Tuesday, January 02, 2018

Elizabeth Warren may be positioning herself for a presidential run in 2020.

Courtesy of Politico: 

Elizabeth Warren has spent the past year making a series of below-the-radar moves that would put her in prime position to run for president in 2020 if she decides to. 

The liberal icon and Republican bete noire has amassed more money in her campaign war chest than nearly any senator in modern history, groomed political connections with Democrats who've been skeptical of her in the past, and worked to bolster her bipartisan and foreign policy bona fides. 

It’s part of a conscious break from the heads-down posture that Warren purposefully maintained during the first five years of her Senate career, a wide range of Democrats close to the Massachusetts senator and her tight-knit political operation told POLITICO. And it’s representative of Warren’s tricky navigation between the wishes of advocates who want her cutting a clear path to 2020, and supporters who think her best bet is to run up the score in her reelection race this year. 

The balancing act is evident everywhere, as Warren takes steps she never did when activists were pressuring her to jump into the 2016 presidential race.

Okay I am posting this here in order to open up a discussion on the pros and cons of a Warren campaign.

I'll start.

Pros:
  • Warren already has a built in base of support of people who wanted her to run in 2016.
  • She is one of the Democrats with the best name recognition, and if she runs against Trump she needs to be recognizable. 
  • She is whip smart.
  • She has real successes to tout during a campaign that voters can easily understand and relate to.
  • She is a woman during a time when women are taking center stage.
  • The only real knock that Trump can use against her is that Pocahontas thing, and seriously nobody gives two shits about that.
Cons:
  • Her age. Voters looking for change might balk at putting another septuagenarian into the White House.
  • Inexperience with foreign relations or the military. (Though in replacing Trump this might not matter.)
  • She is a woman. (This will still likely turn some voters off.)
  • She agreed with Donna Brazile that the 2016 primary was rigged in Hillary's favor. (I am not going to lie, this one really pisses me off.) 
  • She also called on Al Franken to resign and that is going to be a sore spot for a lot of Dems. 

For the record none of the cons that I have listed are in any way a deal breaker for me.

I am not about purity tests, nor am I a single issue voter.

I want the best candidate that has the best chance of winning, and Warren has a lot of pluses in her column.

Thoughts?

82 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:06 AM

    PRO: She totally gets under Trump's orange skin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:50 AM

      Also too, Scott Brown. Left the state and lost again, but he sure does have some mighty fine daughters! :)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous1:46 PM

      She would not win.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2:34 PM

      1:46 PM, care to elaborate?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous2:57 PM

      What is to elaborate? She has virtually no chance of winning the Presidency. Democrats better hope she doesn't win the nomination if she throws her hat in the ring.

      Delete
    5. Leland4:27 PM

      2:57, merely repeating a claim does not elaborate. It just lends more credence to the idea the originator does not have any particular information to share.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:56 PM

      What is to elaborate? She would not win. That is it, it is all you need to know.

      Delete
  2. Biden-Warren 2020 followed by Warren-??? 2024.

    I already have a Biden 2020 bumper sticker on my truck. Drives the local TeaBaggers nuts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:52 AM

      I can't remember the place that you say that you're at every Saturday night, Old Redneck, I'm in Oregon. If I had flush cash, I'd fly out to buy you one.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:27 PM

      This might be a goog ticket since many republicans would vote for biden over trump.

      We need to get through 2018 first and get people off their butts in an off year election.
      I no longer think there will be a woman president in my lifetime,especially when we can't even stick together to get equal pay.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:45 PM

      I agree, Old Red Neck! This country won’t elect a smart woman until they’ve seen her in a VP slot. We are as sexist as we are stupid as a country.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:26 PM

      Cool OldRedneck! lol

      Delete
  3. Anonymous11:31 AM

    And she doesn't have 30+ years of irrational Republican hatred hanging over her.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not sure the Dem boys would support her since they cannot stand to hear a woman speak. I remember the Cons didn't tolerate her dressing down Sessions. I say get real boys and move the hell over.

    Elizabeth is not Hillary but her own person.
    I hope she gives it a try.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:07 PM

      Elizabeth has some issues as a potential candidate but she isn't diabolical like Hillary.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:37 PM

      Hillary Clinton is not the diabolical one.

      That would be you. Go back to your own site.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous12:39 PM

      I like her big mouth, she's not afraid of any man and smarter than most, but siding with Bernie Sanders for two years won't have done anything for her. She can't win with his base.

      I'd see Joe Biden in the job before I'd want her.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous12:45 PM

      "diabolical like Hillary"... Wow

      Delete
    5. Anonymous1:13 PM

      Agreed. Diabolical is the correct word.

