Yesterday, we discussed the order of State District Judge Brad Urrutia to block the arrest of House Democrats who fled the state to prevent a quorum to pass election reforms in a type of flight filibuster. It did not take long for Urrutia to be reversed. Last night, the Texas Supreme Court lifted the temporary restraining order. The decision has not only exposed the Democrats to arrest but it has exposed another claim of bias against the PolitiFact, which lambasted Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tx) who claimed that the legislature clearly had the authority to order such arrests.
I previously discussed both the state lawsuit and a poorly written and poorly conceived federal filing.
The earlier discussion noted that the authority of the Texas legislature to compel the appearance of members (which is the same as the provision in U.S. Constitution) is expressly stated in the state constitution. While the legislators raised creative arguments based on the limits imposed of criminal arrests (and arresting officers) generally, the express authority stated in the constitution rebutted such claims. Nevertheless, there is virtually no case on the provision, which has (thankfully) been rarely used.
The lack of case law was at the heart of the “fact check” of the PolitiFact. Such fact checks are often challenged as biased, including the well-known fact checking at the Washington Post (here and here). Such objections should be distinguished from complaints over distorting backgrounds, history history, or the law. Rather, these are factual claims including claims made in “fact check” column. Many of these articles come in pieces with a clear political slant against conservatives, including clearly false accounts.
That bring us to the latest such example. PolitiFact ran a piece basically calling Cruz a liar for his saying that there was “clear legal authority” for the order to arrest the members. The Post said it was clearly “false” when it was not. The Post has relied word “clear” as the basis for its categorical denial. That was where the bias was clear.
The Post is correct that there is virtually no case law on the provisions in either the federal or state constitutions. However, Cruz is right to claim that there is clear legal authority if he was relying on the constitution.
The legislature has relied on that authority for its own rule allowing for a Motion for Call of the House, directing the House’s sergeant-at-arms to order state police to force the wayward members back to the floor. Rule 5 (Sec. 8) specifically refers to an “arrest”: “All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found.”
That is clear legal authority. It may not be dispositive authority according to these Democratic members. However, the federal lawsuit primarily hit the House rule on the meaning and limits governing “arrests.”
Cruz was clearly reasonable in claiming his view of clear authority. Reasonable people can disagree but he had an express constitutional provision supporting his position.
If someone was discerning enough to read the column, they would see the glaring contradiction between the analysis and the conclusion. Of course, most people will not read much past the conclusion that Cruz said something false. However, the analysis simply states that “because absent lawmakers aren’t charged with a crime, it’s unclear how the use of the word ‘arrest’ should be interpreted in this context. This is because no Texas court has reviewed how this provision is to be enforced. Thus, there is no legal clarity.”
It was reminiscent of the fact check of the former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders by Glenn Kessler. The Post assigned her two “Pinocchios” for saying that Comey’s actions “were improper and likely could have been illegal.” Yet, the Post concluded that the memos were, despite Comey’s denial, FBI material and that he violated FBI rules in removing and releasing such information. It also accepted that employees under Comey as director could well have been fired for such violations. It also agreed that the memos might have been either classified or privileged, even though there has been no final determination. Regardless, the Post awarded two Pinocchios for Sanders stating that Comey’s actions were “improper and likely could have been illegal.”
Cruz has demanded a correction from the Post in light of the Supreme Court decision.
It is unlikely to do so. I would not object to PolitiFact to saying that some have and would contest the legal basis for the arrest order. It could even say that many would say it is not clear without case authority. However, it is biased to claim that it was false for Cruz to claim clear legal authority. Obviously, the Texas Supreme Court viewed it as a clear because it reversed the district court within 24 hours.
PolitiFact should correct its column. Indeed, it should have been corrected before the Texas Supreme Court decision.
Two things that are impossible: Anonymous EB making a point on the issue at hand without being a name calling, nasty, uninformed partisan hack and Natacha making a point at all and keeping her rants under 100 words.
On the voting climate in TX.
