Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

New Donald Trump thread

Recommended Posts

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wells-fargo-td-bank-turn-over-trump-financial-records-to-house-financial-services-committee

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7064797/Trumps-financial-records-Wells-Fargo-TD-Bank-turned-House-Democrats.html

US District Judge Amit Mehta found that Congress was 'not engaged in a fishing expedition' for the President's financial records when it subpoenaed Mazars and said that documents obtained might assist Congress in passing laws and performing other core functions.

Any bets on how fast these records get leaked to the public?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Howe said:

Perhaps congress will conduct a more thorough investigation than the two year long great Mueller investigation with 19 democrat prosecutors, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpeonas, 500 search warrants while pissing away over $25,000,000.

Libtards are easily manipulated, gullible fools.

And it appears that it's going to get some $45 million+ in  gains for the government for tax evasion that it revealed ... so far.  That means it actually made money.

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wells-fargo-td-bank-turn-over-trump-financial-records-to-house-financial-services-committee

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7064797/Trumps-financial-records-Wells-Fargo-TD-Bank-turned-House-Democrats.html

US District Judge Amit Mehta found that Congress was 'not engaged in a fishing expedition' for the President's financial records when it subpoenaed Mazars and said that documents obtained might assist Congress in passing laws and performing other core functions.

Any bets on how fast these records get leaked to the public?  

The question is whether it will be Trump's own folks or someone else doing the leaking.  Want to find leakers? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leakiest White House.....Ever!

Luckily we have a stable genius at the helm.  Other wise we might be subject to weekly tweetstorm tantrums, Rose Garden tantrums, and then a whole bunch of Kelly Conways an Huckleberry Sanders telling us just how stable and geniusy he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, foxbat said:

And it appears that it's going to get some $45 million+ in  gains for the government for tax evasion that it revealed ... so far.  That means it actually made money.

(ISFHO) Never gonna happen also, your alleged numbers are allegedly a little off.......

https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/policy/criminal-justice/why-hasnt-new-york-charged-donald-trump-with-tax-fraud.html

According to my source, he (and his sister - btw) "should" (according to the New York Times) owe over $500 million after getting their inheritance from Papa Trump......excepting a small legal item called the "Statute of Limitations" 

The statute of limitations for criminal tax fraud and evasion tends to depend on the specific charge, but in New York state, the statute of limitations only goes up to five years. For federal offenses, the statute of limitations is three to six years. Even if Vance and James wanted to pursue criminal charges, they’d be out of luck.

“The problem with charging Trump is that none of the information is current,” said Danshera Cords, a tax law professor at Albany Law School. “There's a statute of limitations on how far back they can go in charging criminal tax fraud. And so all of the information that The New York Times has found that it's made public is outside of the criminal statute of limitations, which precludes the state of New York or the city of New York from charging criminal tax fraud.”

"it would be wise not to pursue civil penalties for Trump’s alleged tax fraud in the 1990s. “Because of the challenges that it would present, I think it's unlikely that they will. And I think that that's a reasonable decision given the amount of time that's elapsed and the difficulty of proof, even with the amazing investigative work that the Times has done,”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swordfish said:

(ISFHO) Never gonna happen also, your alleged numbers are allegedly a little off.......

https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/policy/criminal-justice/why-hasnt-new-york-charged-donald-trump-with-tax-fraud.html

According to my source, he (and his sister - btw) "should" (according to the New York Times) owe over $500 million after getting their inheritance from Papa Trump......excepting a small legal item called the "Statute of Limitations" 

The statute of limitations for criminal tax fraud and evasion tends to depend on the specific charge, but in New York state, the statute of limitations only goes up to five years. For federal offenses, the statute of limitations is three to six years. Even if Vance and James wanted to pursue criminal charges, they’d be out of luck.

“The problem with charging Trump is that none of the information is current,” said Danshera Cords, a tax law professor at Albany Law School. “There's a statute of limitations on how far back they can go in charging criminal tax fraud. And so all of the information that The New York Times has found that it's made public is outside of the criminal statute of limitations, which precludes the state of New York or the city of New York from charging criminal tax fraud.”

"it would be wise not to pursue civil penalties for Trump’s alleged tax fraud in the 1990s. “Because of the challenges that it would present, I think it's unlikely that they will. And I think that that's a reasonable decision given the amount of time that's elapsed and the difficulty of proof, even with the amazing investigative work that the Times has done,”

 

 

 

Wasn't referring to Trump, but interesting that you went there.  I was talking about Manafort and Cohen to start with.  As for the numbers, I don't think I'm off.  Again, going with what the investigation has done so far ... as of December 2018's accounting: http://fortune.com/2018/12/14/mueller-investigation-cost-tax-cheats/

FTA:

Though the investigation comes with a hefty price tag, it may have actually paid for its own investigation, with its probe leading to monetary estimated gains of up to $48 million for the government through the tax evasion the investigation has revealed.

