SOUTHERN FRONTIERS OF THE RATIONAL IMPULSE: Bring on the porn stars, Cooper said!

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2019

White House elections are fun:
Could Donald J. Trump get re-elected next year?

Actually, yes—he could. That doesn't mean that he actually will. But actually, yes, he could.

That said, our somewhat dreamy tribe is dreaming of more thrilling outcomes. We're dreaming of seeing Trump frog-marched away. Wednesday night, after Michael Cohen spoke, Lawrence was dreaming that for us:
O'DONNELL (2/27/19): The Democrats now have the smoking gun. Today, Michael Cohen wrote the first article of impeachment against President Trump in his testimony in the House of Representatives, the place where impeachment of a president begins.

Democrats believe Michael Cohen gave them the smoking gun today. That's what Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna called this exhibit that Michael Cohen introduced in the all-day hearing in the House Committee on Oversight.

This check, made payable to Michael Cohen, carries the now recognizable signature of Donald Trump and was signed by the president six months into his presidency. It marks the first time in American history that we have seen a check signed by a president for an illegal purpose.

[...]

The crime, as described by federal prosecutors and in Michael Cohen's guilty plea testimony, took place weeks before the presidential election when Michael Cohen used his own funds to arrange a payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels to buy her silence.

What America learned from Michael Cohen today is that that criminal scheme extended forward in time into the presidency of Donald Trump because President Trump arranged a reimbursement schedule for Michael Cohen that included 11 checks delivered to him during the first year of the Trump presidency.

Some of those checks were signed by President Trump. Some of them were signed by Donald Trump Jr. and by Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump businesses.

The smoking-gun check, the one with Donald Trump's bold signature, will now take its place in popular culture. You will be seeing it in tweets forever. You will be seeing it on T-shirts. It will be imprinted on toilet paper, on coffee mugs, and it will take its place in history as the most important check Donald Trump has ever written because it is the check that could end his presidency.
Lawrence, an excitable man, was very excited this day. To watch this full segment, click here.

(He's been this excited before. We recall the time he went on the widely-viewed McLaughlin Report, in October 2000 no less, to trash Candidate Gore as a liar once again. He misstated an accurate statement by Gore to establish his well-scripted point. Then too, there was the time he adopted his working-class Dorchester accent to challenge Mitt Romney's son to a fight, right there on the cable TV. Let's not forget his various rants about Mormonism, for which he agreed to apologize several times. His meltdown during Campaign 2004, for which he was suspended for several months, is still his greatest, of course.)

At any rate, Lawrence was highly excited this night. He said Democrats now had "the smoking gun"—rather, "the smoking-gun check."

According to Lawrence, we're going to see that smoking-gun check on the toilet paper of the future! When Cohen presented that check, he "wrote the first article of impeachment against President Trump."

Or so Lawrence now said. As he did, we less than fully rational liberals were being led, by a top entertainer, seductively close to the southern frontiers of our tribe's rational impulse.

Will Donald J. Trump be frog-marched away because pf that smoking-gun check? Because he submitted to an apparent act of extortion by a money-grubbing hustler who has now been adopted, by our somewhat pre-rational tribe, as a "feminist heroine," even "a feminist hero?"

Everything is possible! That said, we hadn't seen Lawrence this excited since the night he went on TV and helped elect George W. Bush by repeating the sound of his master's voice.

Obedient players like Lawrence will serve you the latest script. In Wednesday's script, Trump would soon be frog-marched away. It's an image which mightily pleases certain cable viewers.

Will Donald Trump be frog-marched away? We're going to guess that he won't be—or at least, that he won't be frog-marched away on the basis of that check.

Lawrence kept saying that the check was part of a "crime" and a "criminal scheme." He based his Maddovian statement on the authority of prosecutors in the Southern District of New York—and on the authority of Michael Cohen himself.

To Lawrence, the check was part of a crime. But Cohen's behavior became a "crime" only because he copped a plea to the crime with which he'd been charged.

Cohen agreed to cop a plea to the alleged crime in question. But on CNN, that very same night, one observer offered an analysis of that transaction, an analysis to which we liberals will never be exposed on MSNBC.

Rick Rantorum said the behavior in question wasn't a crime. In our view, it isn't clear that he's wrong:
SANTORUM (2/27/19): The only reason the Southern District got that conviction— They could have gotten him to plead guilty to far worse things than a campaign finance reporting violation. But the only reason they got him to do that is so they could bring in Trump. Let's just be honest about this. That's the only reason they wanted to do this.

