Why Didn’t The FBI Agents Take Hard Drives In Seizing Giuliani’s Electronic Devices?

I have been a long critic of Rudy Giuliani going back years, including interviews and press conferences that I have condemned for making unsupported statements (as well as comments inimical to his client’s interest). However, Giuliani may have a valid point.  The Biden Administration sent FBI agents to raid his home and other lawyers to seize “electronic devices.” According to Giuliani, this included computers and cell phones containing electronic files. However, the agents reportedly refused to take hard drives that Giuliani said contained material related to Hunter Biden, the son of our President. If the warrant did call for the seizure of computer and electronic devices, that makes no sense at all, particularly in accepting the word of the target of the search as to the contents of the devices.  As a defense attorney, I often question the scope of seizures in such searches as excessive or overly broad. I have never run into a search where agents refused to take evidence that is ordinarily defined within the scope of the warrant. We have yet to see the warrant itself but this is a curious omission given the seizure of computers.

Giuliani was on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Thursday and described the search of his home at 6 am by seven FBI agents. He said that the agents seized laptops and cell phones in what is believed to be an investigation into the possible violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). That itself is notable since, until a few years ago, FARA violations were rarely prosecuted criminally and most violations were treater as civil or administrative measures.

Giuliani denied such violations: “I never represented a Ukrainian national or official before the United States government. I’ve declined it several times. I’ve had contracts in countries like Ukraine. In the contract is a clause that says I will not engage in lobbying or foreign representation. I don’t do it because I felt it would be too compromising.”

However, it is this statement that stuck out for me:

“At the end of the search, when they had taken about, I would say, seven or eight electronic items of mine … they weren’t taking the three hard drives, which of course, are electronic devices. They just mimic the computer. I said, ‘Well, don’t you want these?’ And they said, ‘What are they? I said, ‘Those are Hunter Biden’s hard drives. And they said ‘no, no, no.”

On one hand, the FBI could argue that they already have that evidence because the laptop was previously seized. However, how do they know that hard drives contained the same information? The search warrant was premised on the claim that Giuliani was a risk for evidence destruction. Yet, the agents took his word for what was on the devices? For all the agents knew, Giuliani could have taken all of his incriminating FARA evidence and just slapped a “Hunter Biden Stuff” label on the outside.

Another explanation could be that the search warrant was narrowly written. The Justice Department could exclude hard drives out of concern for privileged communications. However, I have not seen that type of limitations in prior searches.  In prior cases, the Justice Department minimizes such searches through filtering teams as opposed to leaving some storage devices.  It would also make no sense since the current cellphones or laptops may not have records from the critical period. Moreover, the agents could claim that the search warrant is limited to Giuliani’s records, not those of clients or third parties. However, how would they know what was on the hard drives?

It is also possible that the FBI could say that Giuliani is lying and there was no such hard drives offered. Yet, if that were the case, one would expect the agents to return for the claimed hard drives missed in the prior search.

I have previously written about the Hunter Biden laptop and the virtual news blackout of the story, including the strikingly reluctant coverage after the release of his book. I frankly do not see why the FBI would reluctant to have this evidence since it is likely duplicative of evidence already held by prosecutors. I am not assuming that this was an effort to protect Biden.  I am just honestly confused by the decision of the agents if this warrant did call for the seizure of electronic devices and material.

Giuliani, who earned well-deserved fame as a mob prosecutor, recounted “I said, ‘Are you sure you don’t want them? I mean the warrant required them to take it. ‘No, no, no.’ One last time, I said, ‘Don’t you think you should take it?’ And they said, ‘No.'” Giuliani added: “But they relied on me, the man who had to be raided in the morning, because — I’m going to destroy the evidence? I’ve known about this for two years, Tucker. I could have destroyed the evidence. The evidence is exculpatory. It proves the president and I and all of us are innocent. They are the ones who are committing — it’s like projection. They are committing the crimes.”

This was an extraordinary search targeting the counsel to the former president.  There were reportedly disagreements in the Justice Department on whether to seek the warrant.  Yet, the Justice Department convinced a judge that there was electronic evidence and records that had to be seized to prevent destruction and to use on a possible prosecution.