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, was sentenced for conspiracy and obstruction of justice in September. As part of his plea deal, Manafort agreed to forfeit assets that amount to between $42 million and $46 million, including about $22 million in property, CNBC reports. The case revealed how Manafort avoided paying more than $15 million in taxes by laundering $60 million from pro-Russian Ukrainians, CNN reports.

Manafort reportedly violated the conditions of his plea deal, and last month prosecutors said that he could face more charges.

Earlier this week, Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to financial crimes including paying hush money to a porn star and Playboy model. As part of his deal, Cohen agreed to pay $1.4 million in unpaid taxes and hand over $500,000 in assets as well as pay $100,000 in fines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, foxbat said:

 

Wasn't referring to Trump, but interesting that you went there.  I was talking about Manafort and Cohen to start with.  As for the numbers, I don't think I'm off.  Again, going with what the investigation has done so far ... as of December 2018's accounting: http://fortune.com/2018/12/14/mueller-investigation-cost-tax-cheats/

FTA:

Though the investigation comes with a hefty price tag, it may have actually paid for its own investigation, with its probe leading to monetary estimated gains of up to $48 million for the government through the tax evasion the investigation has revealed.

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, was sentenced for conspiracy and obstruction of justice in September. As part of his plea deal, Manafort agreed to forfeit assets that amount to between $42 million and $46 million, including about $22 million in property, CNBC reports. The case revealed how Manafort avoided paying more than $15 million in taxes by laundering $60 million from pro-Russian Ukrainians, CNN reports.

Manafort reportedly violated the conditions of his plea deal, and last month prosecutors said that he could face more charges.

Earlier this week, Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to financial crimes including paying hush money to a porn star and Playboy model. As part of his deal, Cohen agreed to pay $1.4 million in unpaid taxes and hand over $500,000 in assets as well as pay $100,000 in fines.

Sorry Fox, SF was distracted by Barry's Trump flailing........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 2:40 PM, swordfish said:

Sorry Fox, SF was distracted by Barry's Trump flailing........

Triggered

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outrage after pro-Trump hats blurred in yearbook: https://www.cbs17.com/news/check-this-out/outrage-after-pro-trump-hats-blurred-in-yearbook/2023954606

Quote

A pro-Trump teenager's support of the White House fell victim to digital editing when his MAGA hat was blurred out of his high school yearbook. 

Jeremy Gebhart, 16, said he and his friend decided to show their support for President Donald Trump during Littlestown High School's Spirit Week in October. 

"I just think he wants to help our country and I think he is," Gebhart said of the president.

They were photographed in their hats and one of the photos landed a spot in the yearbook, but there were some changes. 

"They like blurred our hats out," Gebhart said. 

"I was infuriated because he wears that hat because he supports our president. He's not doing anything illegal whatsoever, he's wearing a hat of support," said Jeremy's mother, Lorraine Gebhart. "It's very upsetting, someone did this on purpose to blur out that Trump logo and make their own statement."

Jeremy said he is disappointed in the school's decision to blur their hats and feels his rights have been taken away. 

“Everybody has First Amendment rights, freedom of speech and they are allowed to think what they want and say what they want but they aren’y allowed to take that away from other people," said Jermey Gebhart.

The school district provided a statement to WPMT, saying in part: "The mistake was not noticed during the editorial preview process prior to print. We apologize on behalf of the yearbook club. It is not the policy or practice of the district to improperly censor speech."

"It is OK to disagree with peoples' views but what's not OK is taking your freedom of speech and using it to take away someone else's," said Lorraine Gebhart. 

The Gebhart's say they have a message for whoever was behind the decision: "You did not silence us."

I wonder if the individual(s) who actually performed the censoring have been reprimanded?

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Outrage after pro-Trump hats blurred in yearbook: https://www.cbs17.com/news/check-this-out/outrage-after-pro-trump-hats-blurred-in-yearbook/2023954606

I wonder if the individual(s) who actually performed the censoring have been reprimanded?

 

I assume - No.

https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2019/05/23/federal-rats-are-fleeing-the-sinking-collusion-ship-n2546735?utm_content=buffer27079&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3QzSs9bHEks8BQVVyO2lG_Y1_sAPeuF6PfTEhYXrBvbEN2ct0jTEbaGj0

The end of the Mueller melodrama has marked the beginning of real fear in Washington.