      Delete
    6. Leland2:28 PM

      Diabolical? How? What makes you say that? Is it that you, too, have fallen for the 40 years of hate tactics the repubes have thrown at her? I remind you that a.) Hillary knew (and probably still knows) every single world leader and has a pretty good relationship with most; b.) never once has been charged and convicted of a single crime that the repubes tried to throw at her, and c.) had it not been for Comey and his last minute monkey wrench would probably be President now.

      So explain, please. I'd like to try to understand the mind set that can say things like that.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous2:55 PM

      Oh come the fuck on everyone, hardly even any far left dems have anything good to say about Hills these days. They hate her book, her excuses, and the fact that she's lied a lot during her career.

      Why is she even on the radar these days? Just to divide Dems? Way to go, it's why we have Trump ya know.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous2:58 PM

      She is as diabolical as they come. The word speaks for itself.

      Delete
    9. Leland4:34 PM

      2:58, I just wrote a response to another comment upstream that says merely repeating a statement does not clarify anything when asked to explain that statement.

      A word is merely a word. It doesn't say anything by itself. There should be a rational response when asked for an explanation.

      WHY do you think she is diabolical? It has nothing to do with running for the presidency. That train has left the station. You made a statement. I am merely asking you to back it up and explain it to me.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous8:22 PM

      Who are you fucking Spock? She's diabolical.... Duh!

      Delete
    11. Anonymous8:23 PM

      But that requires a brain Leland. Not repeating what some old weirdo man said!

      Delete
    12. Anonymous1:00 PM

      "A word is merely a word."

      And a sentence is a bunch of words.

      And a paragraph is nothing but sentences strung together, which are a bunch of words.

      Why go thru all that, when one word sums up Hillary.

      Diabolical.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous11:54 AM

    (THREAD) The evidence that Trump business partner Felix Sater is a cooperating individual in the Mueller probe is now overwhelming—and if he is, he's the most dangerous witness against Trump Mueller has (and that *includes* Flynn and Papadopoulos).

    I hope you'll read and share.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/948208871012696066

    TRUMP'S "DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY" ROSTER

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/948251211387559936

    Now that The Daily Beast is writing about Prince and Dmitriev, I wanted to re-up this recent thread about the possibility that January in the Seychelles wasn't the last time Prince and Dmitriev met.

    I hope that if you read this thread, you'll agree more investigation is needed.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/948257858503823367

    (THREAD) Trump advisor Erik Prince met secretly with Putin pal/Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev, at the request of the UAE. Then Dmitriev and the UAE went to Abu Dhabi—where Prince lives—to cut a deal.

    And Trump's son was in town.

    Hope you'll read and share.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/941528186944479232

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:57 AM

    Why don't you describe the central assertion, then, Brit? Because you say Andrew McCarthy has identified a "problem" with the NYT report on Papadopoulos—but then that "problem" has nothing actually to do with... *the NYT report on Papadopoulos*. So enlighten your followers, Brit!

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/948195224748220417

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:58 AM

    I wrote yesterday that the December 27th Associated Press story on the state of Trump's White House in July 2017 revealed *one* new fact—that the president is a conspiracy theorist who believes federal law enforcement is part of the "Deep State."

    Now—just hours later—*this* BS.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/948182291154657280

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:00 PM

    Andrew McCarthy's Russia "coverage" is Russia for Idiots—literally. He doesn't understand how probable cause works; he fallaciously uses a process story to negate the substance of an FBI probe; he wildly misstates what we've learned about Page since 2016.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/948177100409917440

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous12:01 PM

    It’s now clear @SpeakerRyan is helping GOP Rep Devin Nunes interfere in the Russia probes. Ryan kept Nunes on Intel Cmte even though he violated his recusal. Now Ryan’s letting Nunes attack FBI, DoJ & Mueller’s probe using Congressional powers. Paul Ryan should be investigated.

    https://twitter.com/funder/status/948029181337784320

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous12:04 PM

    I’ve given up making any predictions after the unbelievable happened in 2016. I’m with G on this that I just want the best candidate who will inspire and move our country and the world forward; bring civility back; honor education, science, intelligence and not pander to the lowest common denominator; truly knows what our Constitution stands for and is not ethically challenged; and most important, not a pathological liar.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous12:07 PM

    The 2012 GOP field is back: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann are all now potential 2018 Senate candidates. (Anyone heard from Herman Cain lately?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:42 PM

      I thought Michele Bachmann was laying low because she's on her way to prison.

      But what is it with Minnesota and the US Senate?

