espouse.
    Florida Democrats are disavowing the recent refusal by presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described democratic socialist, to label Maduro a dictator and call for him to go, though Sanders has criticized him.

    “They are clearly ignorant comments, and someone who’s running for president of the United States should be better briefed and knowledgeable about this crisis in Venezuela and how it impacts the Florida political landscape,” said Christian Ulvert, a Florida Democratic strategist who is of Nicaraguan descent and whose husband’s family has roots in Venezuela.
    Sounds like pretty soon the Democrats may be back up north looking for candidates with Midwestern roots. But who’s going to break the news to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal comrades that the party may still need Middle America?

  9. Pelosi reminds one that Congress should do two things and the state legislatures a third.

    1. Remove the Speaker of the House and the President pro tem of the Senate from the order of succession to the presidency in federal statutory law.

    2. Make it a practice to elect the Speaker and President Pro tem from outside the ranks of Congress – preferably elderly or retired judges.

    3. Call a constitutional convention and produce an amendment which mandates rotation in office and old-age retirement for federal officials. No one serves in Congress for more than 12 years in any bloc of 14 (or runs if they’ll hit that wall during their elective term) and no one stands for election past the calendar year wherein they reach their 72d birthday.

  10. For a law professor, Mr. Turley posts some half baked bulls..t and I am truly disappointed. He’s not who I thought he was.or the role he plays on TV – a serious and independent thinker. Most of the posters on this forum have obviously been here awhile and apparently like to post the same off topic bulls..t. I guess they amuse each other, but couldn’t hold up a conversation, let alone an argument much beyond “hello”, a pleasantry also sorely missing.

    See ya.

      1. Absurd,,..
        – This goes back to my point about the Bob Dole joke, and why it’s particularly relevant in the recent few days.
        The two established gasbags/ propagandists took a while to show their true colors.
        For a brief introductory period, they pretended that they were actually interested in exchanges and debates rather than sheer propaganda and polemics.
        This is what makes Janef unique, assuming she/it is not a sock puppet.
        She established herself immediately as a Joseph Goebbels wannabe propagandist and as one who is openly about as intellectually dishonest and chicken**** as can be found anywhere.
        So there is some credit due to her for “saving time” and telling us what she was all about, right up front.

      1. Jan F will be missed by those who like to believe that their opinions are the exact same thing as facts. The rest of us, not so much.
        I’m sure Professor Turley is devastated to see her go.

        1. Natacha claims to be both a nurse-practitioner and a lawyer. Mark M claims to be a lawyer. Jan F says [s]he’s owned her own business for 30 years and composes the tax returns without an accountant. but fancies that ‘no decent person could support Donald Trump’ is a statement of ‘fact’. His / her words, not mine.

          1. i believe mark m. i think natch is one of those ladies who were so abundant in my law school they made up about 2/3, and at least a quarter of those, did not actually go to work as lawyers, or any other job, and another quarter or more went to work for government, and another quarter went to NGOs or some sort of “clinic” etc, then about a quarter of the ladies actually went to work as lawyer who practice law in a firm or in court and not for government

            kind of stinks for men who go to law school and actually want to make a living off of it, that it’s become a sort of vanity degree for upwardly mobile women who aren’t sure which way to go. a sort of default setting for well heeled, politically minded, young ladies who are good students and can at least cut the mustard. about the only salient virtue of law school that endures, is that it is hard

    1. Jan F,
      “couldn’t hold up a conversation, let alone an argument”

      Take the log out of your own eye.

      It is difficult to have an actual conversation with someone who demonizes the other side.

      It is possible to have good conversations with folks whom you likely politically disagree. I have enjoyed several conversations with Enigma, for example, one actually quite long. We disagree on some things and agree (or nearly agree) on others. We ask questions of one another and do our best to provide thoughtful, respectful responses. I enjoy chatting with him.

      You have said things like “Anyone who doubts it is a moral or mental defective.” and “No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump”.

      There is no way comments like that will segue into a fruitful conversation. It is astonishing you think it is other’s fault that the conversations aren’t going the way you like.

      1. Before that [s]he was insisting Elliot Abrams was a war criminal. Pretty neat trick for Elliot Abrams given that the number of American combat troops in El Salvador in 1986 was zero and Elliot Abrams wasn’t in any soldier’s chain of command. Jan F fancies you’re a ‘war criminal’ if you sought a resolution to El Salvador’s political crisis different from what red haze outfits like the North American Congress on Latin America wanted. I don’t usually encounter people in this forum whose ratio of self-regard to actual intellectual competence is so high.