Comey, the former FBI director, has hit the lecture and television circuit with his now-tired moralistic shtick that he alone had a "soul" while others allowed theirs to be eaten away by Trump. Translated, that means Comey is terrified that former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whom Comey attacked as a Trump enabler, knows that Comey himself may have broken the law -- and may direct prosecutors on how to prove it.

Comey is also in a tiff with his former deputy, Andrew McCabe. Both know that the FBI under Comey illegally leaked classified information to the media. But Comey says McCabe went rogue and did it. Of course, McCabe's attorney shot back that Comey had authorized it. Comey also claims the Steele dossier was not the chief evidence for a FISA warrant. McCabe insists that it was. It's possible that one might work with prosecutors against the other to finagle a lesser charge.

Former CIA Director John Brennan has on two occasions lied under oath to Congress and gotten away with it. He may not get away with lying again if it's determined that he distorted the truth about his efforts to spread the Steele dossier smears. A former CIA official claims that Comey put the unverified Steele dossier into an intelligence community report on alleged Russian interference. Comey has contended that Brennan was the one who did.

It's possible that both did. Doing so would have been unethical if not illegal, given that neither official told President Obama (if he didn't already know) that the silly Steele dossier was a product of Hillary Clinton's amateurish efforts to subvert the 2016 Trump campaign.

In sum, the old leaky vessel of collusion is sinking.

The rats are scampering from their once safe refuge -- biting and piling on each other in vain efforts to avoid drowning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Outrage after pro-Trump hats blurred in yearbook: https://www.cbs17.com/news/check-this-out/outrage-after-pro-trump-hats-blurred-in-yearbook/2023954606

I wonder if the individual(s) who actually performed the censoring have been reprimanded?

 

Speaking of red hat modifications, this was in the news a few days ago.  Guess it was missed by the "millinophiles"/"capellophiles."

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/445548-artist-banned-from-facebook-for-turning-maga-hats-into-symbols

FTA:

An artist who redesigns President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hats into recognizable symbols of hate speech says she was banned from Facebook for violating the platform's standards.

Kate Kretz of Mount Rainier, Md., rips apart the iconic red campaign hat and resews it to look like other symbols, such as a Nazi armband or a Ku Klux Klan hood, WUSA 9 reported.

"The arm band is actually titled, 'Only the Terrorized Own the Right to Name Symbols of Terror,' and so if people are afraid of people that are walking around with MAGA hats, because they’re afraid of violence," Kretz said. "It’s not really up to the wearer to say 'oh you shouldn’t feel afraid of me.'"

The artist said Facebook took down an image of the reimagined Nazi paraphernalia for "violating community standards."

She appealed the decision and labeled another image with text clarifying that the photo was of a piece of art, but her entire account was later disabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SF is confused......So is the red MAGA hat a symbol of hate speech or not?  It appears to this Trump-Hating lady, the Red MAGA hat (in it's current state) is not hateful enough that she had to re-design them into something more recognizable......And call it "art"

But she made sure to use "knock-off" hats so as not to put any money into the Trump campaign.......

Kretz told KTVU that she buys only knock-off MAGA hats that are the same texture and color so she is not directly funding Trump’s campaign.

“I wanted to make sure I wasn’t putting any money in [Trump’s] pocket,” Kretz said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Has Become the Democrats’ Great White Whale:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/democrats-obsessed-donald-trump/

Quote

One way of envisioning the Democratic obsessions with Donald Trump is as an addiction. We have seen the initial impeachment efforts; the attempt to get him under the emoluments clause, the Logan Act, and the 25th Amendment; the Russian collusion hoax; the Mueller investigation; the demand for his tax returns; and the psychodramas involving Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen, and Stormy Daniels. Relentless progressives have needed a new Get Trump fix about every two months.

More practically, their fixation also substitutes for a collective poverty of ideas. The Democratic party has no plan to secure the borders other than to be against whatever Trump is for. They would not build a wall, deport illegal entrants, end sanctuary cities, fine employers, or do much of anything but allow almost anyone to enter the U.S.

The homeless crisis is reaching epidemic proportions in our cities, almost all of them run by progressive mayors and city councils. None have any workable plan to clean the sidewalks of needles and human excrement. None know what to do with the hundreds of thousands who have camped out in public spaces, endangering their own health and that of everyone around them due to drug addiction and inadequate sanitation and waste removal.

On abortion, the new Democratic position seems to be that the unborn can be aborted at any time the mother chooses, up to and including the moment of birth.

The Green New Deal has been endorsed by most of the current Democratic-primary candidates, even though they privately know its utopian fantasies would shut down the U.S. economy and destroy the present prosperity fueled by record energy production, deregulation, and tax reform and reduction.