TOOBIN: Not because he was guilty of a crime?

SANTORUM: Because can I tell you, every campaign finance violation that I've ever heard of, and I've been aware of a lot of them, get fines. You don't get indicted for a campaign finance violation. You get a little fine.

COOPER: But isn't this a kind of a special kind of campaign finance violation?

SANTORUM: Well, they're making it a special kind of campaign finance violation, when in fact I don't believe there is one. If you look at the [John] Edwards case, there isn't—

COOPER: But, I mean, how many times is it a candidate paying off a porn star to be president of the United States?

SANTORUM: Well, at least one other— Well, not a porn star but, you know, somebody else. It does— But here—

BERNSTEIN: Well, I mean, it takes place several days before the election, the most crucial period.

SANTORUM: OK, but what is the most important requirement? It did take—and that's very important. Why? Because according to campaign finance laws, they would not have had to disclose that payment until after the campaign. That's the time frame they had to disclose it. So it would not have had any impact, even if they did file [on time].

COOPER: All right, we've got to take a break.
Before we consider what Santorum said, let's consider the foolishness of Anderson Cooper, who rolled over for Trump several times during the "cable news" ratings grabs of Campaign 2016.

Man [sic] is the rational animal? According to Cooper, Trump's alleged campaign finance violation is "kind of special"—it stands out from the pack—because "how many times is it a candidate paying off a porn star?" To Cooper, any other alleged love connection would be a lesser deal!

Carl Bernstein chipped in with some piffle of his own. We could have learned about the porn star's allegation right before we voted, he said. To Bernstein, this seems to have made this violation especially egregious!

Let's summarize. According to Cooper and Bernstein, we could have heard an allegation from a porn star! Even better, we could have heard from the porn star right before a White House election! What could be cooler than that?

In such ways, we rational animals are handed our frameworks by our cable thought leaders. As voters, we need to know if a candidate has ever (allegedly) had sex with a porn star on one occasion ten years before! It's the very last thing we voters should hear before we cast our votes!

Having noted this foolishness, let's turn to what Santorum said. Conservatives will hear this interpretation on Fox. This will affect the way this matter is viewed by the public as a whole. Over here in our liberal tents, Lawrence will shield us from it.

According to Santorum, it isn't clear that those "hush money" payments to "silence" Daniels were some big-deal violation at all.

According to Santorum, the prosecutors forced Cohen to cop to that charge because it let them go after their actual target, Trump. Instead of charging Cohen with more serious crimes, they charged him with an alleged crime with which they could pursue Trump.

Did the SDNY really do that? We have no way of knowing. But if you say that our federal gumshoes would never do such a thing, we can only answer with this:

"Who's being naive now, Kay?"

Santorum's larger point is simple. Cohen wasn't convicted, by a jury, for the alleged crime in question. And it isn't clear that Donald J. Trump would ever be convicted either.

Santorum repeatedly noted the fact that John Edwards wasn't convicted by his jury when he was was tried on a similar charge in 2012. That's the only precedent, Santorum said, and it didn't produce a conviction.

(Carrie Cordero largely agreed. See below.)

Cooper quickly went to break; the point was discussed no further. On programs hosted by Lawrence and Rachel, you'll never hear this point of view expressed or debated at all. That's the way we liberals get served on Our Own Cable Channel

Soon after Cohen's appearance, up jumped MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade, offering a ridiculous legal analysis in The Daily Beast.

"If if if if if if if," McQuade kept saying, dreaming of ways in which various people could be charged with various crimes. The pleasing pablum carried these headlines:
The Legal Case Against Trump Has Never Been Stronger After Cohen Testimony
The president’s ex-fixer credibly accuses him of felonies that, pending more evidence, should result in impeachment and indictment.
The headlines were tribally pleasing. Unfortunately, "If if if if if if if," McQuade repeatedly said in her actual essay. (Note the key words in those headlines: "pending more evidence.")

Alas! This is the way we liberals now dream, especially since we aren't permitted to understand the ways we've lost past White House elections. That includes the election in which Lawrence worked to elect George Bush. We liberals aren't encouraged to know that any such thing ever happened.

Should Donald J. Trump get frog-marched away because he paid a bribe to Daniels, submitting to an extortion? Should he be impeached for that, as Lawrence now dreams? Should he be linked to Cohen's unadjudicated "crime?"