Here is an article about the rampant voter fraud in nursing homes, in which staff have a well documented history of filing out ballots how they want, against the wishes of the voters in their care. In a rare moment of bipartisanship, Democrats actually admitted this fraud was taking place.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/13/reaching-across-aisle-texas-lawmakers-target-voter-fraud-nursing-homes/
The current Senate and House bills re voting do the following:
1. Ban drive through voting. This was used recently due to Covid. Although drive through voting was convenient and popular, the problem is that there is no privacy from the passengers in the vehicle. There is no way to prevent those passengers from seeing how the person votes, and/or influencing the voters. Banning drive through voting is not “Jim Crow on steroids,” and it’s insulting to those who survived the Democrat Jim Crow to say so.
2. The House bill would have voting hours from 6 AM to 10 PM, while the Senate would have it run from 6 AM to 9 PM. Those are hours before and after the normal working day. It is more hours than are offered currently at many polling sites. In one county that I know of, at a few polling places, they experimented with 24 hour voting. That is difficult for poll watchers to monitor and difficult to regulate. These expanded hours are plenty. There were only a very few polling places that tried out 24 hour voting. Claiming that having voting from 6 AM to 9/10 PM is “Jim Crow on steroids” is ignorant and offensive.
3. Local election officials may not send out unsolicited mail-in ballots. Historically, you have to request a mail-in ballot yourself. Third parties, including political activists, may not obtain people’s ballots in order to pass them out. By automatically mailing ballots to every registered voter, ballots go to former addresses, or the address of the deceased. I know this, because I got mail-in ballots for some of the former owners, one of which has died. I could have voted for 3 other people, or I could have turned the ballots over to harvesters, if I’d lacked integrity. I don’t lack integrity, and the ballots were shredded. I’ve returned to sender multiple times but keep getting voting materials. We cannot just hope that everyone who gets a ballot for someone who no longer lives there has the integrity not to cheat. Going back to the original method of requesting your own mail in ballot is not “Jim Crow on steroids”. That’s ignorant and wrong.
4. Mail in ballots must be identity verified with a drivers license # or the last four of your SSN. Legal voters have SSN. They know their SSN. If you don’t have a SSN, then you are not a legal voter. You need a SSN to open a bank account, get a job, get a drivers license, get an apartment, get a loan, get a paycheck advance, and myriad other tasks. It is not “Jim Crow on steroids” to give your SSN to open a bank account. To claim that your DLN or last 4 of SSN is “Jim Crow on steroids” is an insult to those who actually lived through the Democrat Jim Crow.
5. The voter rolls would be regularly audited for illegal aliens. If someone told the Department of Public Safety that they were not a citizen when they got their drivers license, but they were on the voter roll, then their name would be removed. Why should illegal aliens, legally barred from voting, remain on the voter roll? I personally know an illegal alien who automatically registered to vote at the DMV, and didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to. It’s easy to either accidentally register to vote, or to not know you weren’t supposed to register if you’re not a citizen. The only reason to oppose this is to cheat.
The Democrats tell us that the Texas voting law is unnecessary. Operatives who are paid by the Democratic Party are picking up ballots in California. https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-ballot-harvest-boomerang-11603149062 . The Democrats tell us that no law is necessary to stop the Democratic Party from paying people to harvest votes. It makes me wonder if they are paid commission according to how many votes they pick up. No Republicans votes will be counted when assessing their amount of commission. I can hear the chastisement now. You did not pick enough votes today comrade so your evening rations will be cut in half.
In a post by Natacha at 4:53 she tells us about the new Texas voting bill. As usual, because she thinks we are to stupid to learn what is actually in the bill. https://apnews.com/article/health-government-and-politics-texas-voting-coronavirus-pandemic-9bc36a6e8c967757340ab25f49b8ddbf. Here is a list of the provisions.
1. Both Democrat and Republican poll watchers will have more access and protections.
2. It will be a crime to reject a Democrat or Republican poll watcher if they qualify
3. It will be illegal to obstruct the view of a Democrat and Republican poll watcher.
4. Democratic and Republican poll watchers have to be near enough to see the counting.
5. Election officials can be sued if the obstruct a Democratic or Republican poll watcher.
6. Makes it illegal to harass a Democratic or Republican poll watcher.
7. No drop boxes for ballots that are supposed to be sent by mail by Democratic or by Republican voters.
8. No drive through voting by Democratic or Republican voters.
9. No 24 hour voting locations for Democratic or Republican voters.
10. Driver’s license # required on mail in ballots by Democratic or Republican voters. If no driver’s license is available the last four digits of a Social Security # is required.