The Justice Department has emphasized the need to acquire hard drives in its training manuals, including the publication Searching and Seizing Computers And Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations:

The typical computer user thinks of the contents of a hard drive in terms of what the computer’s user interface chooses to reveal: files, folders, and applications, all neatly arranged and self-contained. This, however, is merely an abstraction presented to make the computer easier to use. That abstraction hides the evidence of computer usage that modern operating systems leave on hard drives. As computers run, they leave evidence on the hard drive— considerably more evidence than just the files visible to users. Remnants of whole or partially deleted files can still remain on the drive. Portions of files that were edited away also might remain. “Metadata” and other artifacts left by the computer can reveal information about what files have recently been accessed, when a file was created and edited, and sometimes even how it was edited.

The Justice Department defines terms like “records” to expressly include hard drives. It encourages the following language:

The terms “records” and “information” include all of the foregoing items of evidence in whatever form and by whatever means they may have been created or stored, including any form of computer or electronic storage (such as hard disks or other media that can store data); any handmade form (such as writing, drawing, painting); any mechanical form (such as printing or typing); and any photographic form (such as microfilm, microfiche, prints, slides, negatives, videotapes, motion pictures, photocopies).

This is why I am confused by this account. I waited to see if there was an obvious explanation and perhaps there is one that I am missing. I just find the account perplexing.

We will have to wait to see if this is truly just about a single possible violation of FARA.  However, we should be able to see the warrant and the FBI should be able to explain why it would not take electronic storage devices or why it would take the word of the target on their content.

174 thoughts on “Why Didn’t The FBI Agents Take Hard Drives In Seizing Giuliani’s Electronic Devices?”

  1. From Glenn Greenwald, telling us how Democrats from the left act even to their own. It’s sickening.

    The leading progressive Democratic candidate in New York City’s mayoral race, City Comptroller Scott Stringer, has had his chances for victory along with his reputation utterly destroyed over the last week. That happened due to allegations from a political consultant, Jean Kim, that Stringer groped her eighteen years ago, in 2003.

    Despite no evidence presented that any of this happened, and despite this being the only assault accusation ever voiced about Stringer during his decades in public life, and despite Kim never having once claimed any of this even when she was working for a rival candidate who was ultimately defeated in 2013 by Stringer, and despite the sudden emergence of this accusation as Stringer’s mayoral campaign was surging, and despite evidence showing that Kim was highly misleading in several of her statements, and despite Stringer’s claims that Kim had been his girlfriend for several months accompanied by vehement denials of wrongdoing, numerous leftist groups and politicians who had endorsed him repudiated his candidacy within days of the emergence of these, issuing statements which treat Kim’s claims as proven truth and depict Stringer as a vile sexual predator.

    That is because, as has been seen repeatedly, the prevailing mentality in left-liberal politics is that even grave life-destroying accusations are to be treated as true without the need for any evidence. They casually and with apparent glee ruin people’s reputations and lives without batting an eye the second someone utters an allegation of sexual misconduct. And one is required to mindlessly accept such accusations as truth — never ask for evidence if it is true — if one wishes to remain in good standing in those circles and to avoid being smeared oneself as an apologist for sexual misconduct.

    Cont. at Glenn Greenwald

    1. S. Meyer still doesn’t understand how to use quotation marks. He doesn’t supply a link, either. Typical.

      1. “The trifecta of fake news-retractions unrolled this week after the far-left Washington Post, the far-left New York Times, and the far-left NBC News were all forced to issue retractions for smearing former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

        All three fake news outlets reported Giuliani had received a defensive briefing from the FBI warning him he was the target of a Russian influence campaign….”

        https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/05/02/nolte-fake-news-trifecta-wapo-ny-times-nbc-retract-giuliani-smear/

          1. They issue retractions to avoid being sued. After Project Veritas 7 suits in a row win there was a noticeable spike in retractions with regard to errors made by the MSM against PV.

            They also issue most of their retractions after they no longer pass the smell test. Long after their rotten news has been proven false.

            They are most definitely fake news. You are an intentional purveyor of fake news and lies. You are not credible and should never be trusted for anything.

