America’s Left Is Vile And Evil

24 08 2019

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.

In an article entitled “New Anti-Trump Ploy Is Conjuring A Recession,” Conrad Black—the Canadian-born, British former newspaper publisher, author and life peer—has written in The New York Sun:

The latest ploy of the anti-Trump press phalanx, and their weekly echo chamber of assorted Democratic candidates and legislators, is to try to move the voter-approval needle by insisting an economic recession is about to occur. The problem is, it isn’t.

As weeks pass without a recession or even increasing objective statistical hints of a recession, the continued trumpeting of a recession becomes self-stifling. Not even the economically illiterate mouthpieces of CNN and MSNBC can keep a straight face for long predicting recession when there are no signs it is happening.

It is possible to convince those who want to be convinced that something happening completely in the dark, such as trade negotiations with China, is going badly. (They aren’t.) But it is impossible to maintain a levitation of economic alarm when confidence remains high, employers are hiring rather than laying off workers, and economic growth, unemployment, and inflation numbers remain positive.

Understandably, it has been difficult for both sides on the political see-saw as we approach the 2020 election year. President Trump’s enemies, clinging as they have been since the beginning to buoyant flotsam, are like people who have been cast into the sea and can’t swim.

The idea of a Trump presidency was so unthinkable there could not be a honeymoon because it could not be real; it could not have been a legitimate election. For more than two years we were waiting for the confirmation that Mr. Trump had worked with the Russian government to rig the election.

We now know that from the start the investigators knew that there had been no such collusion and almost two whole years were spent trying to provoke Mr. Trump into counter-attacking Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s operation so he could be accused of obstructing justice. Since the president cooperated with the inquiry even as he rightly denounced it as a hoax and a fraud, the best that could be done was an invitation to the House of Representatives to continue investigations so Democrats might keep the impeachment cloud over the president’s head.

Doubtless when legislators return from their summer recess, like two spavined old fire-horses, judiciary and intelligence committee chairmen Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff will storm out of the gate again, issuing subpoenas which will be ignored by the administration, and relying on the same desperately inadequate choir of nasty press sorcerers (down to and including Watergate catacomb mythmakers Carl Bernstein and John Dean), to stoke it up one more time.

It won’t fly. No one believes any of it. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon produce his report on many aspects of the spurious Trump-Russia investigation, and Senator [Lindsey] Graham and his judiciary committee will take it from there, shouldering Messrs. Nadler and Schiff out of the frame.

Inexorably, as special prosecutor John Durham’s indictments come down, the Democrats’ “insurance policy” against Mr. Trump (the Russian collusion canard as described by former FBI senior agent Peter Strzok) will become the Democrats’ suicide weapon.

Russia was hastily followed by racism, topped out with attempts to hold Mr. Trump in some way responsible for the tragic shootings in El Paso and Dayton. Since Mr. Trump isn’t a racist, and neither of the two shooters professed any Trump role in forming their psychopathic opinions, that wheeze has died in the summer heat. It is to be hoped that it doesn’t take down prudent bipartisan reforms of the gun regime with it.

The sudden and mysterious silence that has enshrouded the southern border, including the wailings of Representative Elijah Cummings, is the surest indicator that the fence is being built, Mexico is cooperating (as it receives more manufacturing investment from companies fleeing China over tariffs), and the detention and adjudication system with hundreds of new judges, is working.

The number of apprehensions of those attempting to enter illegally is declining and it is becoming difficult to represent crowded but adequately sanitary and well-stocked detention centers as the replications of Nazi death camps that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others were conjuring.

Now we are on to a recession. This claim contains no more substance than the chimeras that preceded it.

The straws in the wind that have been cited as the green shoots of economic calamity are far from dispositive, and carry much less weight than continuing solid performances in economic growth, inflation, absolute and per capita GDP growth, manufacturing jobs growth, shrinkage of minority unemployment, and purchasing power for working and lower middle class families. All of these numbers are coming in supportively for the administration.

The fact that the election approaches and the importance of the economy in electoral results is proverbial, and the serial evaporation of the false issues that have been pinned on Trump in his inexorable elephantine march through his first term, now combine to attempt the incitement of hysteria on this subject.

