MSNBC Cuts Off Presidential Press Conference Because “The President Isn’t Telling The Truth”

Yesterday, there was an extraordinary — and defining — moment on MSNBC when host Nicole Wallace cut off coverage of President Trump’s press conference on the basis that the network did not agree with what he was saying about Joe Biden and his son’s controversial windfall contract with a Ukrainian energy company during the Obama Administration. Wallace simply declared Biden was cleared and that Trump was lying so there was no need for viewers to listen. It ignored any semblance of covering the news and MSNBC appears perfectly okay with a host regulating what viewers believe based on her view of what is true.

Wallace said that the President was just trying to deflect blame to Biden and that “We hate to do this really but the president isn’t telling the truth.”  She added “These allegations against Joe Biden and Hunter Biden he’s repeating had been investigated by the Ukrainians…the Wall Street Journal included in their report on Friday that the Ukrainians view this issue as having been investigated and adjudicated.” However, that is not accurate.

In the transcript, the President of Ukraine says that they are taking a new look at prior investigation. More importantly, there are two concerns with Hunter Biden. One is the concern of whether Joe Biden knew that his actions may benefit his son. I am willing to believe that Biden was not aware of the potential investigation of his son’s company in the Ukraine. Yet, there is the other question of whether the Biden family cashed in on Biden’s positions in these convenient and ample contracts. Children and spouses of politicians are often given positions and contracts to influence them. These payments are more difficult to track and to address under anti-corruption laws. Now, there is the incredible suggestion that Hunter Biden has never (even to this day) discussed his business dealings with his father. Never. Hunter Biden has said that that is not true.

What has long been difficult for many of us to square is how China and the Ukraine searched the world over for the best possible person to handle almost $2 billion and they just happened to come up with the son of the Vice President of the United States, a world leader who happened to be coming to their countries with massive trade and aid plans. Hunter Biden was that much of an intellectual and finance genius from Asia to Europe and beyond?

Yet none of this matters. The question is the role of the media. If Wallace does not believe Trump, that is fine. However, the press conference was news as a president gave his side of a developing impeachment controversy. Some agree with his view of Biden and the controversy. MSNBC is saying that it will not prevent viewers to see statements are its views as untrue about Biden or Trump. That is highly disturbing for those of us who have written about the loss of objectivity in media coverage and legal analysis.

324 thoughts on “MSNBC Cuts Off Presidential Press Conference Because “The President Isn’t Telling The Truth””

  1. Another opinion put in simple terms.

    Are the Dems overplaying their hand?
    Posted: 26 Sep 2019 04:53 PM PDT
    (Paul Mirengoff)
    Jim Dueholm is a former law partner of John and Scott. He offers his view of the Ukraine matter as it has unfolded so far:

    The whistleblower’s complaint and the transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zalensky have been released to the public. Neither supports the pre-release claim that President Trump threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine investigated presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son.

    The July 25 call was a friendly, feel-good call with no pressure and no threat, explicit or implicit, that tied aid to a Biden investigation.

    President Trump dwelled on an investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign, which is appropriate and has nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election. The president didn’t ask President Zalensky to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, but he did urge him in an aside to cooperate in an investigation of that matter by Attorney General Bill Barr. Cooperation and investigation are much different things.

    The complaint adds little to the transcript. It dwells at great length on investigation of the 2016 election. Like the transcript, it makes brief mention of a Biden investigation but provides no evidence that President Trump tied aid to a Biden investigation. The aid has been provided and Attorney General Barr is apparently not investigating the Bidens.

    Nothing in the complaint or transcript is likely to generate Republican or public support for impeachment.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has committed House Democrats to an impeachment inquiry and backed them into an impeachment corner. If they don’t begin impeachment proceedings, they will anger their base and feed the witch hunt narrative. If they do proceed, public business will be held hostage to an unpopular quest, inviting Republicans to campaign against a do-nothing Congress.

    And whatever they do, they have already ensnared the Biden candidacy in Ukrainian coils and made it harder for Democrats and Republicans to work together.

    I think Pelosi and other Democrats, in their eagerness to find a smoking gun or a magic bullet, view the transcript as far more scandalous than most Americans will perceive it to be. President Trump, whose political instincts are usually sound, doesn’t view the transcript as scandalous. Otherwise, he would not have released it so readily.

