Check out this cool new product provided to police departments by Bill Barr under “Operation Legend” This is a from Memphis.
Shelby County Sherrifs just met us with their new electronic "Tazer" shields. "Operation Legend" Funds funneled by the Trump/Barr adminstration. #ThingsAreNotOkpic.twitter.com/Cq3GvItBCw
I’m still trying to track down the manufacturer, but until then I’m going with Omni Consumer Products from RoboCop. I mean, just look at the OCP logo on that Taser™ Shield!
Apparently this is part of Bill Barr’s Project Legend that is pumping resources into cities to stop “violent crime. But in this piece from WREG on September 10th, Josh Spickler with Just City (@joshspickler @JustCity901) calls Operation Legend a “fear-based” campaign stunt.
“Many of these folks in Memphis in particular are not charged with violent crimes,” Spickler said. “In reality, crime is down. Our community still struggles with crime and with violent crime in particular. But that is no reason to invite federal agents on to our streets. That is no reason to raise fear.”
He says address the systemic issues instead.
“If the federal government were serious about helping Memphis with some of its societal problems, including crime, then they would further invest in housing, further invest in mental health care in our community, further invest in our kids’ education,” Spickler said.
Note: This is NOT a OCP product, Manufacturer TBD.
This is how Trump’s Federal government is bribing local governments to ensure help when it’s time to put down citizen protests.
The type of tools the police get shows which policing policies are encouraged.
Remember the Pentagon’s program to gave military surplus to cities for free? Communities couldhave gotten upgraded communications equipment or biohazard gear, military temporary pop-up shelters for their natural disasters, but that didn’t encourage the military mindset in the police. Then small towns competed with each other to see who had the coolest war gear to take down their 2 meth heads and then intimidate those dirty hippies and uppity black protestors.
In a era of “defund the police” the Feds coming through with money now will be remembered. It will also be used as a lever when the authoritarian Feds send out the word to put down their local citizens.
The message: Go in with MAXIMUM force! Use “Knock their eyes out” rubber bullets, toxic tear gas and heat rays.
That is the money leverage that is behind the suggested suppression techniques that the AG wants that encourages their policies.
It’s a sad comment on our country that nobody really seems to care about Donald Trump’s flagrant corruption while in office. It’s even sadder that this won’t stop the Republicans from ginning up phony scandals about Democrats with the press eagerly accepting every morsel of potential scandal to prove they aren’t biased.
Averaging more than two conflicts of interest per day, President Trump continues to be the most corrupt president in history, engaging in more than 3,400 conflicts of interest since taking office, according to a new report released today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Since CREW issued its last conflicts report in February, President Trump has engaged in an additional 400 conflicts of interest and made millions of dollars for his personal businesses. Today’s report details some of the most glaring examples of presidential corruption and conflicts of interest ever raised by a president, all of which stem from his refusal to divest from his businesses.
Since the beginning of his presidency, CREW has tracked interactions between the president, the Trump Organization, and those trying to influence government decisions and public policies, including members of Congress, industry groups, lobbyists and cabinet officials. These interactions have continued to blur the lines between where President Trump’s public responsibilities end and his private financial interests begin, and between his loyalty to the Trump Organization and his obligations to the American public.
“For nearly four years, President Trump has made it abundantly clear that any claim of separation from his business was a lie. The extraordinary numbers in this report paint a picture of a president who is fixated on the personal financial benefits he might derive from his public service—and a whole ecosystem of officials, special interests and governments that exploit that fixation in order to curry favor and advance their own interests,” said CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder.
“As the president continues to harness the office of the presidency for his own personal gain, Americans can no longer trust that he makes decisions in our interest, rather than his own,” Bookbinder said. “From foreign governments and industries throwing lavish events at his properties to donors and customers buying their way to ambassadorships and top political offices, corruption surrounds this president literally every day.”
Highlights from the report include:
President Trump has made more than 500 visits to the properties he owns and profits from. The president’s frequent travel to and from his properties has cost American taxpayers well over $100 million.
President Trump has made more than 300 visits to the golf courses he owns and profits from, despite saying repeatedly during his presidential campaign in 2016 he would not have time for golf. His insistence on spending time at his properties has resulted in at least a million dollars in taxpayer money being spent at his properties.
141 members of Congress have patronized Trump properties. These visits often coincide with events held by special interests or wealthy political donors that rake in millions of dollars for his properties.