11. Makes it illegal for people picking up ballots to be paid by a Democratic or Republican campaign.
12. Ballots are not allowed to be picked up at Democrats’ or Republicans’ place of residence. Democrat and Republican caregivers are exempt from this requirement of the law.
Now that you know the facts you can make your own judgement as to wether the requirements in the bill are too much to ask. It seems to me that the Democrats are working very hard to keep the record of voting away from the public view. Natacha believes that you don’t have a right to see what she doesn’t want you to see.
Except that, there were no problems to correct in Texas–no proof of fraud. There is no evidence of illegal aliens voting. In fact, Trump didn’t even go after Texas alleging voting fraud. Why should “poll watchers” need protection? Where is the right for people to “watch” citizens vote? From what is “protection” needed–being allowed to harass voters, whose right to be vote is enshrined in the Constitution? In fact, under this new law, even if a “poll watcher” does harass a voter, they cannot be ejected without first being warned, but they must be allowed to continue. They can only be ejected if they do it again. So, how can you doubt the intention to harass voters? And, don’t you think if a “poll watcher” is harassing voters and a challenge is made, that there wouldn’t be fight? Do Democrats do these things? In fact, has any Democratic -leaning state ever proposed such laws? Why should the “right” of a partisan poll watcher prevail over the right of a citizen to vote without feeling intimidated? Are there any limits on what conduct constitutes “poll watching”?
Is there any proof of fraudulent activity at polling places in Texas? In fact, are there even any allegations of fraudulent activity in Texas polling places? No, there isn’t. Isn’t Texas an “open carry” state? So, wouldn’t it be the case that in black voting areas, they could have some White Supremacist skinhead a-hole standing over them wearing a MAGA hat, watching them vote, while packing a gun? Has there ever been any fraud involved or even alleged with ballots being “picked up” or for 24-hour voting? No, but these things do help people who work long hours (like nurses who work 12-hour shifts) or people who don’t have a car. Have any Democrats allegedly harassed Republicans? All you did was add “or Republican” to the list of objectionable items, but the intention of the law was to curb convenient voting for Democratic voters. You also left out some of the other things that were removed, the initial presence of which makes clear that the intention was to handicap minority voters, like the provision that votes could be set aside and not counted for any allegation of fraud, even without proof, and that the Republican Texas legislature could take over from local election officials. What right is there for “poll watchers” to “see the counting”? Correction of a problem? What problem–what is the proof?
And, BTW, “judgment” doesn’t have an “e” after the letter “g”, and “whether” is also misspelled.
There are lots of judical actions people of substance can agree to disagree about. The law is built to be an adversarial system.
Having said that, This decision makes the third that exposes Judges as corrupt as any man walking the street. Maybe worse, because they are supposed to understand they law.
The first I found astounding? The Florida Supreme Court ordering a state wide recount in Bush v Gore. The Florida Constitution has a very detailed road map of the steps required to certify electors is the Vote count could not be certified. With no standing, with no appeal in front of them, with no enumerated power, the Supreme Court of Florida demanded a state wide recount.
The second. In the State of Wisconsin, the people gave Republicans an overwhelming mandate when they went to the polls. Republicans set about to write and pass legislation. and Democrats went to judges in an attempt to overturn, or cancel the legislation. The apex was reached when Democrats went to a judge to have them prevent the printing of the notice of the law in the newspaper, as required by law. No notice, no law. A judge actually issued that injunction to prevent the public notice. Overturned in a matter of days. But exposing yet another leftist judge, more than willing to abandon any pretense of neutrality, and adhence to law and constitution, and go full political operative.
(submitted above to quick)
Number three is this example
A judge ignoring the clear enumerated power of the legislature to detain and deliver legislators AWOL from their job. But on top of that, sticking their judicial nose into legislative business. A clear separation of powers violation.
@iowan2
The issue isn’t that the judge ‘stuck their nose’ into the legislative branch, but that there was no legal reason for them or to support their TRO.
The action was unjustified and was quickly remedied.
The judge should face sanctions for that act.
-G
You’d have more credibility if you proofread your articles before posting.
Lots of this rests on the intentional ignorance of civics. Intentional, because schools no longer teach civic. Because those in education want the masses to be ignorant.