      Delete
  12. a. j. billings12:29 PM

    All the pros you mention are good, not to mention that she is an experienced Senator who knows how Washington works, and most importantly, she actually cares about people.

    People who are poor, uneducated, ignorant, lacking health care, and the basics of life.

    In spite of their rhetoric, those people above all need our help in the USA more than anyone.

    You'd think that the "Christian right" and the religious Republicans would actually give a damn about what their Savior Jesus commanded them, but only people like Bernie and Liz really try to legislate for the poor and unfortunate

    Liz would make a good President, but i doubt she could win the electoral college.

    Fox news, talk radio fanatics, alt-right lunatics, and the Evangelical haters have so poisoned the well that I doubt she'd carry enough of the purple states to have a chance.

    IMHO, Biden has too much baggage and is too old, and LIz is too "librul" for the Jesus people, so who does that leave?

    Ideally Dems would need a Southern or MidWest governor with name recognition, a stelllar record, and no damn #metoo skeletons in the closet

    Suggestions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:33 PM

      Tim Kaine, who knows?

      Delete
    2. NOT KAINE.

      He's been voting to seat Trump's Deplorable nominees. Even ONE is one too many.

      I agree about both Warren and Biden.

      I also agree we need a candidate from the Midwest or South.

      That would have been Keith Ellison until the Democrats pulled the rug out from under him and put him in the corner.

      I hope they don't start pushing Castro again. He doesn't have the experience.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous12:42 PM

    Yes Elizabeth would be great. There are several female candidates. Alice Grimes I think is another. I think she ran against mitch mcCONell 2 yr ago. We need to kick the republicans ASS off the planet after charging ALL of them with TREEASON. pos crooks and liars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:32 PM

      I'm hoping Alison Lundergan Grimes will run again, she's a great campaigner.

      Delete
    2. Let her unseat McConnell first and spend a little time in the Senate.

      Delete
  14. The Abominable Showman ran and got elected as a populist for the people naive enough to believe what he said, but he governs like the plutocrat and authoritarian that most of us know he is. Warren is a true populist and I think her message would resonate with many of the same people--if you can find the ones who didn't base their vote on racial anxiety.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous1:26 PM

    She looks at least 10 years younger than Trump and much healthier!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland2:33 PM

      Definitely healthier in the mental category!

      Delete
  16. Anonymous1:31 PM

    Remember the Electoral College issue. Dems need someone who can win the Rust Belt and possibly parts of South and West that are turning "purple." These places did not come out for Hillary in the needed numbers.

    So sadly, probably not a woman. Too radical for this electorate. Voted in a black man, yes, but will not vote in a white woman.

    I know too many Dem/Ind men and also white women who used every excuse possible to avoid voting for a WOMAN in 2016 - an incredibly intelligent, qualified woman - let's not go through that again.

    Best choice a man, and a man of color would be great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:31 PM

      I think a female Democratic nominee would find it too difficult to run immediately after Trump. Years of his poison would be an unnecessary source of animus from the Right. It would be too ugly, not worth it.

      Between now and 2020, there is so much that women will have to fight for anyway, it's not like politics will be a spectator sport for women.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:57 PM

      If Hillary would have actually come out for the swing states in the "rust belt" they may have actually come out for her, as it was, she ignored them and well, the rest is history (or "her story" :-)

      Delete
    3. They'll need to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida, with perhaps North Carolina and/or Iowa thrown in.

      Remember, there are plenty of states that are on the edge. Nevada and New Mexico aren't reliably blue, nor is Colorado. Some that went for Obama went right back to Trump.

      I suggest Hillary stay right where she is. If whoever it is needs any help, they need it from Obama and Biden.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous1:34 PM

    “POTUS on 12/28: “I have the absolute right to do what I want with the Justice Department.” Today he slanders career DOJ professionals as “deep state,” calls for prison for a political opponent, and tries to sic DOJ on a potential witness against him. Beyond abnormal; dangerous.”

    https://twitter.com/SallyQYates/status/948261017750032384

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous1:35 PM

    We will need someone now since we will be removing trump, pence, ryan. We need a new election pronto. President Warren, Biden, Clinton will work. Short term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:00 PM

      Yes, you are correct, the Constitution mandates a "new election" when a bunch of whiners find the current administration untenable.

      Would you please stop with this "new election" shit because you just make yourself look like an idiot.

      It's either impeachment or the 25th, that's it, that's all the Constitution allows for.

      Delete
    2. Leland4:39 PM

      I agree completely with 3:00! There is NO redo on an election. Where the heck did you get THAT idea?