Special interest groups, many of which have business before the Trump administration, have hosted or sponsored 130 events at Trump properties since he took office. Political groups have held another 88 events at Trump properties.
Foreign government-tied entities have held 13 events at Trump properties, and at least 145 foreign officials have visited one of Trump’s properties. Foreign governments have granted President Trump’s businesses 67 trademarks, and have awarded additional trademarks to his daughter’s business, all potentially in an effort to secure favorable treatment from the Trump administration.
“President Trump has repeatedly used his office to promote his businesses and grant wealthy paying customers personal access to him, his staff, and those who have his ear,” Bookbinder said. “It is a gross abuse of public trust, and with each conflict, he becomes more complicit in the destruction of the ethical norms that form the cornerstone of a working democracy.”
You can read the whole report at the link. It is simply shameful.
Trump at the court as crowd chants “vote him out” — it’s rare for this President to see his opposition this up-close and in-person pic.twitter.com/VEVkRHOkjM
From the beginning, John H. Durham’s inquiry into the Russia investigation has been politically charged. President Trump promoted it as certain to uncover a “deep state” plot against him, Attorney General William P. Barr rebuked the investigators under scrutiny, and he and Mr. Durham publicly second-guessed an independent inspector general and traveled the globe to chase down conspiracy theories.
It turns out that Mr. Durham also focused attention on certain political enemies of Mr. Trump: the Clintons.
Mr. Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut assigned by Mr. Barr to review the Russia inquiry, has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same timeinto allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Durham’s team members have suggested to others that they are comparing the two investigations as well as examining whether investigators in the Russia inquiry flouted laws or policies. It was not clear whether Mr. Durham’s investigators were similarly looking for violations in the Clinton Foundation investigation, nor whether the comparison would be included or play a major role in the outcome of Mr. Durham’s inquiry.
The approach is highly unusual, according to people briefed on the investigation. Though the suspected crimes themselves are not comparable — one involves a possible conspiracy between a presidential campaign and a foreign adversary to interfere in an election, and the other involves potential bribery and corruption — and largely included different teams of investigators and prosecutors, Mr. Durham’s efforts suggest the scope of his review is broader than previously known.
Mr. Durham’s focus on the Clinton Foundation inquiry comes as concerns deepen among Democrats and some former Justice Department officials that his investigation is being weaponized politically to help Mr. Trump. Congressional Democrats last week called on the department’s inspector general to investigate whether Mr. Durham’s review was free from political influence after his top aide abruptly resigned, reportedly over concerns that the team’s findings would be prematurely released before the election in November.
The Clinton Foundation investigation began about five years ago, under the Obama administration, and stalled in part because some former career law enforcement officials viewed the case as too weak to issue subpoenas. Ultimately, prosecutors in Arkansas secured a subpoena for the charity in early 2018. To date, the case has not resulted in criminal charges.
Some former law enforcement officials declined to talk to Mr. Durham’s team about the foundation investigation because they felt the nature of his inquiry was highly unusual, according to people familiar with the investigation. Mr. Durham’s staff members sought information about the debate over the subpoenas that the F.B.I. tried to obtain in 2016 and have also approached current agents about the matter, but it is not clear what they told investigators.
The only DOJ investigation that interfered in the 2016 election was the bullshit investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. In fact, it probably cost her the election. But these political hack in the Justice Department are determined to exonerate Trump, the obviously corrupt, traitorous conman and apparently see if they can prosecute Hillary Clinton who has already been investigated to death with no results.
John Durham is the guy who found that there was nothing untoward in the Bush administration’s torture regime. That should have been a tip-off that he’s another right-wing toadie. Why else would Barr have chosen him?
This from Barton Gellman is very, very ,very important:
Caroline: What’s your best advice to Americans going into November?
Bart: First and foremost, stop thinking about this election in conventional terms. Expect an extraconstitutional challenge, because it is very probably coming.
Take agency, because an election can’t be stolen without some kind of acquiescence from the people at large. So don’t acquiesce.
Vote. Vote early if your state allows. Vote in person if you can tolerate the risk, because late-counted mail votes will be the heart of the postelection contest.
He’s right. The Democrats need to start pushing for people to vote early and in person if at all possible. If you vote by mail, get it in the mail on the day you receive your ballot. Everything depends upon it.
Coming soon to a swing state near you? Strap in tight.
