Can 2016 Get Any More 2016-ish?

I’m sure we’ve all heard that FBI Director Comey is re-opening the investigation into Hillary Clinton. Apparently this is due to information unearthed in the investigation of Anthony Weiner, the soon-to-be-ex of Hillary’s particular aide, Huma Abedin. None of us know what, precisely, is being uncovered and Democrats are in a panic trying to downplay it all, but the bottom line, for me, is that the FBI wouldn’t do this unless the matter was quite serious.

What effect will this have on the election? Impossible to know – but polls have been tightening all week (one poll which had Hillary up 12 has her up 4, now…that’s quite a crash in just a few days). Will this push Hillary support over the edge? Or was her support already ebbing away? Or has Trump’s support been surging? There are reports that GOPers, faced with the stark reality of President Hillary Clinton, are coming home to Trump. I read a report which claims that Hillary is going up on the air in Wisconsin while Trump is re-entering Virginia. Is Trump just doing a head-fake? Perhaps…but if Hillary does have to fight for Wisconsin, then things out there are not what we were lead to believe even just a few days ago.

Incomplete results of Nevada’s first week of early voting show an overall Democrat lead of 151,000 to 122,000 over the GOP…but with 69,000 “other” also having voted. If that breaks for Trump – and it should, Indys do tend to support Trump over Hillary – then the Dems lead is rather small…and may vanish in week 2. We’ll have to see.

I have to admit I’ve been laughing all day over these developments. It will be the perfect action of hubris and nemesis if Hillary is brought low due to the actions of another woman’s husband.

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “Can 2016 Get Any More 2016-ish?

  1. Amazona October 28, 2016 / 11:35 pm

    It’s hard to overcome appreciation for the quirk of fate that has Hillary’s emails discovered because of the antics of a sexual predator whose wife stuck with him even after he was revealed to be a perv. Kind of a historical parallel.

    It’s like a movie script, one that got refused because it was just so darned goofy. Now we are questioning Comey’s motivation. Is this payback for being pushed to act in a way that disgraced him as a person and also disgraced his agency? Is Comey playing us again, pretending to take this seriously to provide cover for Hillary, again, as he stonewalls his “investigation” till after the election while giving the impression he and the FBI are on it?

    But it always comes down to the fact that there could be handwritten letters, in Hillary’s own hand, describing illegal activities and betrayal of the nation in detail, writing about looking down her nose at blacks and sneering at her base and joking about Bill’s Bimbo eruptions and talking about how best to smear and intimidate his accusers, admitting crimes, outlining how she did things and why and how she planned to get away with it, and she would still get at least 40% of the vote.

    • M. Noonan October 29, 2016 / 12:17 am

      It could be that – some order from Hillary, or at least Huma, saying to get rid of the classified info. A lot of Never Trumpers, MSMers and Democrats are working overtime to downplay this…but I can’t see any upside to Hillary, here. And it is massive news that the Democrat nominee for President winds up under FBI investigation a mere 11 days out from the election. This will have an effect…enough to help elect Trump? Who knows? It is a very strange year…

      • Cluster October 29, 2016 / 9:19 am

        Comey did not recommend indictment in July because of lack of intent. If there are any new emails that reveal knowledge and intent then that is a game changer. I also don’t think Comey would have done this if in fact there is nothing, so I believe that he has found something in his initial review of these emails. Pass the popcorn.

      • Amazona October 30, 2016 / 10:43 am

        It is impossible to read the document signed by Hillary on January 22, 2009 and then believe she did not show intent to violate this agreement, which is legally binding.

        https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

        From a piece dated September 2, 2016:

        Either Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI or she lied on a State Department form as she began her tenure as Secretary of State. This conclusion appears inescapable after Friday’s FBI document release related to the Clinton email investigation.

        As revealed by those FBI documents, Clinton told agents that she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records of handling of classified information”.
        But the second paragraph of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009—states that “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.”
        ( It goes on to say “………including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.” Amazona)

        The form also notes that classified information is not always so marked, but is still regulated by the agreement.

