The Clintons are again suggesting that they might not agree to a deposition after previously yielding to the threat of a contempt vote. Hillary Clinton taunted House Oversight Chair James Comer “if you want this fight…let’s have it—in public.” For his part, Bill Clinton seemed more conclusive on X in opposing a deposition: “I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court.” The question is whether the Clintons are again gaming the system after avoiding a bipartisan vote to hold them in contempt.
As with the Hunter Biden deposition (which was also delayed by such tactics), there are various reasons for holding a closed deposition before public hearings.
First, these depositions allow professional staff to conduct questioning in a methodical and professional manner. In a public hearing, questioning is conducted by members who are often ill-equipped for substantive inquiries.
Second, the Clintons must be asked about a range of documents and communications that contain names and privacy-protected information. At a public hearing, the use of such documents would trigger redactions and interruptions.
Third, these depositions allow for in-depth questioning on transactions and communications. In a public hearing, members are confined to a five-minute rule that guarantees questioning cannot achieve much, if any, depth.
Those are all reasons the Clintons want a public hearing in which members, not staff, ask questions under tight time limits. It produces superficial examinations with little ability to pursue substantive conflicts or issues.
None of this really matters legally. All citizens are compelled to appear at such hearings. They may invoke the Fifth Amendment, but they must appear. Even the Clintons.
However, the Clintons have spent a lifetime gaming the system, avoiding accountability for alleged crimes, including (in the case of Bill Clinton) federal perjury.
This is vintage Clinton. After a bipartisan vote in committee to hold them in contempt, they took a 180-degree turn and agreed to the depositions. The final vote was then cancelled.
Once cancelled, Bill Clinton is again suggesting that he will “not sit idly by” for such a deposition. It is not clear what that means. He will sit for this deposition or be held in contempt like any other citizen.
The declaration could mean anything from laying the groundwork for invoking the Fifth Amendment to another act of defiance of the subpoena. He could be planning to refuse to answer certain questions in a combative approach to the deposition. However, that could still result in a contempt sanction.
Notably, the Clintons have long been able to control the conditions of their questioning. Even with the Independent Counsel, Clinton was able to secure concessions on time and questions. He still tripped the wire and committed perjury, according to a federal court.
This is a rare occasion where they will not dictate such conditions. That raises the intriguing possibility that Bill Clinton could set a precedent by invoking the Fifth Amendment. Otherwise, he may not be idle, but he will be present.
Whether the Clintons are questioned in closed depositions or a public clownshow changes nothing. They will leave the capitol to go out for a fulfilling meal of pizza and grape soda then call it a day. Nothing will be done.
I am surprised that no one expected this to happen. After all didn’t Hillary say “What does it matter” after the Benghazi affair (which by the way is back in the headlines). They think they are way above any one else in the room or the world for that matter because others have covered for them or are not around to testify. I believe congress should vote on the contempt and refer to the justice department. The Clintons can then try to change the scenario while being charged with contempt on the record.
No doubt “What does it matter” is either a misquote or out of context. In this case, both:
The exact quote was:
“With all due respect, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”
The statement was made during questioning by Senator Ron Johnson about the cause of the attack. Clinton argued that the focus should be on preventing future incidents rather than debating the specifics of the Benghazi attack’s origins.
As usual the implication that it applied to the dead rather than to an ineffective and useless investigation is a common diversion among the propagandists in spite of the statement indicating the exact opposite.
This is a really low effort from the GRU.
The purpose of the inquiry was to find out why Clinton and the rest of the administration had vociferously and repeatedly LIED that the attack started as a spontaneous protest about a film, when in fact the KNEW at the time that it was a planned terrorist attack that had no connection with any film. Her “What difference does it make” was a transparent attempt to evade her own responsibility.
The fact is that the reason Clinton and the rest lied was because the truth would be politically damaging to them, since it would put the lie to their claim that al Qaeda was defeated and no longer a factor, which was a major campaign point in 0bama’s reelection campaign.
“Clinton argued that the focus should be on preventing future incidents . . .”
How do you propose doing that without knowing *who* the murderers were and their *motivations*?