The two Republicans on North Carolina’s five-member State Board of Elections resigned Wednesday night:
David Black and Ken Raymond submitted their letters of resignation to the State Board of Elections, according to a statement from the board. In their letters, the Republicans believe they were blindsided on their agreement to make the deal.
The proposed settlement, which was approved by all five members of the board, allows voters whose absentee ballots have deficient information to fix them without having to fill out a new blank ballot.
Sources told ABC11, the proposed settlement, if approved, will likely be challenged by President Donald Trump in federal court.
It is a sound bet that what really blindsided Black and Raymond was vicious pushback they likely received from Republican operatives from the state house to the White House.
There are still decisions the State Board needs to make ahead of the election and after. It is not clear how much business the body can conduct with just three members. Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is charged with filling vacancies from a list provided by the Republican Party’s state chair.
Whaddya think such a list is not forthcoming? This allows the GOP to cast any actions taken by the three Democrats on the Board as tainted, and to allege that changes to absentee ballot rules to which Republican members agreed will mean absentee ballots are as well. See Barton Gellman’s piece in The Atlantic. I don’t have time to research how state boards are appointed in other states where Democrats hold a majority, but watch for similar actions elsewhere.
Trump’s known associates have been laying the groundwork for declaring the 2020 election invalid if he loses. Trump has said as much himself. The Republican Party has spent decades promoting conspiracy theories aimed at undermining public confidence in the election process, then blaming Democrats for undermining election integrity.
A Republican staff report released Wednesday by a House Judiciary Committee on Oversight and Reform argues that Democrats “are attempting to sow uncertainty, inaccuracy, and delay in the 2020 election.” Among the allegations is that Democrats in Wisconsin attempted to allow the counting of ballots that arrive up to a week after Election Day. Plus, Democrats in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and other states want to extend the time allotted for counting absentee ballots. There are a couple of complaints about last-minute voting changes that have some merit. But you can see where this is going.
Democrats are trying to win the election after the election!
What is this “increased risk of uncertainty and confusion” of which you scaremonger?
Alaska accepts mailed ballots up to 10 days after Election Day. In Illinois, it is 14 days. Iowa accepts absentee ballots until the Monday after Election Day. Mississippi allows five business days post-election. Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia accept ballots postmarked by Election Day until the close of business Friday. But the GOP has issues with Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Minnesota and Florida doing things like that.
There will be more of this. Republicans are just getting warmed up.
UPDATE: Like I said earlier. This came in at 11:25 a.m. EDT. They’re pulling out all the stops.
For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.
Woke? Barton Gellman’s “The Election That Could Break America” in The Atlantic on Wednesday was a quadruple latte of woke. Gellman sketched out how the acting president and party allies are gaming out how to disappear any votes not counted on Election Day as “inaccurate, fraudulent.”
Forget what state laws say. Gellman quotes an unnamed Trump legal adviser and names Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chair saying that tossing the popular vote and having the GOP-led legislature name electors is an option under consideration. (See Gellman for how that works.) “To a modern democratic sensibility,” Gellman writes, “discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law.”
A coup? Yes, a man like that would consider a coup. Now what?
When the Transition Integrity Project ran its series of post-election war games in June, the only scenario that did not result in chaos was a big Joe Biden win. Make. That. Happen. And by Election Day.
The six contested states primarily at issue are Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All allow in-person early voting. See your state Board for requirements, dates and times.
If you expect to vote absentee in Arizona, Florida or North Carolina, do so as early as possible. Drop off your ballot in person at your local Board office if at all possible. If you mail it less than two weeks prior to Election Day it may not arrive in time or may not be processed before the end of the day Nov. 3. You don’t want that.
The poll finds that among likely voters in that 18-to-29 demographic, Biden is leading President Trump by 60 percent to 27 percent among likely voters. That’s significantly better than the 49 percent that Hillary Clinton got in this poll in 2016.
But that’s not all. The poll also finds that an astonishing 63 percent of respondents say they will “definitely be voting,” compared to 47 percent in the 2016 version of this poll.
That matches 2008 levels. The 2008 version of this poll found that among a somewhat smaller segment of young voters, approximately the same percentage said they’d definitely be voting.
While this comparison between the two subsets isn’t perfect, it nonetheless indicates that it’s reasonable to posit that 18- to 29-year-olds might post 2008-level turnout this time, according to Chase Harrison, the acting director of the Institute of Politics poll.