We'd be disinclined to say so. But our tribe now dreams of losing elections, then sending the winners to jail!

Trump is disordered, and has been forever, but so are key players all over our "press corps." Beyond that, Trump is dangerous.

That said, who knows what the future might bring? But Rachel and Lawrence will continue to please us liberals as we stumble and fumble about, ignoring the way the world has worked over the past thirty years.

That smoking-gun check in response to extortion? According to Lawrence, we'll see that smoking gun check on future toilet paper! So said an entertaining man, not too far from the southern frontiers of our tribe's rational impulse.

Bring on the porn stars, Cooper said. White House elections are fun!

What Carrie Cordero said: Earlier, CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero agreed with Santorum's broad point:
CORDERO (2/27/19): So just to pick up on that point. So I think Rick is correct in that there is not a wide body of settled law that the particular payments in question are campaign finance violations.

The Justice Department is clearly taking the position that it is, because they charged and Michael Cohen pled guilty to that.

SANTORUM: The Edwards case says it wasn't.

CORDERO: But the Edwards case had different facts.

SANTORUM: Similar facts.

BORGER: Is it the right thing to do?
"Is it the right thing to do?" So asked Gloria Borger, getting the kids back on track.

No one asked if Trump was extorted. Only on Fox are viewers allowed to hear that question asked.

44 comments:

  1. "The Democrats now have the smoking gun."

    Breaking News! The Walls Are Closing In! A Tipping Point! Bombshell! The Beginning Of The End!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjvRJLUWwFs

    I must admit, Bob: you lib-zombies are the most entertaining 'tribe' of 'em all...

    ReplyDelete
  2. So Lawrence, the “excitable man”, has an opinion. Somerby, the “sober dispassionate” man, has a different opinion, namely that viewers of O’Donnell are too stupid or weak to make up their own minds about the campaign finance violations. Perhaps even liberal non-viewers are implicated, since they are, after all, a “failed tribe”, or so Somerby tells us.

    Somerby also suggests that we should consider the “opinion” of Santorum, the Sage of CNN, which essentially accuses Mueller, the SDNY, and the US District Judge for the Southern District of some sort of conspiracy to get Trump by their charging and sentencing of Cohen. Shades of Deep State indeed.

    Somerby also, in his progressive, Lincolnesque way, floats the idea, which sounds like a certainty the way he writes about it here, that the “money-grubbing hustler” Stormy Daniels (can you hear the word “whore” lurking behind that slur?) engaged in extortion of Trump.

    There’s a reason only people on Fox are hearing such things: Because they are nutty. (Wonder If Daniels could file a slander suit against Dershowitz, and a libel against Somerby?). It should also be admitted that Fox viewers are kept in the dark about a great deal of things.

    The main takeaway from posts like this one is Somerby’s unwillingness to accept arguments other than his own. He can’t simply object to O’Donnell; he must also slander an entire group of people in so doing. He comes off looking like he thinks himself the One True Progressive left on earth. And a pretty excitable one at that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it isn’t just that those views are “nutty” on Fox; they serve to promote their favored agenda.

      Delete
  3. Arguing that Trump should be impeached isn’t irrational, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We're dreaming of seeing Trump frog-marched away. "

      Many of us are sick at heart that our country is in the hands of someone like Trump. We want to see him removed because he is hurting people. We want to see justice done because he is a criminal who needs to be incarcerated. Frog-marching is optional.

      Delete
  4. “Cohen wasn't *convicted*, by a jury, for the alleged crime in question.”

    Right. He was sentenced by a judge, therefore it doesn’t count. Lol.

    Also, this has been pointed out to Somerby before:

    “CORDERO: But the Edwards case had different facts. “

    Yes, it did.

    But let’s not focus on that. Let’s highlight the other thing legal expert Cordero said that you liked.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the one hand, you have the fact that Cohen was charged with crimes, admitted to them, and was sentenced to prison for them.

    On the other hand, you have the speculations of Santorum.

    I KNOW WHICH SIDE I LEAN TOWARDS.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Bob, I'm seeing headlines like "Biden praises Trump for 'walking away' from N. Korea summit" or "Trump draws rare praise from Dems" all over the place.

    Could you, being a part-zombie yourself, provide some insights into the newfound overt warlike spirit of your zombie-cult, please.