A very simple premise, is the fact, no branch of government can order another branch to perform.
The Judiciary has no power to tell the legislative branch how to do their business
The constitution empowers the legislature to use law enforcement to detain and deliver legislators to the legislature floor. There is no debate about this. The propaganda media does not care they get caught lying. Enough will believe it to 1) advance the narrative. 2) Validate lies the leftist already want to believe.
That a judge would insert himself into raw legislative matters, is a mystery, until you realize this is how corrupt leftist judges have become.
This is what’s going to happen. The Democrats will eventually allow themselves to be arrested. They will mug for the cameras, wail, gnash their teeth, and sob hysterically. They will scream, “Why??? Whyyyyyyyyy?” as they are dragged to their work. The work they took an oath to do.
They will keep lying that this legislation is Jim Crow, relying on their followers to either not read the law, or not question them. The dutiful will repeat. They will fantasize that this is the Civil Rights Era to feed their delusions of grandeur.
This will be another photo op.
I honestly don’t know what to do, other than call for their recall. Hopefully, there will be a robust recall effort on each and every one of them.
However, I think their supporters eagerly want to be part of something bigger than themselves. They weren’t alive during the time of the Underground Railroad. But they fervently believe that if they were, they would be heroes. Oh, how they long to be heroes. So they eat up the propaganda that what they’re doing is holy. They refuse to hear any contravening arguments or review any facts. Those facts would detract from their glory. It’s more beautiful to do Good Work, than to be fools.
This small group of people is demanding to get their way. They will hold the state legislature hostage until they do. The only way to justify this is to lie.
So what are we supposed to do?
More of Karen’s “we vs. the Democrat” rhetoric. Karen: you do not speak for the majority of Americans, but the alt-right media to which you are devoted indoctrinates you into believing that they speak for the majority of Americans, which they don’t. Now you presume to know the thought process of those who oppose Texas’s voter restriction laws–that they pine to have been part of the Underground Railroad, so they could view themselves as “heroes”. You call the Texas Democrats who are trying to uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution “liars”. First of all, there was no issue with either election security or voter fraud in Texas that needed correction, so why this new law? The portions of the law that would have allowed Republicans to void validly-cast votes were removed, but the law “protects” poll watchers, even those who get to close or too aggressive in their efforts to intimidate voters. We all know exactly what polling places will be “watched”, and what voters they will be watching in their attempt to intimidate. Why not a law to protect voters from the poll watchers, which would ensure the constitutional right to vote? We all know why. The Texas law elevates the so-called “rights” of poll watchers over those of voters.
The new law would require a warning before the “poll watchers” can be ejected. It bans 24-hour voting. It requires that for absentee voting that the voter put the last 4 digits of their SSN on the ballot and on the outside of the envelope. It makes it a felony to send out applications for an absentee ballot. The law also bans drive-through voting and limits the hours at polling places and limits the time for early voting. Texas Democrats oppose these measures because, inter alia, there are no issues or problems that these laws presume to address. Plus, it impedes voting by minorities. But, Karen, the drama queen, presumes that the Democrats are acting in bad faith. I know she got this from her alt-right media sources.
You also claim “this is a small group of people demanding to get their way”. You have it exactly backwards, darling. It’s the Texas Republicans trying to force their will on all of Texas when the new law does not address any actual problems.
Every single one of those things should be banned. Voting should occur on one day, in person, at your precinct, with the presentation of positive verifiable identification with very narrow exceptions made for absent active duty military, 1st responders and medical workers whose work prevents them from coming to the polls, and those who present a valid medical excuse from a doctor that states their condition would make it difficult or impossible to vote in person. No one else who wants to has any excuse whatsoever to not show up and vote.
Tell that to Trump and Pence, who voted absentee in 2020. And, there wouldn’t have been as great a need for early, mail or absentee voting but for Trump allowing the pandemic to get out of control.
this is a posting mistake by the website, I did NOT “Bravo” Natacho, I posted a “Bravo” for “currentsitguy”
BRAVO, thank you
BRAVO, thank you.