Are the Clintons even relevant any more? Not that I am a supporter because I’m not but I think Congress has more important things to do. The worst thing that could happen to the Clintons is for people to forget they even exist. Take away the limelight and they might just wither and disappear. That would be nice.
We all know what they are and I refuse to spend anymore time on them. I think I would rather have a tooth pulled than have to listen to either one of them speak again. Let time and the ravages of age deal with them. Soon enough their existence will be marked by a headstone that no one visits, just like the rest of us.
We all know what (a sordid implication) they are? I don’t. So what are they?
C’mon, Dad! Don’t be coy and pretend you have not read any papers or seen any pics in the last 30 years!
I think the Clintons are playing a very fine line and it might hurt them more than it helps them. I totally understand the game they are playing and why. Behind the doors, they cannot mug for the cameras and have someone run interference. They can also avoid the deeper deposition and any potential liabilities as compared to a public hearing.
I am betting the Clintons think they can wear out the committee and get the votes back they need to avoid the serious questioning. I personally do not think the Clintons have committed crimes with Epstein, but they do not want to give anyone a chance to go deeper into their lives or finances. There is a bit of get back for the past years game playing. Their smirking may catch up to them. Besides does anyone think the Clintons want the public to be reminded about Bill’s indiscretions?
I am betting the Clintons find out the hard way what happens when you play too much. If there was anything there already there would have been charges. If they are not careful, criminal charges can happen and this time I do not think there is an appetite to protect them.
And what if you’re wrong?
And what if you’re wrong?
You were far more entertaining before you escaped the Democrat circus where the ringmaster had you perched on a stool clapping your flippers and barking on command while balancing a beach ball on your nose. Back to the circus with you!
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers. Often used as a tactic by whining Democrats in online forums and blogs
“And what if you’re wrong?”
What if you’re wrong about him being wrong?
Your move, vegetable.
Re: The Quiet Man
“I personally do not think the Clintons have committed crimes with Epstein”…
You might but I don’t. Epstein, Brennan, Comey, Wray, … ‘The List’ all conspired with and under the Clintons and Obama at the helm.
They were all employed as a channel to subvert the Constitutional Election if the United States. [To “Get Trump”]
And They Did it! (I give you Pres. Joe Biden as proof).
They (et.al) made a mountainous mess and took US on a wild media fueled goose chase that in all, just wasted our Nation’s TIME.
WE could be a prosperous and productive Nation, if WE could only rid ourselves of the Politics, Parties and Politicians that squander our fortune and future.
My sincere hope is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is exposed as the reason why Benghazi happened. As far as I am concerned the blood of Chris Stevens and the others is on her hands. Should that happen she should be indicted, tried and convicted. Then executed for murder.
“she should be indicted, tried and convicted. Then executed for murder.”
A pleasant thought, but highly improbable.
How would Hillary have been responsible for the attack at Benghazi?
If there was any way she planned to have people killed then Rush Limbaugh would have had his bullet riddled corpse hauled from a river after his ankles rotted loose from the concrete blocks they were cast into with a suicide note tattooed on his chest.
We know that the Republicans had cut security funding for the State Department leaving the Benghazi installation under protected.
“Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Darrell Issa claim the Benghazi consulate sought more security before the deadly attack. They also both voted to cut the State Department’s embassy security budget.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2012/1005/Libya-attack-Congressmen-casting-blame-voted-to-cut-diplomatic-security-budget
“It would have been Ambassador Stevens’ call as to whether he made that visit from Tripoli, with advice from his regional security adviser. If they thought there was a high likelihood of an attack, they wouldn’t have gone. They sadly got it wrong. A glaring intelligence failure? A cavalier attitude towards security? Or simply bad luck, in a dangerous country that the US is eager to see stabilized?
To be sure, the embassy security budget has been under the knife for years. “During both the latter years of the Bush presidency and throughout the Obama presidency, the administration has recommended boosting spending on foreign aid and [State Department] foreign operations, including security, and Congress has always cut it back,” Philip Crowley, a former State Department spokesman under President Obama, told the Washington Times in late September.”
Behind the doors their statements can be taken out of context and misrepresented. This is a common conservative action, to ignore context and to take words from sentences and weave new and opposite fake news.