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-signed-she-received-briefing-on-classified-info-but-told-fbi-she-hadnt/article/2004146

        State’s deputy spokesperson Mark Toner …………. said that State Department employees were not prohibited from using private email accounts, but that staff was told during training that there’s “no assumption of confidentiality in any kind of personal email account and that you should obviously act accordingly.”

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-on-email-in-2011-a-lot-of-security-restraints-on-what-i-can-and-cant-do/article/873544

        Just the use of a server managed by someone with no security clearance at any level was a clear violation of including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it,

        I know, Comey was scrambling to try to find a way to obey orders from his boss to explain away the determination to protect Hillary, but his “explanation” was pretty feeble, contradicted at every turn by the facts.

  2. Retired Spook October 29, 2016 / 8:23 am

    When you consider the number of scandals, crimes and bodies that the Clintons have left in their wake for which they’ve never really been held to account, I, for one, just want to see justice finally catch up with them. I think an awful lot of Americans share that view.

  3. rustybrown2014 October 29, 2016 / 2:08 pm

    Yes indeed. Comey better come out with the goods and soon. With so many incriminating things floating around about Clinton being dropped here and there, how can anyone not be seriously worried that she could be blackmailed once in office, perhaps by a foreign government? Who knows what’s out there on her and who has it? We know the worst they’re going to find on Trump–another video of his kissing a pretty young lady or using a naughty word. Let’s face it, her chickens have returned to roost and she’s a national security liability at this point. I wish there was more in the press concerning this angle.

    One thing’s certain–pass that popcorn Cluster, this is delicious.

    • M. Noonan October 30, 2016 / 1:08 am

      A lot of rumor-mill stuff today – most remarkably the story at Daily Caller claiming that the FBI agents charged with destroying the hard drives of Cheryl Mills, et al, decided not to do so…essentially, in military terms, refusing to carry out an unlawful order. That adds a whole, new wrinkle to this – that it might not be Weiner that is the real problem, but the fact that on those un-destroyed hard drives is definitive proof of criminal activity by Hillary and/or her senior aides (something like an e mail saying, “we need to scrub the classified info before we turn anything over to Justice”).

      There is simply no way to resolve this by November 8th – and I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think the FBI can release any details regarding and on-going criminal investigation as that would ruin any future case.

      The main thing is that it clearly reminds everyone why they don’t like Clinton – now, you have to be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat to cast a vote for her. Everyone else pretty much has to vote Trump, or not vote, at all. We’ll see how it comes out – but I get the feeling of a surging Trump and a collapsing Hillary. Will surge/collapse make a surprising result by 11/8? Only time will tell…

      • Amazona October 30, 2016 / 10:46 am

        Why would FBI agents be directed to destroy the hard drives of anyone?

        You answered it yourself—–“in military terms, refusing to carry out an unlawful order

        So who issued the order?

      • Cluster October 30, 2016 / 11:19 am

        Hillary could easily be prosecuted for destroying evidence by deleting 33,000 emails following the Congressional subpoena. That’s a no brainer. It’s just that the politicized DOJ won’t pursue it, and such is the current state of our progressive government where some people are more equal than others.

        Although poetic justice, or karma, or whatever you want to call it, can be a bitch:

        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-cheered-11th-hour-indictment-that-doomed-bush-reelection/article/2606000

    • neocon01 October 31, 2016 / 5:16 pm

      WHERE ARE ALL THE #NEVERTRUMPER “Republicans” WHO ENDORESED THE LYING TRAITOR HILLARY CLINTON??

      WHERE ARE YOU?

      obama endorses Comey…….

  4. rustybrown2014 October 29, 2016 / 2:19 pm

    Ahh, those tolerant progressives. Remember when the national story was about how violent Trump and his supporters were? That was before it was revealed the Clinton camp was fomenting much of the violence and scenes like this one became increasingly common:

    • Amazona October 30, 2016 / 11:35 am

      Still waiting for Hillary’s people to condemn the whites who attacked this black woman.

      • Cluster October 30, 2016 / 11:53 am

        Just think how great our country would be if it wasn’t for rogue FBI agents and obstructionist Republicans. And this just in from Joan Walsh on MSNBC – “what did Jason Chaffetz know and when did he know it?”.