    Trump is predisposed to think he can do no wrong, just as Democrats are predisposed to think everything he does is wrong. In this instance, I believe Trump has a better feel for how Americans will view the transcript than the Dems do, and I agree with Jim Dueholm’s assessment of the politics of impeaching Trump, with the caveat that we don’t know now what additional evidence will emerge.

  2. Excellent points by WSJ Editorial Board.

    Pelosi Ducks an Impeachment Vote

    The full House authorized inquiries for Nixon and Clinton. Why not for Trump?

    This isn’t how impeachment worked against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In those cases the full House voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate if impeachment was warranted.

    On Feb. 4, 1974, Democratic House leaders introduced H.Res. 803 authorizing Judiciary “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach President Richard M. Nixon,” according to the summary. The vote in favor was 410-4. The bipartisan support gave the inquiry more than partisan legitimacy, and six months later Nixon resigned after tapes were released finding he had ordered the coverup of the Watergate break-in.
    Republicans followed a similar process in 1998 against Mr. Clinton. On Oct. 5, following the release of Ken Starr’s independent counsel report, the House Judiciary Committee voted 21-16 to recommend a full impeachment inquiry into whether Mr. Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice.

    That resolution, H.Res. 581, went to the House floor on Oct. 8 and passed 258-176. Thirty-one Democrats joined Republicans to authorize the committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America.”

    Despite her Tuesday declaration, Mrs. Pelosi has held no such vote and has signaled no intention to hold one. There is no constitutional obligation to hold such an authorizing vote. But it’s telling that Mrs. Pelosi doesn’t want to put her Members on record.

    The issue here is political accountability. Impeaching a President means nullifying the results of a presidential election, which is the core act of American democratic legitimacy. If Democrats are going to do this, they have an obligation to stand up and be counted in a way that the public can examine.

    In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the authorizing resolutions laid out the parameters of the impeachment inquiry and the powers the Judiciary Committee could exercise. A resolution that attracted Republican votes would also enhance the credibility of the probe.

    Our guess is that Mrs. Pelosi is ducking a vote because she knows such a resolution in this case would be almost entirely partisan. That would hurt impeachment’s credibility with the public. She may also be trying to protect her Members in swing districts who want to wait as long as possible to go on record on impeachment. If the polls turn against impeachment and she has to settle for censuring Mr. Trump, she’d like to spare her vulnerable Members from having to vote even for an inquiry.

    Process matters for political legitimacy and the credibility of American institutions. Washington now is caught up in a classic case of political mob psychology. Mrs. Pelosi’s approval unleashed pent-up partisan furies, and woe to anyone who raises a point of order.

    Democratic leaders don’t really want to investigate further. They are prosecuting a case whose conclusion has already been reached. They also know that, with few exceptions, the American media have chosen to join the prosecution team. Republicans will be lectured that their duty is to oust Mr. Trump or be damned for all time by history. This is exactly the time when democratic norms get trampled and institutions damaged. Democrats, with the media in tow, will not face the political restraints that Mr. Trump has faced when he has tried to push past traditional boundaries. Impeachment accountability for Congress should start with an “official” vote on the House floor.

  3. You know who else would appreciate MSNBC??? Joseph Goebbels! He would immediately gro what’s going on! I mean, no way he would let FDR or Winston Churchill interfere with his narrative by replaying them on air in Germany!

    Nope, if you are trying to craft a narrative and provide a safe space for your supporters, you can’t interrupt that with people spouting an entirely different line. Why heck, Goebbels would even approve of Antifa shutting down speakers on college campuses. Although he would probably ask for better looking uniforms.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Say what you will about Goebbels, but he did know a thing or two about propaganda.

      “It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”― Joseph Goebbels

      1. Oh, he for sure knew his stuff. The Germans were probably the most educated people in the world at the time, and within a few years he had them “turned out”, and out on the corner making money for him.

        And, he used the same techniques that have turned the street level Democrats’s minds into mush.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      2. Very simply, Herr Goebbels understood Teddy Roosevelt.

        “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

        ― Theodore Roosevelt

  4. MSNBC was being objective. It would not have been objective if it had been complicit in airing Trump’s lies. His lies are not newsworthy. The fact that he is a pathological liar is newsworthy, but that doesn’t mean that each and every lie must be aired.

    1. “MSNBC was being objective.”

      Henry, If they were being objective and newsworthy they would have let him speak and then prove to the audience why they thought he was lying. The problem was they knew they couldn’t do it so they turned him off.

      You now have your two minutes of fame telling us what he said that was a lie. Don’t talk about points of disagreement. Stick with proven lies.