            1. Correct.

              Where did the false information come from? Who is the original source?

          2. Call it what you like, fake news, propaganda press, etc, but this is NOT “journalism”…..

            Democracy Dies in Darkness!

          3. If they were not actually fake news, they WOULD take down Tweets that contain KNOWN lies. But they don’t. —->

            ‘It’s been hours since I notified close to a dozen journalists with major corporate outlets that their false tweet about Giuliani’s FBI briefing remains up — and remains uncorrected.

            *Not one* has taken it down. They absolutely believe they have the right to lie. This proves it.’ @glenngreenwald

  2. “Expectations that the FBI was investigating possible crimes documented on Hunter Biden’s laptop were laid to rest earlier this week when agents raided the home and office of Rudolph Giuliani, the man who made news of the laptop public.

    According to reports, federal investigators are looking for evidence that the former Mayor of New York City violated the foreign agents registration act (FARA) by illegally lobbying on behalf of Ukrainian officials. But that’s just a pretext to search his communications and records to find something with which to take revenge against a man who helped uncover the corruption of America’s first family. The compromising photos, emails, and texts found on Hunter’s laptop include accounts of financial arrangements with a Chinese businessman he called the “spy chief of China.” The documents, confirmed by a former Biden associate, implicate other members of the Biden clan, including it seems the president.

    And so to hunt Giuliani, the commander-in-chief has deployed federal law enforcement authorities, which have their own reason to retaliate against one of the Department of Justice’s most famous former prosecutors. Giuliani helped thwart the FBI and DOJ’s plot to topple an American president.

    He joined Donald Trump’s legal team in April 2018 to defend the president during former FBI director Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation. “I wanted to make us a lot tougher against them,” Giuliani told me in an interview for my 2020 book “The Permanent Coup.” “We needed to get out front publicly because I believed it was not just a legal case. It was a political case.”

    Indeed, Justice Department officials sanctioned the Mueller probe as a continuation, and coverup, of the illegal espionage operation targeting Trump and his associates that the FBI called Crossfire Hurricane. The investigation of Giuliani is yet a further extension of Crossfire Hurricane, even employing the same instrument it used to go after Trump aides—FARA….”

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-reasons-behind-the-rudy-giuliani-raid_3797744.html?utm_campaign=socialshare_twitter&utm_source=twitter.com

      1. “….I couldn’t find anything that shows CNNLOL corrected the record, but if they did, I’ll be the guy knocked over by a feather.

        Isn’t it amazing how all these so-called “mistakes” always fall one way?

        Anyway, what kind of idiot still gets their news from the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, and CNNLOL?

        What kind of idiot believes anything these serial liars report?

        Not due to any cause or agenda, but just because all they report are lies, I now ignore the corporate media, pay them no attention whatsoever. For decades I obsessively monitored what the media were up to, but now that it’s all lies and now that the media have no real impact on public opinion, why bother?

        It’s long past time for all of us to tune the media out and focus on getting our message out, our news reported…”

        https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/05/02/nolte-fake-news-trifecta-wapo-ny-times-nbc-retract-giuliani-smear/

        1. Anon @ 2:03 wrote:

          “For decades I obsessively monitored what the media were up to, but now that it’s all lies and now that the media have no real impact on public opinion, why bother?”

          No, it’s more complicated.

          1) It’s not all lies.
          2) The media still have an impact on public opinion.

          ‘”Fake News,” Lies and Propaganda: How to Sort Fact from Fiction’

          https://guides.lib.umich.edu/fakenews

          “Fake news. It’s complicated.”

          https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake-news-complicated/

        2. “Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is an American far-right[5] syndicated news, opinion, and commentary[6][7] website founded in mid-2007 by American conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as “the Huffington Post of the right”.[4][8][9] Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike.[10] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories,[11][12] instances of anti-Chinese xenophobia,[13] and intentionally misleading stories.[14][15]”

          — Wikipedia

          1. Wikipedia is a left wing product run by left wingers. That admittedly alter Wikiipedia’s content leftward especially when it is political.