        I am going to need more popcorn

    • Retired Spook October 30, 2016 / 12:29 pm

      As I said the other day, humor is a powerful tool. Which are you more likely to remember, an ad like this or one of the hundreds of ads in a dull, monotone voice saying so and so is not right for (fill in the state name).

  5. Retired Spook October 30, 2016 / 12:37 pm

    Two things that I think are probably a safe bet at this point; (1) the majority of the millions of people from both parties who have early voted are those who’s minds were made up a long time ago, and (2) the other shoe hasn’t dropped yet on revelations that may affect a significant number of those who haven’t voted yet.

    • Cluster October 30, 2016 / 12:59 pm

      I agree. I think wikileaks is set to drop another bomb this week. Assange has mentioned that what he has yet to reveal will get Hillary arrested.

  6. rustybrown2014 October 30, 2016 / 12:58 pm

    Cluster,

    Saw your posts over at LIR blog. So bizarre that Watson claims I “badgered and badgered” him about racial issues when it was he and M. who brought up race in the first place! He only felt badgered because he couldn’t defend his positions, even with M.’s help, so he censored me–a practice he used to be highly critical of when done here at B4V. How the worm has turned.

    It’s obvious he’s obsessed with that exchange; he still mentions me and it regularly, but refuses to debate. Tell him that I would be happy to give him another chance and discuss any topics he might be interested in by any rules of etiquette he finds comfortable. I won’t hold my breath though. I’m afraid he’s adjusted to the comfort of criticizing people from a safe space, all too common with progressives these days.

    • Retired Spook October 30, 2016 / 1:17 pm

      Rusty, funny that you should say that. I was just having an email exchange about debating Progressives with Amazona in which I said this:

      I don’t have your patience, and I usually just don’t engage them because, when asked hard questions, they either deflect or simply don’t answer and move on to something else. You can’t really have a discussion with them where one or both of you actually learns something. Total waste of time, hence the old adage, “arguing with a Liberal is like mud wrestling a pig…………”

      I might have added to the first sentence a third response, that they decide we’re too stupid to debate, declare victory and leave (sound familiar?)

      If Progressives could, as Amazona has so often requested, explain the rationale behind their ideology and/or political beliefs; and, as I have often requested, give examples of where the system they advocate has had successful, practical application, we could actually have some interesting discussions. There’s a reason they can’t do either.

      • rustybrown2014 October 30, 2016 / 2:05 pm

        “…they decide we’re too stupid to debate, declare victory and leave (sound familiar?)”

        Absolutely. Even more common in their playbook now is to shout “racist, sexist, xenophobe, etc.” and declare victory. Of course, Clinton has fostered and encouraged this tactic.

      • Amazona October 31, 2016 / 10:11 am

        And the Obama people and Obama himself have perfected the “RACISM !!!!” shriek.

    • Cluster October 30, 2016 / 1:17 pm

      You must have had a profound impact because your presence is littered throughout that recent post. I don’t think watson takes kindly to someone straying from the reservation and that being said, I have to admit that you are a rare and refreshing breed in today’s political environment and I have a lot of respect for you. I am sure that we still probably disagree on several issues, but you are not afraid to challenge your own thinking and conventional party doctrine when debating an issue and this country needs more of that.

      I will put in a good word for you 🙂

      • Retired Spook October 30, 2016 / 1:48 pm

        I visited the LIR blog a year or two ago, and once was enough. I had to take two showers afterward.

        I have to admit that you are a rare and refreshing breed in today’s political environment and I have a lot of respect for you.

        I second that.

      • rustybrown2014 October 30, 2016 / 1:55 pm

        Nice words Cluster, Thanks. My estimation of you has risen quite a bit as well. We’ve had our spats in the good ol’ days and I think it’s well known that I enjoy a nice dust up debate now and again, but it’s amazing what can happen when one opens up their thinking a bit and begins to listen to opinions one would ordinarily dismiss. It’s very easy to assign the most un-charitable interpretation to our opponents words, and I still do that often, but I think real progress in this world will happen when we’re willing to set aside differences and focus on some goals we can agree on.

        Whew! Enough of the kumbaya, now I can go back to being an asshole for a while.

      • Amazona October 30, 2016 / 2:34 pm

        I’m seconding that as well, Rusty.