Great. Now get voters aged 30-45 to join them.
I’ve repeatedly used this chart of 2018 Early Voting turnout in North Carolina (below) to illustrate that seniors only run this country because they out-vote people 45 and under, not because they represent a plurality of the eligible voter population. The shape of these curves is typical nationwide. Expect to see it updated soon with full results and results from 2016 as well. North Carolina’s data transparency makes it possible (although a bit of a data-crunching headache).
Encourage everyone you know to vote, but especially those 45-ish and under who have blown it off before. Those people who took to the streets in Black Lives Matter protests all summer? Those who oppose the police-state tactics of the Trump administration? Ask them to vote.
People 45 and under and sick of how things are run by Boomers? People inspired by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez taking on crusty establishment Democrats? Ask them to vote.
Even those radically unaffiliated activists you know? The ones unwilling to soil themselves with politics because they think voting doesn’t matter? Ask them to vote. Let them know if they do not vote this time, there may be no next time.
Ask them to reach out and take the power right in front of them. It is already theirs.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.
“If you don’t like who the Supreme Court nominees are, then win an election. You should have won in 2016,” the former House Oversight Committee Chairman told “Fox & Friends.”
“The reality is presidents are presidents for four years,” Gowdy explained. “You don’t have a sliding scale of diminished power the closer you get to someone else’s inauguration. … This is President Trump’s pick and he’s entitled to a vote.”
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure Barack Obama won 2 elections and was president in 2016 when McConnell stole the Supreme Court seat from him.
It’s utterly embarrassing how these people are turning themselves inside out on this. Just admit that you are all shameless liars who will do whatever you have the power to do in a given moment. This ridiculous dancing on the head of a pin to pretend you have any integrity at all is ridiculous.
Trump reiterated today that he plans to have his hand-picked Supreme Court re-install him for a second term:
President Donald Trump predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the outcome of the November election and argued the Senate should confirm his nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to break any tie.
“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices, and I think the system’s going to go very quickly,” Trump said Wednesday at the White House, after criticizing the legitimacy of mail-in voting. He made the remarks during a meeting with Republican attorneys general about alleged anti-conservative bias of tech companies.
“I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling, it’s a scam, this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court and I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation,” Trump said. “Just in case it would be more political than it should be, I think it’s very important to have a ninth judge.”
“Just in case it would be more political than it should be …” That’s Bill Barr talking.
I don’t mean to alarm you but if you haven’t read this piece by Barton Gelman in The Atlantic, I urge you to do it. Gird yourself.
The Interregnum allots 35 days for the count and its attendant lawsuits to be resolved. On the 36th day, December 8, an important deadline arrives.
At this stage, the actual tabulation of the vote becomes less salient to the outcome. That sounds as though it can’t be right, but it is: The combatants, especially Trump, will now shift their attention to the appointment of presidential electors.
December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.
We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.
Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.
To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law. Would Republicans find that position disturbing enough to resist? Would they cede the election before resorting to such a ploy? Trump’s base would exact a high price for that betrayal, and by this point party officials would be invested in a narrative of fraud.
The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.
“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.
“If you have this notion,” the adviser said, “that ballots can come in for I don’t know how many days—in some states a week, 10 days—then that onslaught of ballots just gets pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. So pick your poison. Is it worse to have electors named by legislators or to have votes received by Election Day?”
When The Atlantic asked the Trump campaign about plans to circumvent the vote and appoint loyal electors, and about other strategies discussed in the article, the deputy national press secretary did not directly address the questions. “It’s outrageous that President Trump and his team are being villainized for upholding the rule of law and transparently fighting for a free and fair election,” Thea McDonald said in an email. “The mainstream media are giving the Democrats a free pass for their attempts to completely uproot the system and throw our election into chaos.” Trump is fighting for a trustworthy election, she wrote, “and any argument otherwise is a conspiracy theory intended to muddy the waters.”
In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.
“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.
There seems to be a consensus that they will win by any means necessary. And as Gelman says, no matter what happens Trump will never concede:
Maybe you hesitate. Is it a fact that if Trump loses, he will reject defeat, come what may? Do we know that? Technically, you feel obliged to point out, the proposition is framed in the future conditional, and prophecy is no man’s gift, and so forth. With all due respect, that is pettifoggery. We know this man. We cannot afford to pretend.