            Take note of what they write about Breitbart. It is on the right but they don’t do the same about left-wing media. They normalize left-wing media. They consider left-wing not a part of America but the real America when most Americans are centrists or centrist right when their positions are evaluated. That is despite a far left media, Hollywood, Academia and high tech.

            1. Anyone who wants can edit Wikipedia articles. Perhaps not enough conservatives choose to edit WP. Instead of complaining about it, you should learn to edit and contribute to it.

              1. Anyone can edit but the editors who are leftists openly state that the data is filtered (eventually by those with a leftist ideology). That means Wikipedia spins left.

                From Wikipedia: “(but note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed)” Twitter removed the President because Twitter is leftist and judges the President as a liar while Xi Jingping and his assets are considered reliable. The same mindset is at Wikipedia.

                Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia, left because Wikipedia was censoring the right.

                Larry Sanger writes:

                “Neutrality Is Not Objectivity

                One common error is that neutrality aims at “objectivity.” This is often treated as if it were a synonym of neutrality, but objectivity and neutrality are at odds as concepts and as aims. Objective thinking and writing involves setting aside our personal feelings, assimilating and presenting the evidence rationally, and drawing only those conclusions warranted by the evidence. This is a fine thing, but an objective process of thinking is still a highly personal and fallible process.

                In fact, it is the process of rational deliberation itself. Writers should not be doing this for their readers. If writers practice objectivity on their readers’ behalf, they are drawing conclusions, and hence their writing is necessarily biased. To be precise, writers should practice neutrality so readers can practice objectivity for themselves. Neutrality is what we need if we’re to be free people, responsible for our decisions.”

                1. “the editors who are leftists openly state that the data is filtered (eventually by those with a leftist ideology)”

                  You haven’t quoted any evidence for this claim.

                  If you believe that your quote “From Wikipedia: ‘(but note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed)’” substantiates your claim, you’re mistaken. Here are two examples of articles that have that phrase at the top of the article, so that people can get a small sense of the range of articles that get that notice, can read the entire notice, and can see that it’s not a “leftist” notice –
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_2020
                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Dukakis

                  It’s an encyclopedia. Are you saying you want information included from unreliable sources?

                  When you see a reference to “reliable” sources on WP, it does not refer to “leftist” sources. Here’s part of what WP specifies about reliable sources, and you can read more by exploring the links within the article –
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
                  Notice that it explicitly says “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)” (bolded in the original).

                  See the reference to the further discussion of keeping a neutral point of view? That’s what Sanger argued for in your quote, and WP is saying the same.

                  If you’re suggesting that Sanger’s own WP edits have been rejected, you’ll need to link to Larry Sanger’s WP contributions page (not the page in WP about him, but his contributions page as an editor — if you need an example of one of these, someone who was helpful to me when I first started editing WP: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/David_Tornheim ), so we can see when Sanger last edited WP and how others responded to his contributions.

                  1. The owners and their agents have the final word as to what constitutes proof. One has empiric proof that the left is censoring the right. Even the President was canceled.

                    One can compare Wikipedia’s comments about Breitbart and compare it to those outlets that are on the left. There is a noticeable difference in how the articles are slanted. Objectivity (personal) which is what you are hiding behind is determined by leftists. Larry Sanger, who was one of the founders of Wikipedia left Wikipedia because neutrality was forgotten.

                    Of course one should be able to prove their case but you have said many times when I have published a story that the source was right-wing and unreliable even though the source was correct most of the time while the NYTimes and WaPo were incorrect most of the times. Your type of leftist objectivity is what the owners of Wikipedia have so of course they reject any argument or source that conflicts with their own.

                    “if you need an example of one of these, someone who was helpful to me when I first started editing “

                    You have proven my case for your words on this blog have demonstrated no neutrality and outright bias when it comes to opinion. Your views will be highly acceptable to those that own Wikipedia.

                    Like you Wikipedia changes its emphasis based on political needs so one can find Wikipedia changing what it says as the politics of the left changes.

                    1. “The owners and their agents have the final word as to what constitutes proof.”

                      Nope. That’s not how it functions. The “owner” is the Wikimedia Foundation, and it’s not involved in content editing, nor are the millions of volunteer WP editors “agents” of the Foundation.