        Cluster and I have also butted heads, and I think he made a couple of bad decisions back when he was looking for street cred with the Left, but I am happy to see that he has seen the error of his ways.

      • Amazona October 30, 2016 / 2:38 pm

        “… I think real progress in this world will happen when we’re willing to set aside differences and focus on some goals we can agree on.”

        I agree, but I think a real problem is that we are not very good at defining our goals. Too many of us tend to define them in the most superficial ways——“I think everything should be fair” is an example. This was often presented as a political philosophy, back in the days before Lefties here learned that such bumper sticker platitudinous mouthings would not be accepted as political.

        I’m a believer in foundations, and find that too many people define their goals as the equivalent of the color of the curtains while I am defining mine as how to build something that won’t fall down.

      • rustybrown2014 October 30, 2016 / 2:58 pm

        Agreed. It’s necessary to agree on substantial goals from the get go. Otherwise, it’s just too easy to put on a dog and pony show of compromise without addressing any impactful issues.

        “I think everything should be fair” is something we can all agree on in principle and in foundational law but too often it’s misconstrued as “equal treatment must always result in equal outcomes” which is absurd.

      • Amazona October 30, 2016 / 9:12 pm

        And even equal treatment will not always mean everyone starts at the same place. There are things that we can’t control and can’t compensate for. A man whose hereditary body type is to be 5’6″ tall and heavyset, with short legs, is simply never going to be a great runner, and there is nothing any government can do about it. Out of any class of high school seniors who had the same education since first grade, there will be some who excel at math and some at music and it has nothing to do with special treatment.

        I think “equality” has to mean equal treatment under the law. As for conditions of birth, including race, when we see people like Thomas Sowell, who grew up reared by a grandmother, pretty much abandoned by his mother and not knowing his father, living in a ghetto, we have proof that conditions of birth and society are not guarantees of inability to excel and succeed.

        I’m speaking more of foundations for achievement of goals. The best example is the old cliche of “give a man a fish…….etc.” If our goal is that no children go to bed (or school) hungry, a short term solution is to give food to such children, but a foundational goal would be to understand why they are in the position of being hungry and addressing that.

        I think the first and biggest step toward civil discourse is understanding that different approaches to problems does not mean either side is indifferent to those problems. The Left tends to think that if people on the Right don’t agree with their “solutions”, such as just handing out more money and free food, they don’t “care” about hunger, or poverty. It’s not indifference or callousness, it’s just a different approach to addressing a problem.

      • Retired Spook October 30, 2016 / 10:57 pm

        The Left tends to think that if people on the Right don’t agree with their “solutions”, such as just handing out more money and free food, they don’t “care” about hunger, or poverty. It’s not indifference or callousness, it’s just a different approach to addressing a problem.

        It hasn’t always been that way, or at least I don’t remember it always being that way. My first recollection of Democrats demonizing Republicans for wanting to starve children was during a fight over school lunch funding back during the Clinton Administration, I think, although it could have been even further back. The argument was not over cuts but over the amount of increase in the school lunch program. Interestingly that fight is still going on.

      • Amazona October 30, 2016 / 11:03 pm

        I seem to remember some hysteria about the “ketchup is a vegetable” kerfluffle during the Reagan years. That was also about how the wicked wepubwicans were trying to starve poor chirrens.

      • M. Noonan October 31, 2016 / 12:44 am

        I think Denver winning because of two pick-sixes is proof of injustice in the world…

      • rustybrown2014 October 31, 2016 / 1:42 am

        The Cubs advancing into game six is making me reconsider my position in a higher power…

      • Amazona October 31, 2016 / 10:00 am

        I think Denver winning because of two pick-sixes is proof of injustice in the world…

        Injustice, better playing, tomayto tomahto.

        As we in Denver say, if God isn’t a Bronco, why does He make sunsets orange?

  7. Retired Spook October 31, 2016 / 9:09 am

    Amazona is fond of referring to the Mainstream Media as the Agenda Media. An even more descriptive name is Presstitutes, referring to people like this.

    • Amazona October 31, 2016 / 10:05 am

      Now, now, let’s get this right—-it is Complicit Agenda Media. I think complicity is a very important element in the media coverage.