    I knew, of course, that your 'tribe' is barbaric and bloodthirsty, but in the past it was carefully masqueraded by some sugar syrup bullshit. And now it's out on the open.

    Please oblige, I'd really like to hear an explanation 'from the horse's mouth', as they say.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's funny, shithead.

      I'm seeing headlines like this:

      Trump again sides with a dictator, says he believes Kim didn't know about Warmbier

      To say the least, the Warmbier family is not happy with our treasonous moronic imbecilic jackass criminal "Acting President"

      Delete
    2. Who is this 'Warmbier' you speak of, dembot, your uncle? Did he molest you when you were a child?

      That would certainly explain your current condition...

      Delete
    3. mm - please don't let Trump-hatred interfere with your usual good sense. First of all, Trump made the sensible point that the mistreatment of Warmbier was not in Kim's interest, so Trump tended to believe that it was done without Kim's knowledge. Of course, Kim knew about it after the fact.

      Secondly, what's the difference whether Trump says he believes Kim or says he doesn't? Trump is trying to negotiate a nuke-free NK. Would calling Kim a liar over something that cannot be proved help achieve his objective? I don't think so.

      Delete
    4. Shut the fuck up, Comrade DinC. Donald J Chickenshit couldn't negotiate a payoff to a porn star without fucking it up. He flies to Vietnam totally unprepared believing is his super powers of deal making and got his ass handed to him for the second time. He. Doesn't. Know. What. The. Fuck. He's. Doing.

      God bless America, and fuck Donald J Chickenshit kissing

      Delete
    5. BTW mm, Trump tweeted today that, Of course he holds NK responsible for Wambier's death. This whole issue is a fake. Just Democrats trying to smear the President.

      Delete
    6. Sure, David, you sycophantic imbecile fascist cult member. He's just trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube just like with Putin. (remember when he really meant to say "wouldn't" but it came out "would".) Bwahahahaha!!!!! I'll bet you swallowed that steaming pile of bullshit with a shovel also. Too late, fuck head.

      The man is an unqualified disaster on the world stage. Keep him from embarrassing our country any more by moving to his golf course. It'll be a win win.
      Let's see, what's current on the list of Donald J Chickenshit's lies? Oh, my, he lied about interfering in getting security clearance overruling all of our intelligence experts for his fucking son-in-law and his idiot daughter.

      Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesn't it, you treasonous bastard

      Delete
    7. Words, words, words.

      U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy: "speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far."

      Trump-haters are busy criticizing Trump's words, but the important thing is that Trump has maintained all the sanctions. Actions are what count.

      Delete
    8. mm, Please don’t call David an imbecile. That’s an insult to imbeciles. He an idiot, this commentariat’s village idiot, morally and intellectually. Sycophancy and fascist ideology are things that require sufficient mental acuity to achieve agency. Idiots lack that acuity and thus fail to have agency.

      Calling David names is like booing the losers at the Special Olympics.

      Delete
    9. "Of course he holds NK responsible for Wambier's death"

      What? Dembots should call Pelosi and tell her to give that Wambier guy the highest posthumous Darwin Awards.

      Certainly well-deserved.

      Delete
    10. Right David, Cadet Bone Spurs is just another Teddy Roosevelt.

      You got any examples where President Roosevelt licked a brutal dictator's balls in public?

      ‘Why shouldn’t I like him?’ (Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President 3/1/2019)

      You got any suggestions for the dumb fuck, Comrade? Any reasons you can think of?



      Delete
    11. Hey dembot. As an unmatched connoisseur of trifle bullshit, you will certainly appreciate this.


      Delete
    12. Mao, poor trollbot. No one clicked his link.

      Delete
    13. I'm with David. You can't hold Trump responsible for things he says. You'd say what Putin told you to say if you were being blackmailed by him too.
      Also, hating Trump let's the rest of the piece of shit Conservatives (but I repeat myself) off the hook.

      Delete
    14. Poor dembots. Craving focus-group-tested, lawyer-certified highfalutin sugary-syrup presidential sermons -- and not getting any...

      Tsk. Well, addiction is a disease, I suppose...

      Delete
    15. Turns out Kim is as shitty a dealmaker as Trump. How hard would it have been for Kim to tell Trump that only the smartest and best President of the United States ever would sign a deal allowing N. Korea to have as many nukes as they would like?