Since Trump is listed over 1000 times, let Trump go first!
Silliness. Trump is clean or they would have skinned him long ago. Wake up.
Trump is mentioned in emails that have nothing to do with him. Just like you “list” Trump today has nothing to do with him.
The democRATS have been chasing Donald Trump for over ten years. And look where it got them. Trump got re-elected. Now, if Vance can get elected president, Trump can be his vice president. Wouldn’t that be swell.
Since Trump is listed over 1000 times, let Trump go first!
Dump and run, smelling like you’re a thief who got caught siphoning somebody else’s gas!
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is the intended psychological manipulation by a low-IQ perpetrator targeting those they hope to victimize through intentionally misleading that person or group. This involves the perpetrator trivializing, lying, denying events, and other methods used in the hope their intended victims doubt their perceptions of reality, memories, and feel overly emotional or irrational.
The main five methods of gaslighting that may be used alone or in conjunction with others are: trivializing, countering, lying, blame shifting, and withholding.
Oh, look, another GRU operative. Seriously, stop depending on ChatGPT to do the work for you.
That is exactly how my pre-schooler looks at problems!! And here I did not believe anyone else would consider it a strategy
JT says “First, these depositions allow professional staff to conduct questioning in a methodical and professional manner. In a public hearing, questioning is conducted by members who are often ill-equipped for substantive inquiries.”
Is he admitting that members of Congress are idiots? Sure seems like it.
@Anonymous, No, the skills of cross examination are separate from and before election to office. You can see differences in that skill. On both sides of the aisle.
Many/most of the members of Congress have law degrees and are/were practicing attorneys. I am certain the Republicans could gather enough who have handled court cases with similar inquiries to take charge.
Of course the problem for the House is the Clintons are also lawyers and have significant experience in such situations and a proven track record when it comes to facts presented. They would very much rather not have this bomb they are trying to build blow up in their faces where their constituents can see.
Yes. Further he is blatantly stating that members of Congress cannot consult ahead of time with these professional staffers nor during the event to further follow lines of inquiry. I presume that this applies to all inquiries before the House made by all Republican senators. I wonder how Jim Jordan, among others, feels about this side-swiping characterization.
If Bill is a Pedophile, prosecute him.
If DJT is a pedophile, prosecute him.
If Bill, an ex president, is forced to testify, why not put the guy that is mentioned over 1000 times with hundreds of images in the Epstein files forced to testify?
Oh never mind, Forcing trump to testify would make him either admit to criminal activity (He is a convicted Felon after all), or commit perjury.
Hypocrites – A pseudonym for Republican.
You have a thing for pedophiles I see. That makes you a democrat.
It is the Republicans who want to examine the genitals of children, particularly little girls in regards to using bathrooms or playing sports. This is the same thing Trump was doing when he owned the beauty pageants and is accused of doing with underage girls supplied to him by Epstein.
I can see why the Republicans would like to shield the Tangerine Furher from examination.
Your argument is weak. Your conscience is weaker.
Excuse me, you are being mocked. Your interest in pedophiles is disturbing. Your response more so.
Since Trump is listed over 1000 times, let Trump go first!
It’s too early in the morning for the Democrat movie childrens’ matinee showing of the Democrat Commie Clown Show. Take your Democrat Drag Queen costume with you when you go.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where a deeply emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else.
This is an internal defense mechanism which allows mentally ill people to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
More input from the ChatGPT Keystone Kops Koalition.
Trump’s FBI did not cover for Epstein. Clinton’s FBI did.
Is someone paying you to come in and post blatant lies? Or are you in end stage TDS? Is that why you hide behind “anonymous”? Oh wait! I just figured it out. You are a disciple of Josef Gobbels.
I have never supported the Clintons. With that said, forcing ex-Presidents and ex-cabinet members to testify before Congress sets a bad precedent for future.
Um… no one is above the law. Sound familiar?
Then, what future? A republicans or democrat?
How about searching an ex-presidents (and leading opposition candidate) house?
Why don’t you? You made the claim. So lay it out.
Based on theft of government property? Why not?
Hil and Bill deserve one another. Arkansas and the USA never deserved either of them.