      2. “It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who demonizes the other side”.
        P.Rose, you must have missed the comment that Jan F.made about “anybody who voted for Trump”.
        Absurd/ DSS repeated it, and I guess you missed that as well.
        I commented, after she made that remark, that having drawn that line in the sand, it makes it easier to know how to view and treat an individual who announces her self in that way.
        That happened to be the second comment that I made to, or referencing her.
        The first question to her was, as a self announced newcomer to this blog, if she was new to reading the comments as well as posting comments here.
        She said new to both. After reading a few of her subsequent comments, especially the one about the lack of decency or intelligence of anyone who voted for Trump, I learned a lot about how she she wanted to conduct “a conversation”.
        The kind of remarks that she made right off the bat tells you, or should tell you, a lot about what kind of “a conversation” is possible or advisable when dealing with a person like that.
        It should not be a surprise to you that some will not react positively to that kind of behavior, and will respond in kind.
        There is no set “formula” or “style” for dealing with internet trash like Jan F., who decided to set up a troll booth in these threads.
        I’m not criticizing someone who “takes the high road” and just ignores her.
        I’m just telling you that I am not always inclined to take the high road, and don’t mind calling out, in a polite and tactful way, people like Jan F., and about five other prolific scumbags here.

        1. Tom Nash,
          ??? I am not quite understanding what you are trying to get me to understand.

          The crazy way the Reply function is working is making it a bit difficult to follow conversations.

          I, too, commented on Jan F.’s absurd demonization of Trump supporters in the Bernie post, and, I commented on the stupid identity politics game she was attempting to play by characterizing anyone in the GOP as ‘lily white’.

          I thought ““It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who demonizes the other side” needed to be pointed out to her since she was complaining about conversations not going well for her and ta-ta as if she was astounded she couldn’t have a decent conversation here.

          Well, gee, it’s no wonder.

          As far as I can tell, when you have tried to converse with people who hold differing views, I have not seen you demonize others the way she did. (I would probably call you on it if I saw it.) 🙂

          Of course not everyone is going to take the high road, though I’d like everyone to be as civil as possible so actual conversations about tricky matters can actually happen to some degree.

          1. Prarie Rose,…
            I thought that your comment was directed to Absurd/ DSS….I think you were quoting him at the beginning, and when you followed that with your comment “take the log out of your own eye” I thought you were suggesting that HE was doing the “demonizing” of Jan F.
            So I misinterpreted what you wrote. In any case, in reviewing these comments it looks like she’s not intending to stick around to do more demonizing😈, and get demonized😈 in return.😉

            1. Tom Nash,
              “I thought that your comment was directed to Absurd/ DSS”

              Good heavens, no! 🙂 It was a quote from Jan F herself at 4:28pm.

              “So I misinterpreted what you wrote.”

              No problem. The Reply function is making it a bit difficult to follow the conversations. I should have noted something like “Jan F wrote:” to establish good clarity.

              Have a good night!

    2. “I guess they amuse each other, but couldn’t hold up a conversation, let alone an argument much beyond “hello”, a pleasantry also sorely missing.”
      Ah Jan F U, we hardly knew ye (and that’s a relief) but like a flaming comet* you’ll speed off to another world where your unlettered venom might pass for high rhetoric. Try Buzzfeed.

      * Those of you who know me, know that I was thinking of a “flaming” something else but why humor the humorless.

    3. I challenged your lack of humility in your early posts on this blog. You’ve proven that is an intellectual maturity state you’re unprepared to accept. Leave, don’t leave, I don’t really care. But if/when you do return, be prepared to evaluate opinions in an objective way.

    4. One last parting shot – I shouldn’t have, and didn’t expect self reflection from this group as knee jerk posting which is non-responsive to both what became before and facts prevail, but let me clarify a few things. From the beginning my content based criticisms of Turley’s blog posts were met with personal insults and off topic partisan – re right wing – attacks. Then others would show up with their own off topic favorite right wing memes and off to the races. Boooorrrrring. I can get that in thousands of places these days. It would have been more entertaining and even enlightening to stay on the topics raised in Turley’s blog, but evidently most of you hang out here for other reasons having to do with bias and BS confirmation.

      Specific responses:

      I did not attack those who voted for Trump – we all make stupid mistakes – but those who after 2 years defend him now. Given that he is a compulsive self serving liar on a world class scale – that’s a fact – a constant braggart about things for which he had no responsibility – that’s a fact – a transparent and despicable human without regard for others – that’s a fact – as transparent as a 4 year old – that’s a fact – and a man without any principles or beliefs that don’t involve his personal well being and advancement – that’s a fact – no informed, sane, and decent person – you must be all 3 – would defend him. That’s a fact. These qualities – or I should say lack of qualities – are not hard to detect, and there is something wrong with you if you can’t, no matter how much you like Neal Goresuch – that’s also a fact.