      Delete
    3. You can't have a new election pronto. You can't have a new election. You wait until 2020 like the CONSTITUTION says.

      If you take out Trump, Pence and Ryan you know who you get? President Orrin Hatch. Is that what you want?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous8:06 PM

      lol... "since we will be removing trump, pence, ryan.".... it is doubtful anyone is going anywhere. Also, like everyone has said, there are no new elections.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous8:31 PM

      Sarah is that you drunk again? Hahaha!

      Delete
    6. I don't think the constitution ever considered an election that was as compromised as the last one was. This is uncharted territory.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous7:21 AM

      It is actually not uncharted territory "Library" (lol) Mark. The President has been elected by the Electoral college. Anything and everything that happens after that, there are provisions for. Go read a book LibraryMark.

      Delete
  19. Randall1:46 PM

    I LOVE Elizabeth Warren
    I have Liz Warren's book, "This Fight is Our Fight" right here beside me (on the stack of books beside my easy chair)
    I think Elizabeth Warren would make an excellent president
    I think Liz Warren would be a better president than any other person currently on the political landscape

    BUT...
    I live out here in South Dakota and I'm a realist:
    I KNOW so many people
    that would not vote for a woman no matter what
    Neanderthal? Yup. Twisted-up bass-akwards? Indeedy-doody. Head-up-their-ass stupid? Absolutely. And yet...

    If we want to guarantee Trump a second term:
    run a woman. Or a minority.
    As furious as that makes me: them's the facts.
    Liz Warren runs, Donald Trump wins.
    Mark my words...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:24 PM

      Yup.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:48 PM

      Sad, but true.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous3:55 PM

      Really? Well, that's depressing. Makes me feel like as humans we are fucked.

      Delete
    4. I agree.

      Whether they'll be facing a second term for Trump or a first term for Pence (yes, I think the Republicans will put Pence on the ticket) whoever the Democrats run has to be a man and NOT from New York, Massachusetts, California or Texas. (I think we've had quite enough presidents from Texas for a while.)

      So it has to be someone from the middle or the south.

      Franken, McAuliffe, Hickenlooper, Sherrod Brown. They are all viable. Yes, even Franken if he's willing to kick some ass for what they did to him. Franken *could* be considered a Hollywood elite but he's been in Minnesota for so long I don't think that would stick. Nothing Hickenlooper can do about that punch line last name of his.

      I think McAuliffe has a better shot than people realize.

      Brown might guarantee Ohio and that might help with the rest of the rust.

      You need North Carolina and Florida. McAuliffe could do that.

      You need Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and one more. Brown might do that.

      McAuliffe/ Brown 2020?

      Delete
  20. Anonymous1:46 PM

    ‘The words of a man who is running scared’: Ex-CIA agent mocks Trump’s Comey and Hillary tweets

    ...Speaking with host Craig Melvin, National Security Analysts Ned Price — who spent 11 years in the CIA — said Trump’s attack on James Comey and Hillary Clinton indicate he fears the Mueller investigation is closing in on him.

    On Saturday, Price speculated that the leak about George Papadopoulos boasting to an Australian diplomat that the Trump campaign had dirt on Hillary Clinton was a warning shot from the FBI.

    “Timing of this story is interesting, coming 4 days after Trump’s false dossier tweets, which also impugned the FBI. The FBI largely treated the Trump campaign & subsequently the Trump presidency w kid gloves. But this may indicate the gloves are coming off,” he tweeted.

    On Tuesday, Price asserted that the leak may have had its intended effect.

    “Ned, a week earlier, the president told the New York Times reporter this, in regard to the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. ‘I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department, but for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed uninvolved with this particular matter,'” host Melvin read before asking, “Is that bluster or do you think that he’ll try to exercise that power?”

    “Well, Craig, I think we’ve already seen indications that President Trump won’t be able to keep his hands off this investigation when it comes to Uranium One,” Price replied. “He’s already voiced his input into that investigation, releasing material that was previously held private by an FBI source involved in that matter.”

    “I think the broader point of all of this is that these are not the words of a president. The tweet this morning was not the words of a president” he stated. “They were the words of a man who was running scared. He’s running scared from an independent FBI and Department of Justice.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/the-words-of-a-man-who-is-running-scared-ex-cia-agent-mocks-trumps-comey-and-hillary-tweets/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous1:49 PM

    Jared Kushner willing to blow up US alliances: ‘I’m a businessman, I don’t care about the past’

    Kushner — the president’s son-in-law, senior White House adviser and “de facto second Secretary of State” — reportedly can’t be bothered to learn about international alliances.