“Arkansas and the USA never deserved either of them.”
Well, Bill was bred and born in Arkansas, so in that sense they did deserve him. Hillary married him and fled there from New York because shoe didn’t have the bond fides to succeed on a major political stage; she was never anything but a crass carpetbagger.
Past Participle
past par·ti·ci·ple
/past ˈpärdəˌsipəl/
nounGrammar
noun: past participle; plural noun: past participles
The form of a verb, typically ending in -ed in English, which is used in forming perfect and passive tenses (sic: in this case pretenses) and sometimes as an adjective, e.g. looked in have you looked?, and lost in I’ve lost it and lost property.
AI: ( How to explain Past Participle to kids? )
How to explain past participle to kids?
Explain past participles to kids as “helper words” that finish an action, often using “-ed” (like played) but sometimes having funny, irregular endings (eaten, broken), used with words like have/has/had (e.g., “I have eaten”) or to describe things (e.g., “the broken toy”). Use games with flashcards (eat, ate, eaten) or focus on adjectives like “the scared cat” to make it fun.
Example:
Bill Clinton per se: Hillary and I have already been in Contempt of Congress for Years, oh and Obama too.
“Is Bill Clinton Moving Back Into Contempt?”
Does a bear defecate in dense foliage? “Contempt” is the essential term to use in conjunction with any and all mention of either Clinton in any context.
What the Clintons appear to be resisting is not testimony, but oversight on terms they do not control. A lawful subpoena does not permit a witness to dictate format. You appear as required, answer or invoke the Fifth, and the process proceeds. Anything else is an attempt to negotiate compliance after the fact.
That resistance is precisely the abuse the Founders experienced under Parliament. The core grievance was not private wrongdoing, but power exercised without accountability and officials shielded from scrutiny. Oversight was denied, grievances accumulated, and legitimacy collapsed.
Congressional oversight exists to prevent that outcome. If powerful figures or their defenders reject routine oversight because of status or party, they are not defending the Constitution. They are reenacting the very failure that made independence necessary.
As you said “appears”. So everything that follows is BS.
“everything that follows is BS.”
Your comment in particular.
Oh oh… hurt feelings huh? Have mommy kiss your booboo.
“Have mommy kiss your booboo.”
I’d invite you to kiss my derriere, but I wouldn’t want to risk a venereal infection.
Its not my comment.
Can we leave our work here today early? I want to show you my new kiddy Democrat Drag Queen suit!
Come clean, Dad. It is.
You didn’t have to respond at all. You chose to engage, and instead of refuting the argument, you dismissed it. That choice speaks for itself.
You didn’t offer an argument. Your offered mere speculation.
Exactly. A supposition. All made up.
Neglecting to take your risperidone again?
It’s a tell. Redefining an inference drawn from undisputed facts as “speculation” is what you do when you have no rebuttal.
OLLY,
Well played!!
Thank you. Debate process matters.
Looks like you have a sycophant. The weakest minds are always attracted to the weakest mind.
No rebuttal, so you went personal.
. Does the process include being caged in a corner ? Deos the process include coercion by immunity deal? Is it a coerced testimony or go to jail ultimately and the true 5th, right to silence is erased within the oversight rules? Is it lawful to make deal using immunity or you’ll be jailed, Olly?
Perhaps I misunderstand the process.
That misunderstands the process. Oversight is not prosecution. Witnesses may invoke the Fifth, and immunity is a lawful, long-standing congressional tool. Contempt is about refusing lawful process, not silencing anyone.
So what is the argument? You got caught peddling BS again olly.
As you said “appears”. So everything that follows is BS.
Democrat Defecate To Deflect And Disappear.
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers. Often used as a tactic by whining Democrats in online forums and blogs
Since no question was raised it cannot be sealioning.
It is a wonder that just anyone is allowed to use ChatGPT to generate fake content.
. Do the Clintons want immunity?
What they actually want is impunity.
The right to a public trial shall not be abridged.
Another rendition of the classic ‘when the evidence is heard, I will be found ‘not guilty’. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating thereof.
“Another rendition of the classic ‘when the evidence is heard, I will be found ‘not guilty’. ”
In the case of the Clintons, it’s more like “when we finish spinning the evidence to a gullible public, only the deplorables among them will believe we have done anything wrong.”