      Delete
  7. All of these people Somerby mentions are TV talking heads. Why favor one group over another? Why Dershowitz, but not McQuade? Santorum but not Toobin? The fact that they are on TV renders all of them suspect, but Somerby has decided some comport with his worldview, apparently.

    Has Somerby researched the issues, or has he just watched TV to find a congenial talker?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trump-haters like Bob are so certain that Trump's re-election would be unthinkably horrible that they don't need evidence that this is so. But, undecided voters will need evidence. In 2016, there were good reasons to fear that a Trump Presidency would be a disaster for the country. But, that argument can't be made now. The economy is booming. Wars are winding down. Minorities are doing well. Unemployment is very low. Workers are finally getting wage increases that exceed the rate of inflation. Crime is down.

    On top of that, the Democrats don't seem to have a strong candidate and the party has moved quite a bit to the left, which will turn off centrist voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby a Trump hater? Hmm. Maybe. But in other respects, his posts sound as though they could be on Breitbart.

      But, as for Trump, you think his results are good. Ok. But he lies, thousands of times, every day, publicly and privately, to everyone. He degrades the office of President that way, and by his endless mocking of people and institutions on Twitter and elsewhere along with his endless petty self-aggrandizement. Think about it, David. If Obama had done or said one fraction of the things Trump has, you and your fellow Republicans would have been outraged and calling for his impeachment, just as you did with Clinton. And need I remind you, the economy was going gangbusters under Clinton, and the positive trend in the economy after the crash of 2008 started long ago under Obama and Trump is just riding its coattails, so don’t tell me that positive economic numbers causes Republicans to refrain from impeachment, in the case of Clinton, or withering criticism and obstructionism under Obama.

      I can see no principle at work here except “Republican gets a pass for bad behavior, Democrat doesn’t.” And it’s precisely this lack of true principles that is ruining our politics and our country.

      Delete
    2. That's different 10:02. Obama deserved to be impeached for wearing a tan suit.

      Delete
  9. It’s a horrible thing to see TDH, clinging to the yammerings of Rich Santorum, drown in his own narrative.

    Santorum, who is as dumb as the substance that Dan Savage named for him, thinks that the John Edwards case shows that it isn’t a campaign violation to take money in excess of legal limits to cover up scandals that would adversely affect a campaign.

    (A refresher: During his campaign for the Presidency, John Edwards used money from donors to try to keep quiet the fact that he’d had a child with his mistress while he was still married.)

    This is exactly the argument that Edwards’ legal team made to the judge in trying to get the charges dismissed. They failed. Sorry, said the judge, it’s a crime under federal election law. The case has to go to trial.

    A trial, at which Edward was acquitted on one count and the jury hung on the other five counts. (8-4, as I recall, for acquittal.) Why? Because they didn’t think there was a crime to be adjudicated? No, the judge had already told them that there was one. Because they thought that Edwards was innocent? No, they couldn’t agree on guilt BARD because the majority didn’t believe the government’s key witness, who had apparently kept some of the money for himself.

    The Edwards case doesn’t support that the idea that excess payments to suppress political scandal can’t be campaign contributions. In fact, it’s the opposite.

    Santorum is too dumb to know this. The panel that TDH quotes was too lazy to find out what happened. And TDH is so caught up in this own narrative that he thinks the quoted exchange supports his position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no limit on a candidate's contributions to his own campaign, so Trump cannot be accused of accepting excess payments to his campaign. The most he can be charged with is failure to report a campaign contribution.

      Delete
    2. It wasn't Trump's money it was Cohen's which he reimbursed after the fact. That makes it the same as what Edwards was accused of doing. The main reason the jury locked on Edwards was that the witness the government had was of very poor quality and the people who actually paid the money weren't available. One had died and the other was nearly 100 years old.

      Delete
    3. *** Public Service Announcement ***

      David in Cal, this commentariat’s village idiot, is actually quoting others (including me) from previous comments. So in this case, his statement is correct, but of course and as expected, it’s inapt.

      Contrary to claims by David’s fellow idiot, Rick Santorum, the Edwards case lends support to the government’s claim that money given to politicians to cover up scandals counts as campaign contributions.

      Thus the failure to report those contributions is a crime. When there a deliberate attempt to have one’s lawyer conceal the source of the contributions, then that conspiracy makes the failure to report deliberate and raises the crime to a felony.

      You may safely return to ignoring what DAinCA has to say.

      But no name calling.