      Absurd’s pretensions are particularly humorous. This is a guy who denies plain facts – the best assessment we have,and that includes the GOP controlled Senate Intelligence Committee is that the Russians tried to elect Trump. If that’s a Deep State lie – as he apparently believes, I guess the Senate GOP members are in on it, along with our intelligence agencies and the FBI. And he wants to be taken seriously? In what

      Several others wanted to get back to their right wing meme about “identity politics” without responding to the specific falsehood which Bernie promoted and Turley sucked up – concern about his age is “identity politics”. No, it isn’t and that’s a fact. No one here cared to discuss that distinction but preferred attacking me for not knowing how to do income taxes – WTF? – while trying to pretend their mighty whitey party got that way without playing identity politics.

      Anyway, have fun and don’t play in the road. I’m gone for good now.

      1. Jan F — I’m not sure you understand the difference between your own judgments and opinions and facts.

        I particularly like this comment of yours: “…the best assessment we have,and that includes the GOP controlled Senate Intelligence Committee is that the Russians tried to elect Trump.”

        Jan F, if you want to believe that some Facebook ads placed by Russian bots swayed the election to Trump, then so be it. But here’s another opinion about “election interference” for you to chew on:

        “…the best assessment we have… is that the leadership of the FBI, some within the Obama administration, the Intelligence agencies, and the mainstream media including George Clintonopolous, Scott Pelley, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, etc, etc, …. CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, Hollywood, ESPN anchors, SNL, late night ‘comedy’ talk show hosts and guests… all TRIED (and failed) to elect HILLARY CLINTON –whose campaign actually paid Russian operatives to dig up oppo research dirt on candidate Trump.”

      2. Thank you for your parting shot. May we regard this declaration as final? I hope?

        File this one away in the category of “i am quitting now” internet drama.

      3. Jan F. makes a resident at a mental institution sound completely sane. Jan’s parting shot demonstrated she is more ignorant than anyone surmised.

  11. Ethics? Democrats?

    Selective memory and application therein…hypocrites like always

    In Senate speech, Va. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax cautions against ‘political lynchings’

    Fairfax is fighting for his political life while the Dems are trying to change the topic….just like the Dems to selectively discuss what they choose…

    Not going to happen

    “Fairfax’s comments came two days after House Republican leaders said they plan to hold committee hearings in which two women who have publicly accused him of sexual assault can appear and tell their stories. No senators applauded after Fairfax finished speaking.”

    Justice Clarence Thomas sends his regards

  12. Hey guys, I have a troubling thought. I just want to get it out there to help counterintelligence spookery protecting our great country from foreign collusion.

    How about if the bad guys starting doing “false flag campaign ads?”

    Like something really embarrassing ads purportedly to elect so and so, that backfire. But intentionally so, hired by the opposition?

    Does anybody know if any such instances?

    AOC’s next election adversary for example might place an ad:


    or how about this:


    1. Unfortunately your examples really are the Dems platforms and they appeal to a huge number of the Democrat base.

  13. “Pelosi coauthored a Jan. 3 op-ed for USA Today to declare “Transparency, ethics and unity will be the guiding light of the Democratic Congress.”

    VA Gov Ralph “KKK Grandwizard” Northam, VA Lt Gov Justin “fqkq dat beach” Fairfax, Dem Presidential Candidates loving on racist Jussie “I got the rope” Mullet, NY Socialist Congresswoman Alexandra Occasional Cortex lying about everything, Anti-Semitic Rep Ilhan Omar making an ass out of herself with her hatred of Jews, and on and on and on

    Trump will be President in 2020 and beyond with help from the Pelosi raging growing dumpster fire they have become

    1. Poor Northam dressed up like a frat boy and is catching hell over it. Seems unfair to me. What’s a little blackface back in the day. Stop pandering to the civil rights whiners. I wish Republicans would stop piling on the guy for that.

      Fairfax is another story. Wow! Creepy dude. …. Very unfair situation but when Democrats control the mass media that’s what you get.

      1. Kurtz, Northam has weathered the storm. And Blacks just happen to be his strongest base right now. That scandal has come & gone. Northam will more than likely serve out his term.

        1. it goes to show that a lot of this nonsense digging up really old dirt is totally pointless. it should be eschewed.

  14. Is Pelosi With Out Papers? By that I ask if she was born in the U.S.? If she is a WOP then we do not need her next in line for President after Trump and Pence go South. Trump leaves on March 4th.

  15. Is Pelosi an Italian name? We had a guy living on the street nearby here who called himself Mike Polatsee. His ID spelled it Pelosi. He is from Sicily.

Comments are closed.