      Complicit, as indicated in the agenda for the HRC/Presstitutes meeting in your link: Framing the HRC message and framing the race

      BTW, love the term Presstitutes.

    • Retired Spook October 31, 2016 / 9:28 am

      The sheer amount of graft and corruption surrounding the grifters from Arkansas is staggering. That she isn’t down 50 points is testimony to just how bad a candidate Trump is.

      • Amazona October 31, 2016 / 10:09 am

        The other day Rush was commenting that literally any of the other 16 hopefuls would have been ahead by double digits—and that included George Pataki.

        I keep saying, I am not too concerned about Trump as president, but as a candidate he is an ongoing train wreck. And not a single thing has been thrown at him that we didn’t already know and predict would be used against him, and he hasn’t said a single thing that doesn’t fit in with the personality traits we predicted would be a problem.

        THIS is what I hold against Trumpsters. They knew, we all knew, but they were willing eager to roll the dice, with so much at stake, because of their fanboy passion for the man himself. My reaction to that has always been “Play with your own money, but not with the future of the country”.

      • Cluster October 31, 2016 / 10:45 am

        I am not so sure on this line of thinking. I had this discussion with a friend the other day who said the same thing that any other candidate would be up by double digits to which I replied “remember Romney”. The Democrats successfully framed one of the most decent, civil, law abiding candidate ever to run for POTUS as an uncaring, out of touch, rich, greedy man who was mean to animals. And the electorate bought it. Every single one of the GOP candidates has a record that the Democrats would have exploited and would have made them out to be “in the tank” politicians who don’t care about the poor blah, blah, blah. I will also mention that any one of those GOP candidates would never have gained the vote from blue collar democrats like Trump is currently doing.

      • Cluster October 31, 2016 / 10:35 am

        I think it is also a testament to how dumb and/or ill informed our country is. How anyone can brush aside how corrupt the Clinton’s are is beyond me.

      • Amazona October 31, 2016 / 10:53 am

        One of our recent trolls said he would vote for Clinton because he believes in the direction she wants to take the country. I think that is unusual. I think most Dems have been gradually sucked into the idea that Republicans are so downright evil in every way, the most important thing is to keep them out of government.

        The Left, knowing its true political system would be anathema if explained clearly and accurately, has had to run behind various stalking horses in every election. Their main effort has been to demonize the Right, and they have been very successful at this. You may notice that during elections they almost run as Conservatives. They seldom if ever advertise their party affiliation in their ads, and the ads are always focused on personality and identity. They are smear campaigns against the other person’s personality and identity, and/or they represent the Dem as the model of rational sweetness and light and gee golly such a NICE person!

        The cumulative result of these strategies is to distract most Dems from the political aspect of voting, which is after all supposed to be choosing the best blueprint for governing the country, not the person you would prefer to have over for a hamburger in the back yard.

        Or, in the case of voting for Hillary, a person no one likes, Trump has been so thoroughly demonized that most voters are so freaked out by him becoming president that they will vote for her as a default vote. Or, if we are lucky, just won’t vote at all.

        But to be fair, the Right has let them get away with it. We finally had a prospective candidate who understood this and tried to run on a platform of governance, and he got kicked to the curb by Personality and Identity Politics right in our own party. Partly because so many Republicans are just as ignorant of the concept of voting for a political system instead of a person, and partly because focusing on actual GOVERNANCE according to the Constitution made so many of the elites in our own party feel very threatened.

        It’s going to be a long and difficult road, educating the public.

      • Amazona October 31, 2016 / 11:10 am

        I am not so sure on this line of thinking etc.

        If we were running against anyone but Hillary, I would agree with you. But she is such a terrible candidate that this election, while not ours to win, was certainly ours to lose—so we decided to see if we can.

        Running against Barack Obama meant running against nearly every black person in the country, against the foolish dominated by White Guilt, and against a guy who millions find very likable. He was pretty much bullet proof.

        I think Romney would be ahead of Hillary by 10-20 points right now. The contrast between the two would be so stark, it would make it easy to vote for him.