                      “Even the President was canceled.”

                      We’re discussing Wikipedia, not Twitter. If Trump wants to edit Wikipedia, he can.

                      Nothing you’ve written changes the fact that conservatives are just as free to edit WP as liberals are.

                      As for your never-ending insults, they continue to reflect on you, Allan, not me.

                    2. ‘Nope. That’s not how it functions.”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, if you had an honest bone in your body maybe an intelligent person would believe you, but you don’t.

                    3. Once again, Allan S. Meyer responds with insults.

                      He has no factual response to the true claims that “The “owner” [of Wikipedia] is the Wikimedia Foundation, and it’s not involved in content editing, nor are the millions of volunteer WP editors “agents” of the Foundation. … If Trump wants to edit Wikipedia, he can. … conservatives are just as free to edit WP as liberals are.”

                    4. “He has no factual response”

                      There is empirical evidence and testimonial evidence. There is also common sense. You have provided no evidence to prove your contentions.

                    5. “You have provided no evidence to prove your contentions.”

                      You haven’t provided any evidence for the claims of yours that I was responding to, like your claim “The owners [of Wikipedia] and their agents have the final word as to what constitutes proof.” I responded in kind. If you’re unwilling to prove your own contentions, don’t expect me to waste much time doing what you yourself are unwilling to do.

                      If you don’t believe that the Wikimedia Foundation “owns” Wikipedia (to the extent that it’s owned by anyone), why don’t you start by naming who you’re claiming the owner is. Then tell us what it means for that “owner” to have “agents” and what your evidence is that these exist.

                      “If Trump wants to edit Wikipedia, he can” is self-evident, as anyone who wants to can create an account –
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CreateAccount&returnto=Main+Page
                      It’s also possible to edit just using an IP address without logging in. Nothing prevents Trump from doing this. For the same reason, “conservatives are just as free to edit WP as liberals are.” ANYONE CAN EDIT IT.

                      By the way, there is no “final word” on anything in Wikipedia. Because anyone can edit pages, pages change over time. If you want to see how a page has changed and who made the edits, you just click on the article’s History tab. If there are differences of opinion between different editors, they’re encouraged to resolve them on the article’s Talk page, and if they’re unable to resolve it by themselves, they can ask for help. Maybe if you’d bothered learning how to edit WP articles yourself, you’d know these things.

                    6. “You haven’t provided any evidence for the claims of yours…”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, I have empirical and testimonial evidence. Where is yours?

                    7. “Anonymous the Stupid, I have empirical and testimonial evidence. Where is yours?”

                      SHE’s stupid. Duh.

                    8. If you have “have empirical and testimonial evidence” for your claims “The owners [of Wikipedia] and their agents have the final word as to what constitutes proof,” present it. What little evidence you’ve presented so far certainly isn’t evidence of any sort that “The owners [of Wikipedia] and their agents have the final word as to what constitutes proof.”

              2. Why would SM want to do something useful when he can be an impotent keyboard warrior.

                1. Because I made my mark years ago and don’t have to do anything if I don’t want to. More money is meaningless to me because I will never spend what I have.

                  In other words I was very successful while you are somewhat a disappointment and a failure.

                  1. lol

                    Someone who has to tell the world how “successful” he “was”…is, in reality, telling the world how “successful” he wasn’t.

                    He projects who he is — “a disappointment and a failure” onto others. That’s Anonymous at 3:26. He forgot to mark the post with “SM.”

                    1. ‘He forgot to mark the post with “SM.”’

                      The dog forgot to lift his leg.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, you asked a question and I answered it. I guess I gave too much information about you and it hit too close to home.

                2. It was a rhetorical question, but SM has never met a question of any sort to which he hasn’t felt compelled to respond. It’s who he is.

                  Jeff Silberman commented that he can’t “shake” the guy, which isn’t a surprise.

                  1. SM wouldn’t know what to do with himself if he couldn’t spend his days on this blog.

                    1. He’s blabbering (again) about Wikipedia, upthread.

                      It’s pathetic.