Trump’s behavior and declared intent leave no room to suppose that he will accept the public’s verdict if the vote is going against him. He lies prodigiously—to manipulate events, to secure advantage, to dodge accountability, and to ward off injury to his pride. An election produces the perfect distillate of all those motives.
Pathology may exert the strongest influence on Trump’s choices during the Interregnum. Well-supported arguments, some of them in this magazine, have made the case that Trump fits the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy and narcissism. Either disorder, by its medical definition, would render him all but incapable of accepting defeat.
Conventional commentary has trouble facing this issue squarely. Journalists and opinion makers feel obliged to add disclaimers when asking “what if” Trump loses and refuses to concede. “The scenarios all seem far-fetched,” Politicowrote, quoting a source who compared them to science fiction. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, writing in The Atlantic in February, could not bring herself to treat the risk as real: “That a president would defy the results of an election has long been unthinkable; it is now, if not an actual possibility, at the very least something Trump’s supporters joke about.”
But Trump’s supporters aren’t the only people who think extraconstitutional thoughts aloud. Trump has been asked directly, during both this campaign and the last, whether he will respect the election results. He left his options brazenly open. “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. Okay?” he told moderator Chris Wallace in the third presidential debate of 2016. Wallace took another crack at him in an interview for Fox News this past July. “I have to see,” Trump said. “Look, you—I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no.”
How will he decide when the time comes? Trump has answered that, actually. At a rally in Delaware, Ohio, in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, he began his performance with a signal of breaking news. “Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make a major announcement today. I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election.” He paused, then made three sharp thrusts of his forefinger to punctuate the next words: “If … I … win!” Only then did he stretch his lips in a simulacrum of a smile.
The question is not strictly hypothetical. Trump’s respect for the ballot box has already been tested. In 2016, with the presidency in hand, having won the Electoral College, Trump baldly rejected the certified tallies that showed he had lost the popular vote by a margin of 2,868,692. He claimed, baselessly but not coincidentally, that at least 3 million undocumented immigrants had cast fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton.
All of which is to say that there is no version of the Interregnum in which Trump congratulates Biden on his victory. He has told us so. “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election,” Trump said at the Republican National Convention on August 24. Unless he wins a bona fide victory in the Electoral College, Trump’s refusal to concede—his mere denial of defeat—will have cascading effects.
If he does end up leaving on January 21 it will be under duress and he will consider himself the rightful president in exile. I’m sure that’s part of the new brand he’s cooking up to make millions from the suckers and losers of his cult.
The CIA has made it harder for intelligence about Russia to reach the White House, stoking fears among current and former officials that information is being suppressed to please a president known to erupt in anger whenever he is confronted with bad news about Moscow.
Nine current and former officials said in interviews that CIA Director Gina Haspel has become extremely cautious about which, if any, Russia-related intelligence products make their way to President Donald Trump’s desk. Haspel also has been keeping a close eye on the agency’s fabled “Russia House,” whose analysts she often disagrees with and sometimes accuses of purposefully misleading her.
Last year, three of the people said, Haspel tasked the CIA’s general counsel, Courtney Elwood, with reviewing virtually every product that comes out of Russia House, which is home to analysts and targeters who are experts in Russia and the post-Soviet space, before it “goes downtown” to the White House. One former CIA lawyer called it “unprecedented that a general counsel would be involved to this extent.”
Four of the people said the change has resulted in less intelligence on Russia making its way to the White House, but the exact reason for that — whether Elwood has been blocking it, or whether Russia officers have become disillusioned and are producing less, or even self-censoring for fear of being reprimanded — is less clear.
Far be it from me to defend the CIA, but isn’t it possible that they are afraid to tell Trump because they know he’ll tell Putin what they know? It’s not as if telling him the bad news about Russia will lead to him suddenly decide that he needs to crack down on the election interference — or anything else.
Honestly, I’m not sure why this is necessarily a bad thing. Trump is clearly acting as much on Russia’s behalf as he is the US. Maybe it’s really not a good idea to share this info with him and his cult-like henchmen. “Speaking truth to power” when Trump is the power is not obviously a good thing.
On the other hand, Courtney Ellwood is a political hack and Haspel may very well be a cultist herself so who knows? It’s a big problem when you have a traitorous ignoramus for a president backed up by eager accomplices. Nothing makes any sense.