        And that is even taking into account the absolute incompetence of GOP campaigning. A good campaign would have had a carrier on top of a car with a dog running up over the trunk to get to it, as his did, with a talking dog saying “I don’t care where I ride, as long as I get to go with the people I love, and the view from up here is great”. There is a reason the talking animal videos are so popular on the internet. They are funny and people love them. No, it was kind of ignored and then it was playing defense.

        Unless you are the Denver Broncos, you seldom win if you are playing defense. (LOL, Mark.)

        I’ve tossed this idea out to a couple of people over beers, and they think it would have been very effective. Imagine a Trump without such an overweening ego that he could consider such a thing. (We will pause here because that could take a while.) What if Donald Trump had come out and said “You know, I’ve said a lot of things that sound a lot worse than what was in my heart and my mind when I said them. I admit that. But we’ve had good presidents who were considered crude and even vulgar. We’ve had presidents who used the Secret Service to bring women into the White House for the pleasure of the president, and we’ve had at least one president who was an active sexual predator even while in the White House. The thing is, most people think these men did a good job as president. I don’t blame people for being offended at some of the things I have said. I cringe, myself, when I hear myself saying a lot of it. I don’t blame some people for thinking that makes me a jerk. But what it really comes down to in this election is, which is worse as your next president—–a jerk or a crook?”

        We all think this would have defused the disrespect-for-women theme to some degree, would have added humility to a candidate desperately in need of some, and would have injected some humor into an otherwise grim campaign. I would have taken this tack and flooded the country with bumper stickers saying “A jerk or a crook—it’s up to you”.

      • Amazona October 31, 2016 / 11:14 am

        I guess we’ll have to wait and see if there are enough of those “blue collar Democrats” to compensate for losing so many women and Hispanics as well as some conservatives.

      • Amazona October 31, 2016 / 11:19 am

        Ted Cruz has a record of going up against the GOP establishment, and it would have been hard to paint him as being “in the tank” for them. He has no record of any speech or action that can be said to be disrespectful of women. He has an impeccable lifelong history of strong, true, conservative political values. He can explain his positions. He is articulate and compelling. He is very funny, with a wry and impish sense of humor, and can poke fun at himself. He is articulate enough, and a good enough lawyer, to make a coherent case against Hillary without having to depend on name calling.

        The only thing I can think of against Cruz is that he is not telegenic. Oh, and his wife works for a bank.

  8. Retired Spook October 31, 2016 / 1:19 pm

    This is being reported by a number of sources. If true it could be the final nail in Hillary’s coffin.

    Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova said on The David Webb Show on SiriusXM Friday night that despite the FBI agreeing to destroy the laptops of Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson as part of immunity deals made during the initial investigation of Clinton’s email server, agents involved in the case refused to destroy the laptops.

    “According to the agreement reached with the attorneys who handed over their laptops, the laptops were to be destroyed per the agreement after the testimony was given –the interviews were given – – by the attorneys. The bureau and the department agreed to that,” DiGenova said. “However the laptops contrary to published reports were not destroyed and the reason is the agents who are tasked with destroying them refused to do so. And by the way the laptops are at the FBI for inspection by Congress or federal courts.”

    • M. Noonan November 1, 2016 / 12:23 am

      Gotta be something on them – you don’t ask to have your computer destroyed if all it’s got on it is yoga routines…

      • Amazona November 1, 2016 / 1:39 am

        The agreement to destroy the computers was part of the immunity deals. What has never been explained, and has barely been touched on, is—-immunity for WHAT? Immunity is usually a “We won’t prosecute you for your smaller crimes if you will testify about bigger crimes committed by your buddies”. I’ve heard of five immunity deals—-there may be more—-including the guy in Denver who put together the private server. He didn’t get immunity just for what he did—he got it for what he could tell them about what Hillary did. If HE needed immunity for protection, what about her?

  9. Retired Spook October 31, 2016 / 2:14 pm

    Sayonara, Donna.

    We’re definitely gonna need more popcorn.

    • rustybrown2014 October 31, 2016 / 2:50 pm

      This is getting good.

      • Retired Spook October 31, 2016 / 4:41 pm

        At the very least it’s been entertaining.

      • neocon01 October 31, 2016 / 5:18 pm

        Obama Abandons Hillary: White Praises Comey & Says He’s “Not Trying To Influence Election

Comments are closed.