Abroad, were Democrats for or against abrogating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and prodding China to follow reciprocal trade rules? How do they propose to deal with North Korean nuclear-tipped missiles that seemed to suddenly appear as Barack Obama left office?

Have Democrats proposed canceling the new pipeline construction that Trump has fast-tracked? Would they scale way back on the natural-gas and oil production that has made America energy-independent and on the cusp of becoming the world’s greatest energy exporter?

Democrats have occasionally talked of implementing reparations for slavery, a wealth tax, and free college tuition, and of eliminating college debt, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Electoral College. Yet they have never spelled out exactly how they would enact such radical proposals that likely do not appeal to a majority of the population.

Would they reverse Trump tax cuts, stop hectoring NATO members to pay their promised defense contributions, restore NAFTA, or revive the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

For now, no one has much of an idea what Democratic candidates would actually do, much less how they would do it.

Instead, the fallback position is always that “Trump stole the 2016 election,” “the Mueller report did not really exonerate Trump of collusion and obstruction,” and “Trump must be impeached or somehow stopped from finishing his first term.”

When the Mueller report found no collusion and no indictable grounds for obstruction of the non-crime of collusion, for a moment, progressives suffered an identity crisis. The temporary paralysis was prompted by the terror that without a crusade to remove Trump, they might have to offer an alternative vision and agenda that would better appeal to 2020 voters.

The Democratic establishment has become something like novelist Herman Melville’s phobic Captain Ahab, who became fatally absorbed with chasing his nemesis, the albino whale Moby Dick. The great white whale once ate part of Ahab’s leg, and he demands revenge — even if such a never-ending neurosis leads to the destruction of his ship and crew.

Democrats can never forgive Trump for unexpectedly defeating supposed sure winner Hillary Clinton in 2016 and then systematically — and loudly — undoing the eight-year agenda of Obama.

So far, Trump seems to have escaped all of their efforts to spear and remove him before the 2020 election. Trump, like Moby Dick, seems a weird force of nature whose wounds from constant attacks only seem to make him more indestructible and his attackers even more obsessed with their prey.

Even if the quest to destroy Trump eclipses every other consideration and entails the destruction of the modern Democratic party, it seems not to matter to these modern Ahabs.

Getting Trump is all they live for — and all they have left.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeach John Bolton?: https://www.cato.org/blog/impeach-john-bolton

Quote

“We’re not looking for regime change [in Iran]. I want to make that clear,” President Trump said Monday at a news conference in Japan, “nobody wants to see terrible things happen, especially me.” That’s good to hear, but has Trump’s National Security Advisor gotten the message?

It’s the undeterrable John Bolton, after all, who’s been at the epicenter of the rumors of war plaguing Washington in recent weeks. It’s Bolton who ordered up a Pentagon plan for “retaliatory and offensive options” to check Iran, including a 120,000 troop surge to the region, and Bolton who blustered that a recent carrier-strike-group deployment signaled America’s willingness to meet any Iranian challenge with “unrelenting force.” 

Trump is said to be frustrated by his aide’s brinksmanship, privately cracking that “if it was up to John, we’d be in four wars now.” “In recent days,” the New York Times reports this morning, “the disconnect between Mr. Trump and his national security adviser has spilled over into public,” with the president undercutting Bolton on Iran and North Korea. But Bolton still has his job. Ironically enough, it turns out that the longtime “Apprentice” host is gun-shy about firing people.  

Is there anything Congress can do about a rogue presidential appointee that the president won’t fire? The progressive foreign-policy group Win Without War has an interesting proposal: they’re running a petition drive: “Tell Congress: Impeach John Bolton!”  

Can Bolton be impeached? The answer turns on whether the National Security Advisor is one of the “civil Officers of the United States” to which Article II, sec. 4applies. The term isn’t defined in the Constitution, and there’s little precedent to go on, the House having impeached just one executive-branch official below the presidential level in 230 years: Gilded-Age Secretary of War William Belknap. As the Congressional Research Service notes, it’s something of an open question “whether Congress may impeach and remove subordinate, non-Cabinet level executive branch officials.” 

Still, the fact that Bolton, unlike a Cabinet secretary, doesn’t hold a Senate-confirmed position is a technicality that shouldn’t protect him, especially when it’s clear—even to the president—that his recklessness might drag us into an unnecessary war. Impeachment arose in England as a means of striking ministers close to the Crown, including those who gave “pernicious” foreign policy advice. Early American constitutional commentators like William Rawle and Justice Joseph Story believed the power extended to “all” federal executive officers. And as James Madison explainedin the first Congress: “If an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy president, the house of representatives can at any time impeach [that officer], and the senate can remove him.”