      Delete
    4. dsc, Just a quibble, but the fact that Cohen was Trump’s agent and Trump reimbursed Cohen probably makes it Trump’s money. The key thing is the claim that money was a campaign contribution and thus reportable.

      There are good reasons to argue that the law isn’t clear enough about these hush money payments, but the available law supports the contention that they count as campaign contributions.

      By the way, Edwards was acquitted on one count because the donor had a previous pattern of giving Edwards money for non-campaign reasons. That gave rise to reasonable doubt on the particular donation.

      Delete
  10. I only come here for kicks, to see weirdos like Mao and David in California spout their nutty shit bloviating. It's interesting, like watching apes eating shit. (To be fair, apes only rarely do that. )

    Bob Somerby is elderly and senile and will pass from this Earth soon. it's a shame that his last years will be noted (or not) by his coddling of strange creatures like Mao, weirdly here before anyone else, or strange repressed gay man David in California, always here on this miniscule blog to express his cry for help. You're gay, David, it's okay and about time to tell your wife.

    Mao is in some Eastern European hellhole if not Russia itself, he's beyond hope.

    Magical love spell get your moving company back to you .. seriously, this site is embarraing how the comments are flooded with frauds. But also sort of appropriate. I like your Rachel dunks but what a waste of time. Yeah, smellya later, your comments section is flooded with jerks, trolls and awfulness and spam. They think there is some wide readership here. Haha, it's less than 20 people and the same sad piece of shit cases are the only ones who comment with any energy. Lonely sad shut-ins like incel Mao and poor David in CA denying he's gay and dying for affection. When you're gone Bob, what are these losers to do? They will be bereft. Having to start all over elsewhere by being hemhorrhoids on comment sections where their weird hostility will be misunderstood but not really because they are just ignorant assholes. Best to you, Bob! These are your people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Belvoir, you're supposed to include "NTTAWWT" in order to prove you're not a bigot.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear... You sound depressed, dembot, and my heart's a-bleedin' for you...

      Oh, and incidentally:
      "They think there is some wide readership here. Haha, it's less than 20 people..."

      According to web traffic checkers, this blog has ~1500 daily unique visitors. ~ 40,000/month.

      Yes, dembot, quite a few of us enjoy watching you dembots squirm and spew your dembot hatred. It's both entertaining and educational. Needless to say, we always appreciate your participation.

      Delete
    3. ANNNDD...both of you respond. How appropriate. To someone who will never read your responses.

      Delete
    4. Thank you for reading and taking your valuable dembot-time to reply, dembot.

      Delete
    5. "...you're supposed to include "NTTAWWT" in order to prove you're not a bigot."

      Just wear a MAGA hat. It's easier.

      Delete
  11. Get Packers and Movers Jaipur List of Top Reliable, 100% Affordable, Verified and Secured Service Provider. Get Free ###Packers and Movers Jaipur Price Quotation instantly and Save Cost and Time. Packers and Movers Jaipur ✔✔✔Reviews and Compare Charges for household Shifting, Home/Office Relocation, ***Car Transportation, Pet Relocation, Bike SHifting @
    Packers And Movers Jaipur

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am entirely certain that the GOP would have overlooked a few harmless campaign finance violations had President Hillary Clinton been found to have committed them. Because, that’s the way the GOP roll. Eminently fair.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So Somerby criticizes the media wasting time talking about "porn stars", but doesn't criticize that the media having Rick Santorum spout bad faith arguments.

    TDH. Worst. Media. Criticism. Site. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey everyone!
    Today I come to you with so much excitement!
    I have been married & barren for 5years i had no child. i have never been pregnant i was a subject of laughter from my Friends & neighbors, i almost lost my marriage because of this issue . i was so confused that i did not know what to do until i came across this great Dr online and i contacted him at once i was scared weather it was going to work because i never believed things like this before, so i decided to give it a try and i did all what Dr Ahmed asked of me and today to my greatest surprise i took in the first time and i gave birth to a bouncing baby boy and now my marriage that was about crashing before is now restored. my husband now love and want me better, Am so happy for everything that have been happening my life since i met this Dr Ahmed. I want to tell all the women out there who have a similar situation like that the world is not over YET they should dry up their tears and contact this great man and their problem will be gone or are you also having other problems you can also contact Dr Ahmed, here is how you can contact him Ahmedutimate@gmail.com or Contact him via his whats-app number +2348160153829.
    Thanks
    Alexa Planter

    ReplyDelete