More like … ?
That’s clever! C’mon, that’s enough with the MAGATs today… I want to show you my “Hello Kitty” Furry Democrat Tranny outfit!
Since this is before Congress the “public” doesn’t matter.
Don, whatever deplorables there are you have joined.
Bill Clinton could, and probably will, take the Fifth Amendment but that has serious implications, too. The Congress has the right to seek to immunize him and the DOJ would just love to process that request and bring it before a US District Court judge. Once that happens, he has a choice of either testifying and answering all the questions or being in contempt and again, if the latter, a referral will be made to the DOJ to prosecute him. Either way, slick Willy may not be as slick as he used to be.
before a US District Court judge…. but which one?
Anon: It really doesn’t matter as the law is specific for the crime involved and I cannot think of a viable defense to not testifying before Congress. Assuming he then would continue to refuse, the judge might have more flexibility on sentencing. Recent precedent with Bannon and Navarro saw these charges land the accused in the slammer. A judge might spare Clinton the prison time but this would be a conviction, nonetheless.
Of course it does. Its Washington DC.
And what if you’re wrong?
JJC,
Thank you for pointing the law out.
Thanks jjc.
“It really doesn’t matter ”
Do you really believe that? Have you been paying attention to the rulings from activist Federal judges that clearly and blatantly contravene the law recently?
. It’s coerced testimony. Immunity deal doesn’t release the 5th. Nothing can except the person being questioned. The 5th is immutable, a principal. Deals aren’t made by make a deal or go to jail. Charge me with a crime and try me for that crime and that crime cannot be pleading the 5th. This is 🤪.
No deal.
Failure to appear or to answer compelled testimony risks contempt of Congress; lying, misleading, or interfering during testimony risks perjury, false statements, or obstruction.
Saying immunity doesn’t affect the Fifth is simply wrong. Courts have long held that immunity is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment and replaces the right to silence with compelled testimony.
“slick Willy may not be as slick as he used to be.”
Did Epstein’s under-aged “ladies” lick all the slick off?
How did it taste?
With immunity he can, theoretically, testify as to his witnessing of Trump raping a child.
Clintons are running scared. They are affraid of the Light shinning on all their deeds and corruption. They are trying to control the testimony, attempting to dictate. They must face the committee and tuff questions. Be exposed for what they really are. The Gov’t must audit the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons, including their daughter.
Clintons are running scared. You do not know that as a fact. They have competent lawyers, knowledgeable in the ways of congressional questioning. They have managed to skate persecution for decades. It is not a slam dunk.
I cant for the life of me understand why they would not testify. What are they hiding; who are they protecting; are there other big name democrats who they might expose?
Hiding? Protecting? Expose? Not testifying is not a sign of guilt.
I’m guessing, in all this, they’re egos have been trampled, belligerence is then expected. Human nature, I’d say.
They don’t want to testify in a secret setting where the questions can be separated from the answers and cut into a misrepresentation reel for a conservative audience. They do want to testify in an open committee meeting where their inquisitors are freely able to expose the lack of probable cause for this action. In particular, there needs to be a specific legislative interest for this to be before Congress.
The idiots Bannon and what’s his face were tagged with contempt for not testifying before Congress because they were co-conspirators to the assault on the Capitol building and therefore very much of interest to the workings of Congress.
“. . . there needs to be a specific legislative interest for this to be before Congress.”
Which the *joint* congressional committee already decided. That is why they were subpoenaed.
Or don’t you follow the news.
“The Gov’t must audit the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons, including their daughter.”
This may shock you. The Clinton Foundation has been audited and found that it is a top ranked non-profit. You can look for yourself, but I expect you won’t.
Old HRC must have gotten Billy riled up something awful the night before. He came out swinging and Hillary is gonna use her old Tammy Wynette line of “I stand by my man” so she seems like a devoted spouse – devoted to what we have no idea!! I think most people already know Billy is a scumbag so what is the point of asking why he hung out with other scumbags? There have been no weepy-eyed Epstein Harem victims accusing him so far – so the point is what? They joked about Monica? Who cares about that Fame Skank now.