I would like to express my deepest heart felt thanks to the Democrats of Texas. They have displayed to the nation their take my football and run away form of legislation. Thank you Democrats of Texas for catching and spreading Covid on your Alice in Wonderland adventure. We should assume that the voters of Texas along with those of forty nine other states have been watching. Once again, I express my heartfelt thanks to the Democratic hero’s of Texas for their donations to the Conservative cause.
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The American Founders provided a procedure for the implementation of corrective action.
The vast majority of Justices and judges must be impeached, convicted and severely penalized for dereliction, gross negligence, abuse and usurpation of power, subversion, and treason, by destabilizing, damaging and weakening the United States and “…in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” as China, Russia et al. are emboldened and encouraged by the general adversity and internecine strife burgeoning in America and bred by the juridical branch.
The DC administration hailed them as conquering heroes instead of sending them back home to represent their voters. No matter Dim, Republican or Independent they are elected to represent not grand stand. Their state is facing a big border problem which they should be helping to eliminate.
The Texas Supreme Court has no power to legislate or modify legislation.
The duty of the Texas Supreme Court is to assure that actions comport with law and to void all acts contrary.
The Texas Supreme Court is not eligible to engender and enforce an organizational opinion.
The Texas Supreme Court has no legal basis for imposing or lifting any order that is, to any degree, at variance with or in violation of the Texas Constitution or Texas Statutes.
The Texas Supreme Court must merely find that the accused have obeyed or violated the law.
The People of Texas are not asking for the personal opinions of the Justices of the Texas Supreme Court.
The People of Texas are demanding the observation of law codified previously by the People through their elected representatives.
The Texas Supreme Court has no power to legislate or modify legislation.
@George,
Not sure what you’re trying to say here.
I’m going to try and take a stab at it and see if I get this right…
The TXSC rules that the judge’s TRO was not legal. That is to say, the rules governing the TX State’s legislature does contain rules which allow the state to ‘arrest’ the wayward Democrats who fled jurisdiction as a way to remove quorum.
The TXSC did its job.
The judge who issued the TRO was in fact out of bounds in their act because there is no basis in law that allowed the judge to supersede the rules governing the state’s legislature.
-G
Important and interesting issue.
But nothing is false here. It is clearly so (at least textually). The motion presented to the Texas supreme court cites it and analyze it correctly.
First, the Texas constitution, I quote from the motion:
” The Texas Constitution grants each House of the Legislature the power to “compel the attendance of absent members” according to the rules of each House”
And what is the relevant rule ? I quote:
” All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant – at- arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at- arms for that purpose, and their attendance should be secured and retained” ((Tex.H.R rule 5, § 8,87th Leg.,R.S, 2021 H.J. of Tex., reprinted in Texas Legislative Manual 87 (2021))
So, we may have here, wrong, or overwhelming interpretation, or, action, based on wrongful factual configuration, but, legally, textually, not at all false with all due respect.
Here to the motion:
https://thetexan.news/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-8-9-In-re-Abbott-Rule-52.10-Motion.pdf
Thanks
I hope the plan is to arraign all of the childish Ds (or enough of them) in the House chamber at the same time! Thereby providing the necessary quorum. The Rs should also enact a rule change to permit the House to continue business when some run away and refuse to “play” the game of legislating.
These dangerous, lawless Democrats — public officials who actually did conspire to subvert the lawful, democratic action of a legislative body on a matter of considerable importance to state of Texas, while spreading COVID in their wake — deserve to be subjected to indefinite detention under the same conditions as the January 6 protesters being held in Pelosi’s version of Gitmo.
Texas. Subverts some voters. Remove the state from the Union
And you state your 2nd “sentence” after reading the legislation??? Of course not; it is just a rehash of all the lefties’ comments about anything elected Republicans propose: everything and anything is “racist.”
I have a bridge to sell anyone who takes PolitiFact seriously…
An illegal insurrection of carpetbaggers without borders and a curious orientation.
Media like WaPo lie; that is a fact that has been proven over and over again.
But those lies give posters like Natacha and Anonymous eb the “facts” that they so often,and so stridently, post on this blog.
These Lefty posters are indifferent to either truth or their complicity in lying.
A few hardy conservatives continue to try to answer these lies with reason and facts. Recognize that Lefty posters like Natacha and Anonymous eb are indifferent to the truth and are just spreading propaganda.