  3. Media lies again
    Yes I know, Dog Bites Man

    All the media outlets that Reported the FBI warned Gulliani he was a target of Russia misinformation, have retracted the story.
    They got caught lying.

    You might believe them when they explain their source got it wrong, but then the media would name their source. But the media makes up the lies, there are no sources to “burn”.

    by the way…the rest of the story is totally true….honest..

    1. “then the media would name their source”

      Only if the source originally made the statement on the record, in which case they would have named the person in the original story. Many sources make off the record statements (meaning that they don’t give permission for their name to be used). You can even see Mark Meadows, Trump’s press secretary, caught on tape specifying that his statement is off the record, when he didn’t realize that a live press conference video was still on, at ~5:32 –

      1. Many sources make off the record statements (meaning that they don’t give permission for their name to be used).

        “Off the record” is an agreement between two persons of honor. They each agree to honor the others wishes., in return to carry out their duties. The media honors the sources desire for anonymity, in order to give wide audience for information the source thinks belongs in the public domain, The source agrees to honor the media’s need for accurate honest content, that provides the public needed information that should be public. That agreement is void when either party fails their own part.
        The only way for the media to maintain its reputation, is to expose the source that lies to advance an agenda.
        We know the media has no honor. We know the media whores themselves out because the media is nothing but Democrat operatives. We know this because of the Democrat Party emails had a long list of media stenographers that allowed the Democrat Party to write “news stories” and attach a stenographers by-line to the story.

        Stop with the non-sense that an anonymous source has some level of protection to spread lies. Any rational being knows how stupid that statement is when they hear it spoken aloud.

        1. “The only way for the media to maintain its reputation, is to expose the source that lies to advance an agenda.”

          Some false statements are lies. Some false statements are mistakes. You have presented zero evidence that the person lied rather than was mistaken.

          “We know the media has no honor.”

          No, actually, “we” don’t. It’s your personal opinion. It’s not knowledge. Some people agree with you, and other people don’t.

          “the media is nothing but Democrat operatives”

          Interesting that you think media like Fox, the Gateway Pundit, the Epoch Times, OANN, Rush Limbaugh, … are Democratic operatives. You must have a bizarre definition of “Democrat.”

          “Stop with the non-sense that an anonymous source has some level of protection to spread lies.”

          I didn’t say that. How can I stop something I never started? How about you stop with the nonsense of pretending that I’ve said things I didn’t say?

          I’ll remind you that the statement of yours I was responding to was “You might believe them when they explain their source got it wrong, but then the media would name their source.” Getting something wrong occurs by mistake. It is quite distinct from lying.

          1. “We know the media has no honor.”

            No, actually, “we” don’t. It’s your personal opinion. It’s not knowledge. Some people agree with you, and other people don’t.

            “the media is nothing but Democrat operatives”

            We have DNC emails that name over 70 media persons that would agree to take a story written by political operatives and publish the content with little editing and attach the media persons by-line. The email alluded to the fact that in fact the practice had been going on.

            We also know from Congressional testimony, that the FBI”leaked’ information to the media in order to establish or support the FBI directed narrative. If the media got hoodwinked, they should publish exactly who at the FBI was pushing fake intel.

            We know the FBI used leaks to get information into the public domain, and then use the media story to justify an investigation. We know the FBI leaked the russian collusion story to Michael Isakoff of Yahoo, then used the yahoo reporting in their FISA application.
            60 Minutes deceptively edited the DeSantis interview
            NBC deceptively edited the Travon Martin video.

            The motive is plain. The motive is devoid of honor.

            1. In other words, when presented with evidence that counters your previous claims, you ignore it and just move on to new claims.

              1. I just quoted a few of the intentional lies told by the media to prove they have no honor. Providing cites to support my statement of fact, not opinion

                1. You said “the media is nothing but Democrat operatives” and you were presented with evidence that counters your claim: media like Fox, the Gateway Pundit, the Epoch Times, OANN, Rush Limbaugh, … which clearly are NOT “Democrat operatives.”

                  But you couldn’t bring yourself to address your mistake.

                  As for your opinion about “honor,” it’s an opinion, not a fact.

Leave a Reply