In practice, it’s rarely been necessary to go that far. “The issue has almost invariably proven moot,” Frank Bowman explains in his comprehensive new volume High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump. Historically, “any appointee whose continued service was so politically toxic as to provoke a serious effort at impeachment has been shuffled off the stage” when the president demands his or her resignation.

A resolution to impeach Bolton, something any member of the House could introduce, might serve as the shot across the bow that convinces Trump it’s time to clean his own house. It needn’t make it to the floor to be effective: merely securing enough cosponsors could be enough. On the other hand, such a move might cause Trump to dig in his heels—with a president this mercurial it’s hard to tell. 

However, there’s another way Congress can use the threat of impeachment to deter an illegal and unnecessary war. As I explained in the American Conservative last week, the House could pass a simple resolution “expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the use of offensive military force against Iran without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.” 

The  late, great Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) proposed a similar measure in President Obama’s second term, when the administration publicly contemplated airstrikes on Syria. Jones introduced a concurrent resolution stating that “except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress” is an impeachable offense. The Jones resolution only secured a handful of cosponsors and proved unnecessary when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for airstrikes, then abandoned the effort entirely. 

Last summer, Jones and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) revived the idea of pre-defining unauthorized warmaking as an impeachable offense. On the theory that “the law should warn before it strikes,” House Resolution 922 defined undeclared wars as high crimes and misdemeanors under Article II, section 4. Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, who originally proposed the idea and helped draft the bill, described its chances of passing as “remote in the short run. Its immediate purpose is to spark a public and congressional debate about war powers.” 

The prospect of war with Iran ought to be all the spark that’s needed. As Gabbard recently noted, the conflict Bolton covets would make the Iraq War “look like a cakewalk—[it] would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region.”

The current House leadership fears that an impeachment drive would be a “divisive” distraction. Instead, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told House Democrats last week, “we need to show [voters] that we are doing all of these other things that they care about so much” (whatever those are). Pelosi may be right to worry about the political costs of an all-consuming impeachment effort in the run-up to the 2020 election. But a resolution along the lines proposed by Jones and Gabbard doesn’t open an impeachment inquiry. It wouldn’t distract and shouldn’t divide–unless one considers it “divisive” for Congress to defend its core prerogatives and head off an illegal war.  

True, a sense of the House resolution wouldn’t have the force of law: it’s a mere statement of intent by the members who sign on. But it could serve as fair warning to the president, and a precommitment device for the House: a public pledge to take action should the administration cross the line. In politics as in war, deterrence sometimes requires a credible threat.  

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Irishman said:

He pulled that "good people on both sides" kind of stuff.  Claims to have no knowledge of the situation and then follows up with the idea that the person responsible was "well meaning" [sic].  Seems to be lying about one of those and seems to be OK about the activity if the first part isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trade wars are easy to win, but I'm not sure that farmers are believing it or living it.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trade-war-news-farmers-china-120113700.html

FTA:

Beijing basically stopped importing U.S. soybeans in 2018 and promised to ramp purchases in 2019 as negotiations moved forward in early 2019. But China has now reportedly put a hold on buying U.S. soybeans as talks sour, and the pain is being felt once again in the U.S. heartland.

...

“Farm income is at the lowest level it’s been in years,” Brunkow said. “It’s had a tremendous impact on us.”

Last month, Bloomberg reported that “personal income for farmers fell by the most in three years in the first quarter.” This is largely due to the agricultural losses from the trade war.

“All of my neighbors have been impacted — anyone who grows soybeans,” Brunkow said. “You can even take that down Main Street in our towns — implement dealerships, car dealerships. We’ve cut back on purchasing and repairing things. And so, it’s had an impact all the way down the line in rural America.”

And although the USDA announced last week that it will be providing $16 billion to help American farmers affected by tariffs in the U.S.-China trade war — after previous aid totaling $7.7 billion — that might not be enough.

 

China didn't actually completely stop in 2019, but the decrease in imports was roughly 83% and, when China is the largest importer of US soybeans, in 2018 importing almost nine ties what the second-place importer, the EU-28 countries, that's a big hit.  As a matter of fact, China imported almost twice as much soybean volume as the next nine of the top-10 combined.  As things continue to stall with China, Trump's about to toss a little more rain on the scarecrow.  In case anyone's keeping score, Mexico was the 3rd largest importer of US soybeans and their imports had increased over 30% between 2018 and 2019 during a time where the US saw soybean exports drop over 30%.  Wonder how long that'll last.  Hey calling it your job ol' Hoss sure don't make it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...