I try to warn new visitors to the blog of trolls like these, but I don’t waste my time arguing with them (I do like to twit Anonymous eb because he makes really low IQ responses which show his lack of wit).
In responding to Lefty posters, remember Mark Twain: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Thanks for the info. And you are right. No more responses to Natacha from me. I have to admit that I read the post but only because I like to hear the ideas (if they can be called that) from the other side.
“I try to warn new visitors to the blog of trolls like these,…”
lol
what a guy
where would this blog be without you
Anonymous, without Monument the site would suffer. It is people like EB, Natacha and Justice Holmes that make the comments section less enjoyable. Us folks on the right, like Monument, Karen S, myself and many others have no issue with people that want to debate or point out a counter argument, but EB comments 100 times a day and they are always nasty and Natacha writes bizarre long winded diatribes that belong on CNN.
Keep telling yourself that you are just “debating a point” or making a “counter argument”, but that’s not really what you’re doing at all: what you and Karen do is parrot what you heard on your alt-right media outlets the previous evening. When someone points to facts that prove these things wrong, they are “nasty”, “bizarre” or writing a “diatribe”. Karen writes the longest posts here, and consistently proves she is seriously misinformed. Despite being corrected with scientific articles, she keeps repeating the same incorrect information: for instance, that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective COVID treatment, which just isn’t true. She recently claimed that nurses aren’t trained in abortion procedures–something she knows nothing about since she never went to nursing school, so I corrected her on that one. She keeps calling Trumpsters “conservatives”, which they aren’t–real conservatives are offended at being associated with Trump whose lifestyle and values conflict with theirs. I have cited the writings of, among others, Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson and George F. Will, all respected conservatives. She equates BLM with the Democratic party, and ignores the fact that the Democratic party condemns rioting and looting. These are just a few examples. If pointing out these things makes me “nasty”, well I wear the title proudly.
“Anonymous, without Monument the site would suffer.”
Now that’s a hoot, hullboy.
I like Natacha. She always sounds as if she auditioning for commandant at a re-education camp. She even takes the time to mix her rants up a bit to try to make it appear as if she is actually responding to an article.
Turley is generally pretty serious so a little comedy relief is welcome.
How typical of a Trumpster. You have no substantive defense to the facts I cite, so to deflect, you demean them to the level of “rants” and go after me, just like your hero’s response to critics, with your grade-school level insults. You are so smarmy and superior–a worshipper of a fat, narcissistic failure of a man who does everything possible for power, attention and adulation, the polar opposite of a patriot, a misogynist, xenophobic racist, a laughingstock around the world just based on his absurd appearance alone, not to mention his abject failure as a leader. Well, nothing you say about me changes the facts, which is really what you can’t handle. It’s sad that you can’t deal with facts, but that’s what indoctrination does–induces the indoctrinated to not only disbelieve evidence to the contrary, but to attack anyone and everyone who puts out facts that make your hero look bad. Take just the Big Lie: Trump has attacked everyone who refused to be bullied into letting him cheat his way back into office: firing Chris Krebs, fighting with Barr, resulting in his resignation, when he couldn’t get the DOJ to lie by saying that the election was “corrupt”, attacking Brad Raffensberger and all of the judges who turned away his frivolous lawsuits, including several he appointed. He refused to pay Giuliani, even though he went so overboard pushing the Big Lie that his law license got suspended. Then, he even went after Kavanaugh, calling him a “loser” and claiming that no law firm would have him, even though Kavanaugh had been a federal appeals court judge, which is a prestigious position. That is the sort of behavior you are mimicking by mocking me. If you had a substantive response to the facts I cite, that would be one thing, but you don’t. I’ve been accused of so many things on this blog that it is truly amazing: now, according to you, I have the characteristics of a “commandant at a re-education camp” I truly feel sorry for you, but even sorrier for America, that there are so many disciples like you out there, those who, at Trump’s direction (because the CDC made him look foolish), discard science, refuse to wear masks, refuse vaccination and keep believing that Hydroxychloroquine will save them if they get the Delta variant. Because of this, COVID is surging again, and people are dying, but you still keep believing.
I ask you once again: what have I lied about? Confront me with my lies.
Yeah good luck with getting anything from that rag
Well the law may save us from these radical Dims after all. I love a radical frogwalk.