  5. “It ignored any semblance of covering the news and MSNBC appears perfectly okay with a host regulating what viewers believe based on her view of what is true.”

    Well, one wonders if the sort of mind meld which existed between the CIA under Allen Dulles and his buddy Henry Luce operator of TIME/ LIFE and his CIA sidekick CD Jackson doesn’t have some kind of echo on down to today.

  6. Turley said:

    “What has long been difficult for many of us to square is how China and the Ukraine searched the world over for the best possible person to handle almost $2 billion and they just happened to come up with the son of the Vice President of the United States, a world leader who happened to be coming to their countries with massive trade and aid plans. Hunter Biden was that much of an intellectual and finance genius from Asia to Europe and beyond?”


    And this stunt by Pelosi throws Biden under the bus for certain.

    Less certain is the effect on Trump.

    Ergo, the more certain aim, was to eliminate Biden as a candidate.

    And advance Liz Warren.

    Hence my hypothesis that this is a female amazonian factional ploy to utterly take over the Democrat party, and make forever henceforth the Pantsuit Party, in the vein of Hillary, Pelosi, and Liz Warren, and your future Democrat leader,

    Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

    I hope you like her Dem guys because she will be your master for a long time coming. She’s the winner in this scuffle. She had power and she leveraged it for more. That the Dems have a worse chance in the election now does not matter to her, the effect on America does not matter, what matters is that she flexed her rhetorical muscles to “impeach now!” etc and she’s getting what her whiny little mouth wanted.

    Touche, AOC! You get a point in the last round of these proceedings.

    Here,dont take it from Kurtz, take it from the cunning David Axelrod who spelled it out in July

  7. So, why doesn’t Hunter Biden simply go on TV with MSNBC and other media outlets to set the record straight about “the truth,” the way Donald Trump’s children certainly would if similar accusations were leveled against them? And why aren’t MSNBC and CNN pursuing Hunter Biden to get his version of “the truth.” You know the answer why.

    1. ah yes James, because he is smart enough to follow his lawyers advice.

      a– lay low. do not go on tv or make any public statements of any kind. in fact, don’t say anything about it to anybody

      b– remember the magic words: “i have nothing to say” and the magic words from the magic fifth amendment, ” I want to speak to my lawyer first” and “i refuse to testify on the grounds that it might incriminate me”

      1. Yep, Mr. K. Sort of like the decision that attorneys make as a general rule not to put the defendant on the witness stand, except as a last resort, following the presumption that what you say can hurt you.

    1. It is striking that Hunter Biden, Georgetown and Yale grad (white privilege anyone ?), an addict, womanizing, unfaithful husband, received a dishonorable Naval discharge as an Ensign (!), who screwed his dead brother, Beau’s, wife, dumped her, married another female, who has no job skills worthy of a 6 figure income, could land an income and position of influence in Ukraine…solo


      Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived


      Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.

      In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

      “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

      “Well, son of a bytch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.

      Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.

      But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

      U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.

      The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.

      1. Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists…

        So far, lost in all of this is this audience of “foreign policy experts” Biden thought would be impressed and amused with his quid pro quo. The members of the Council on Foreign Relations should all have their security clearances suspended until they’ve been properly vetted with requisite background checks.

        1. Kimberly Strassel coined a clever phrase: Quid Pro Joe


          others by Strassel:

          Taking Out Joe Biden

          The left can impeach Trump and destroy an insufficiently liberal front-runner.

          Kimberley A. Strassel

          Sept. 26, 2019 6:58 pm ET

          The Trump years have been rough on Democrats’ sensibilities, and their thinking has become increasingly addled as a result. The party has worked tirelessly to create an issue worthy of impeaching the president—Russia collusion, obstruction of justice, Stormy Daniels, tax returns. This week Democrats jettisoned all that in favor of the only issue that implicates their own front-runner for the nomination. Genius.

          Mr. Trump’s nonsmoking-gun phone call with Ukrainian President

          young Mr. Biden’s questionable activities and “Quid Pro Joe’s” involvement.

          True, the media is doing double-duty on his behalf. Its general line is that Mr. Biden’s conflicts are fine; asking about them is corrupt.

          We are seeing a lot of stories about how Democrats are determined not to let Republicans “Hillary” Mr. Biden

          The “fact checkers” are out in force with soothing assurances that there’s no evidence any Biden broke the law.