    According to a new Politico Magazine report, Kushner showed little interest in maintaining long-standing U.S. alliances, especially in Western Europe.

    “He told me, ‘I’m a businessman, and I don’t care about the past. Old allies can be enemies, or enemies can be friends,’ so the past doesn’t count,” one official told the magazine. “I was taken aback. It was frightening.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/jared-kushner-willing-to-blow-up-us-alliances-im-a-businessman-i-dont-care-about-the-past/

    Donald Trump’s Year of Living Dangerously
    It’s worse than you think.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/02/donald-trump-foreign-policy-analysis-dangerous-216202

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:55 AM

      All of them delusional. Ivanka and her crap and workers in other countries making cents, cents. No not dollars.

      Delete
  22. Anonymous1:54 PM

    "Is she self-groping," said the Pocahontas right wing? Because Trump said so. Wait for the tweet when she announces her candidacy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous2:52 PM

    If this is the best the Dems can come up with I guess I'll back Bernie again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:21 PM

      Yawn

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:40 PM

      Go ahead! We may not live another year with Trump re-elected, but knock yourself out!

      Delete
  24. Anonymous3:22 PM

    How about MN Senator Amy Klobuchar? She doesn't have the name recognition but she can work with Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous4:44 PM

    Not a chance.

    Most the country sees her as an east coast elitist.

    And, Trump has already labelled her (like he does all his competition), like it or not it sticks, and he knows it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:39 PM

      Trump labeling someone a racist slur doesn’t hurt her one bit. In fact, it gets her support.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:15 PM

      whatever helps you sleep at night 5:39 lol. Trump steamrolled right over all the republicans then Hillary using his labeling tactics.... but you know, you just believe whatever helps you sleep.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:18 AM

      How is the name Pocahontas a racial slur? She is the one calling herself Native American with zero proof.

      Guess it is the new liberal way though, self-identifying as whatever race you want.

      Delete
  26. Anonymous4:56 PM

    MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOUR DICK!

    Trump warns North Korea: My nuclear button is 'bigger & more powerful'

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/trump-north-korea-nuclear-war-320232

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:32 PM

      Yeah. First thought I had. Oh we got Dick measuring? Eyeroll. How GROWN up of them!

      Delete
  27. You know, Al Franken had no interest in running for president. That didn't stop the Republicans from considering him and threat and taking him out. Sorry, but I think pressure was put on some of those women to come forward and without an ethics committee investigation I will continue to believe that some of those "anonymous" accusers were plants and liars.

    That said, I would love for Al Franken to either run for Governor of Minnesota or run for President. After all, we have a pussygrabbing misogynist, bigoted racist, fucking moron in the oval office now. I think Franken could take him as what was leveled against him is hardly baggage.

    And what happened to him may just be the push needed to get his dander up to fuck you level and say, yeah, I'm going to run. Don't vote for me if you don't like it. He certainly has the name recognition and is smart enough to counter any nasty questions that come his way.

    Plenty will vote for him.

    And he isn't an east coast elite. He's from Minnesota. That's the middle. Middle enough.

    I would love to pair him with Ted Lieu but unfortunately Lieu was born in Taiwan. So I'd rather see Lieu run against Kamala Harris and take her spot in the Senate. We need Ted's backbone there.

    Terry McAuliffe could bring the south and his redistricting efforts have given Democrats wins.Virginia could be considered south, even though it is east coast.

    So there you have my ticket: Franken/McAuliffe.

    Sorry, no women this go around. We can't take any chances against Trump if the Republicans allow him to run again. I would *luv* to see a debate of Trump against Franken. Franken would wipe the floor with him.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lisa Madigan. Already been proven that an (almost) unknown from Illinois can win. She is the best woman the Dems can run, in every way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:20 PM

      The problem is Dems just don't have anyone exciting enough. People like to mention Obama as an example of a relative unknown winning the presidency but most likely that was a one-off and shan't be repeated in the near future.

      There are no "wow" factor candidates this time unless one is in hiding somewhere, and I truly do not see America as being ready to elect a virtually unknown female, we're just not there yet.

      Delete
  29. Anonymous9:41 PM

    On the Simpsons, it is predicted a woman will follow Trump. Why do they know these things? Is this all being orchestrated?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:51 AM

      Wakeup, the old fat gross thing in wh can't drink water like a normal human. What makes you think he is doing anything? Of course everything is orchestrated.
      Investigation has everything, just getting all things for all indictments, grand juries, ...
      Money laundering is easy in casinoes....

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:51 AM

      Rhony Graf?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:53 AM

      Warren, ?, all that native blood controversy. Idk.

      Delete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.