“so she seems like a devoted spouse – devoted to what we have no idea”
Oh, I think we have a pretty damned good idea. The point of this exercise, from the Clinton’s perspective is to avoid being forced to flesh that idea out with specific examples.
The Clinton’s are as slimy as a squished slug on a rainy sidewalk…, and equally as disgusting.
So sez the slimly anonymous commuter.
Hear hear! You have insulted Slugs everywhere. Why is Hillary not being indicted for a political fraud scheme that cost taxpayers $50 Million dollars? It has now been proven to be an entire cooked up scheme to divert attention from her own illegalities. That fraud action led to Millions in investigation costs to the taxpayers. Please Pam indict this horrible person.
Why? …. because there is no prosecutorial proof. Easy huh?
I believe that the Gabbard release of the declassified information was sufficient evidence to warrant a grand jury investigation. The evidence is quite damming for the Witch of the damned.
Have you seen the “evidence”? In Washington, no one needs evidence to prosecute. Evidence is what you want it to be.
Yes, there have been multiple publications of the email chains.
Damming
She’s not being prosecuted because it didn’t happen. Millions were wasted on behalf of a narcissist.
HRC once used the phrase “ a willing suspension of disbelief” in a congressional hearing to accuse Michal Flynn of lying. It occurred to me at the time and still arises today that the Clintons have relied on such a willingness to accept their deceptions by their supporters in the party, the press and the public. That willingness has served them well over many years. Maybe this time the veil will finally be pierced.
Disbelief of what regarding the Clintons?
There is no veil to be pierced. Tubwater, you have been lied to by a group of millionaires paid by billionaires to convert you into a minion.
Bill and Hillary Weasel back to their old tricks again. Just proves you can’t teach old weasels new tricks.
Stupid lowbrow comment.
Yours certainly is.
Oh oh… its the pouting donny again. Got a hardon this morning for anons eh?
“Got a hardon this morning for anons”
No, I prefer to remain disease-free
Nothing like the man who raped Juanita Broaddrick, and the woman who enabled him, making demands before they appear before a Congressional investigative committee. They should be afforded the exact same deference given to Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon by the sham J6 committee and the Biden regime’s “justice” department.
Nothing like the fact that Trump is a convicted rapist who raped dozens of women in the past. Trump should be called to answer for those rapes.
Is it defamation to falsely refer to someone as a convicted rapist?
Rape, aka: ‘ liable for sexual abuse and defamation’, to the masses just plain ole R A P E.
So sue anon 7:28. .
Now let’s see you do the legal definition of “convicted”, you mentally deficient horse-donkey crossbreed.
Don was convicted of youthful sodomy?
It has been 25 years since WJC was POTUS. Does he believe that his former Presidency allows him to remain forever above the laws that apply to the rest of us mere mortals? The word chutzpah comes to mind.
Oops! I did not intend for the above post to be anonymous.
That’s what they all say.
Wait, you think you’re not anonymous just by using suze?
What a tiring little troll you are. At least Suze created a name that we know and can therefore decide whether or not to read her comments. You, ANONYMOUS, are just a child.
The ‘adult in the room’ has just entered.. Let’s see what intellect it imparts today… troll, and child. That’s pretty deep considering you’re a drunk.
You keep posting that comment somehow thinking you’re a thought leader here. And yet everyone ignores them.
Then why do you always respond? You’re a very stupid troll yourself.
Listen man. You are a brute and a bully. Everything about you shows you’re a demented person. Go away. Really, just go away.
Ask George Stephanopoulos about this so-called “fact”. Another keyboard warrior going by Anonymous.
Hullbobby
I would ask Stephanopolus but I can’t stoop that low…
I am just not of his stature nor can I measure up to him… We should all overlook his shortcomings!🤣🤣
Waist high are you saying?
Anonymous has finally revealed herself to us all, her name is Hillary, She beast of the gutters!
Call Trump a rapist enough times and maybe someone will believe it.
That’s why I said that he, she or it is a disciple of Josef Goebbels.
Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon had and have information directly related to the operation of the Legislature about the attack at the Capitol building against the Legislature. The Clintons have no such relationship.