          In 2013 the vice president took Hunter on a government plane to China, where Hunter met with business associates, a moment that even a former senior Obama White House aide admitted in a July New Yorker profile “invited questions about whether [Hunter] ‘was leveraging access.’ ”

          In the week over which the whistleblower drama unfolded, activists dramatically ratcheted up the pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman Democrats to embrace impeachment. It had always been there, but this was intense. The campaign included social-media and grass-roots declarations that “time was up,” as well as implicit warnings that Democrats who didn’t get on the train would face primary challenges from the left.

          It worked, leading to the surreal sight of the speaker announcing an “official” impeachment inquiry before anybody in Congress had read the phone-call transcript or the whistleblower complaint.

          The decision is more ludicrous now that the documents have come out and proved there was no Trump quid pro quo, no “repeated” pressure on Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and nothing else worthy of impeachment.

          The release prompted Charlie Cook of the well-known Cook Political Report to note that given “the build up,” he was “totally underwhelmed by the transcript.” His prediction: “This will not move malleable voters.”

  8. Adam Schiff is the chair of our Intelligence Committee. He’s a brazen liar, leaker, schemer and deceiver. Who on God’s green earth trusts this sick sleezebag to head the Intel committee???

  9. We’re long past debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There’s a tipping point between a public broadcaster providing fair and balanced news and disseminating lies and propaganda. Nicole Wallace and MSNBC recognize the difference and made the correct call in the interests of our body politic.

    1. +1
      Trump is not making important policy statements, he’s spewing false talking points., which of course is mostly what he does.

      F… him and traditional deference and respect we give Presidents. He squandered it.

      1. Actually, he got none in the first place. you guys were at F him from day one.

        Now you’re hauling millions of Americans around to the point where they say F you too buddy

        It’s a regrettable course of sabotage, foot dragging, and division that the Democrat leadership has unwisely chose, against its own better instincts, but time will tell if the strategic choice was a worthy gamble or not. Their money is on the table. And maybe a lot more than money.

      2. So lemme get this straight.

        A Brennan CIA plant conspired with an Obama DOJ loyalist to concoct a treasonous story about Trump.

        All in service of (a) finishing what Mueller couldn’t finish and (b) protecting the Biden aristocracy.

        And NeverTrump fell for it? Again?


        -Julie Kelly

  10. “Ukraine was the real reason Biden in 2015 decided not to run in the 2016 presidential race. The Clinton machine had dug up dirt on him and his son and their Ukrainian influence-peddling and was threatening to leak it to the media.”
    -Paul Sperry

    Rumor is that Hillary has signed on to support Liz Warren become the nominee and now we see Biden being taken out — not by Trump or the Republicans — but very likely by a play by Hillary Clinton’s camp intended to kneecap Biden and help her preferred candidate Lizzie Warren.

    1. they were behind Kamala at first but she has been losing them as she’s fared weakly in debates.

  11. “The whistleblower’s legal team — which includes a member who previously interned for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer — has refused to confirm that their client works for the CIA. They have also warned against publishing details about the person’s identity.”

    “Schiff at one point read false dialogue from the call and defended it later as “parody,” something that earned him scorn from Republican lawmakers like Brad Wenstrup….the new report again confirms a fact Democrats refuse to admit: this entire complaint is based on second and thirdhand information. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, no matter who the complaint came from.”

    1. The memo is clear if incomplete evidence and shows illegal solicitation of help in a US political campaign from a foreign government backed up by a threat to withhold US funds. We later learned the WH tried to cover up the evidence.

      1. Anon1 – if you read the memo, you would realize that Trump was looking for help on Crowdstrike and 2016, not 2020. I do hope they lock classified documents up in a safe and don’t leave them laying around.

      2. Amazing blindness by Anon. What did Trump get out of this? Nothing What is the President’s job? Foreign policy. Nothing in the trascript shows any action that the President wasn’t delegated to so. Cover up? The transcripts have been released even though this creates problems down the road.

        Who actually probably broke the law? Joe Biden.

        3 years after Obama’s Presidency we have a bunch of rich people. I have heard Obama is worth $100 Million.

        A lot of rich people that were formerly poor seem to come from people that are supposed to be servants of the people.

  12. What is rightly regarded as outrageous outside the Beltway is seen a de rigueur within it. That’s why the CIA mole dropped the hearsay complaint on the elected POTUS. The intelligence community has been in quiet revolt against the civilian leadership for years and that’s why lower-than-worm-dung Schumer is such a bad, bad Leroy Brown pussy footer around them (“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”). He’s scared as guys with closets full of skeletons usually are. Trump on the other hand is willing to take them on and that’s why the wrath is so hateful and persistent. They think they can outlive him . They won’t. The public is now aroused and many see the CIA for what it truly is: Control-freaks In America. They really think they own the country. Trump’s only mistake so far is his wall geography. Instead of the southern border the first wall needed to go around the Beltway to protect us from the crazies.

    1. The question is in re the CIA: what’s the value-added? The Defense Department has six intelligence services, the State Department has a small agency of in-house analysts, the Treasury department has an office which investigates financial transactions, the Energy department has an office which monitors the trade in uranium, and there are multiple investigatory services in the Department of Justice. Per Edward J. Epstein, Stansfield Turner had the idea that the CIA would invest in technical collection and not espionage. Well, Epstein asks, you have a bunch of other services engaged in technical collection, so why have the CIA? They either place spies or they have no special mission. Per Reuel Marc Gerecht (who identifies himself as a CIA veteran), the agency is damaged because the promotion system it employs is inane. People are promoted by the number of contacts they develop without any regard to whether or not the contacts tell them anything of value. See the career of Aldrich Ames, who was promoted several times during his years with the agency. (Gerecht claims we had very few useful assets in the old Soviet Union). It certainly seems as if identified CIA agents you read about are a mix of paper pushers, self-aggrandizing bozos, and cranks (even when they’re not convicted of espionage). Michael Scheuer, Philip Giraldi, Frank Snepp, Philip Agee, and now John Brennan.

      1. Well, I figured you would not like Michael Scheuer since his a critic of unalloyed support of Israel. Without parsing that notion, let’s turn to a different suggestion by Michael Scheuer which may have more relevance to this episode (Wiki):

        “In July 2018, Scheuer called upon “those millions of well-armed citizens who voted for Trump” to be ready to kill “a long and very precise list” of those who oppose Trump. His list included the entire mainstream media and two former Presidents. “If Trump does not act soon to erase” his opponents, he wrote, “the armed citizenry must step in and eliminate them.” Scheuer named those opponents as:

        “thug-civil-servants like Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Page, and Rosenstein; worshipers of tyranny, like the Democratic members of Congress, the Clintons, the FBI, and the Obamas; apparent traitors like Brennan, Hayden, and Clapper; all of the mainstream media; and the tens of thousands of government-admitted-and-protected, violent, criminal, and illegal immigrants. Scheuer concluded by looking forward to the “utter joy and satisfaction to be derived from beholding great piles of dead U.S.-citizen tyrants.””


        1. TIA yeah he sounds a little crazy, but it makes me grin.

          I’m surprised you havent taken off on Ray McGovern too. He’s an Israel critic. There’s plenty others, Giraldi is too I think. Oh wait, you forgot Victor Marchetti. I take it you don’t agree with his article on Howard Hunt. I have a sense he probably didn’t care for them too much either since Willis Carto published his infamous article. Well, Israel’s not a part of this mess. They’re probably going to sit this one out. That would be wise.

          Ah for the old days when the OSS hands were in action. At least then the rogues could take daring action back then, instead of trying to slay a king with a memo.

          Pathetic worm! Soon to be outed is my prediction. One way or another.

    2. FBI took its swing and missed. Now CIA wants to take a swing too. Assuming they haven’t already.

      Really pathetic that these agencies– or their errant staff– are aspiring to be Praetorian usurpers. They’ve lost the confidence of the people.

      There’s more of us than the Praetorians. Remember that Praetorians.

    3. “I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.”

      – John Fitzgerald Kennedy

      “You know what they say in Sicily: if you want to kill a dog, you don’t cut off the tail, you cut off the head.”

      – Carlos Marcello for Allen Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, the Texas Oilmen

  13. Mostly Spittle Nazi Biden Staffel and guess what That means there were two billion dollar deals from the War Monger Party. One done in China and now if it turns out to be true and since MSNBC and the DNC is involved one really doesn’t know.

    The Sad-ist part is that leaves Comrade Your Money is My Money Lizard Warren or worse Motor Mouth Hairless are the best the international and national socialist can come up with and none of the three have any experience except in what one might call criminal activities. Biden and Warren in ripping off and stealing from the citizens and MMH in shall we say street corner activities

  14. JT: “What has long been difficult for many of us to square is how China and the Ukraine searched the world over for the best possible person to handle almost $2 billion and they just happened to come up with the son of the Vice President…”

    This is comedy.

Comments are closed.