It is true that the deficit tops $1 trillion and that is not sustainable indefinitely, but that is 35% less than the Obama average (admittedly coming after a debacle bequeathed by George W. Bush); and the GDP is about 25% above the latter Obama years. So despite a large tax reduction and a strong defense build-up, the deficit as a percentage of GDP has shrunk in about five years from 8.5% to less than 5%, unacceptable, but progress.

The most important single measurement, especially for insertion into political predictions, is GDP per capita growth, which declined dangerously from 4.5% in the Reagan years to 3.9% in the Clinton terms, to 2% under George W. Bush to 1% with Obama. This trend had to be reversed to prevent extreme economic and political stress.

Economics, essentially, is half psychology and half third-grade arithmetic. President Trump has won the arithmetic and there are no serious signs of incipient recession: neither rising interest rates presaging inflation, which could require recessive measures to cool, nor serious slackening of demand.

Under the circumstances, it will be hard for Democratic officials and press fear-mongering to win the psychological battle over the direct personal experience and observations of the voters.

The only signs of economic weakness are from other important countries. The European Union appears to be about to suffer the grievous self-inflicted wound of failing to reach a reasonable compromise with the UK, and the loss of its second-largest national economy and most prestigious member. This would be a benefit to the United States as a free trade agreement with the world’s fifth-largest economy would be eminently negotiable.

China, despite its huffing and puffing and the solicitude for its “face” [that] it has stirred up in the weak-kneed precincts of the over-populated anti-Trump world, is sputtering and losing jobs to Vietnam, India, and Mexico. Those who have been so prostrated in their hostility to the president that they have subscribed to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s “Belt and Road” hegemonic plan will suffer the disconcertion of seeing China adopt a sharp course correction.

The comparative weakness of China’s rivals will assist the prolongation of the American boom, which only seems so protracted because there never really was a full recovery under President Obama, little more than stabilization with a 125% increase in accumulated national debt in eight years. The workforce shrank, welfare dependency rose, and a flat-lined “new normal” that the country could not live with was proclaimed.

The Democrats and their press are trying to delay the sober and balanced assessment of the merits of the candidates coming up to the 2020 election. To repurpose a beloved Democratic expression, the inconvenient truth is that Mr. Trump has been a good president who has kept his promises.[2]

As I have written:

Our adversaries have only seen a small portion of America’s vast economic might. For example, by denying use of the SWIFT payments system to Russia, we can bring the pygmy economy (smaller than Italy or Brazil) to its knees. Also, as the United States regains its dominant position in the world’s energy markets, Russia loses. And China’s economy is not in great shape today either.

Like Abraham Lincoln before him, Donald Trump is asserting America’s preeminence and dominance, unapologetically. And yes, the United States is at war, albeit it is not a shooting war at this time.[3]

Economic cycles are a way of life, which have occurred with consistency over hundreds if not thousands of years.  And I added:

One can look at Life negatively (e.g., ALL of us are going to die), optimistically, or “realistically.”

I have believed that the “Great Recession [of 2008]” was papered over, and the proverbial “can” was simply kicked down the road.

. . .

However, the USSR is gone; Russia is a pygmy state; and China has lots of problems. We have survived because of optimism and realism, not pessimism.[4]

America’s Left and its captive so-called “Mainstream Media” are hoping for a recession (or worse), which they can blame on President Trump.  In essence, they are hoping that America fails, instead of succeeds and prospers.  This is not the Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who did his best to get us out of the Great Depression and rebuild America’s spirit and industrial might.

Instead, this is the party of un-American mental midgets like Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff; outright racists like Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings; and anti-Semites such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and the other members of their so-called “Squad.”  It is also the party of Barack Obama and his fellow traitors who sought to destroy the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump, and who should be in prison for the rest of their lives—at the very least.[5]

Bald Eagle and American Flag --- Image by © Ocean/Corbis

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-19-4-29). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at

[2]  See; see also (“China Is America’s Enemy, And The Enemy Of Free People Everywhere”)

[3]  See (“America’s Global Might”)

[4]  See

[5]  See, e.g., (“U.S. Attorney General Barr Is Appalled: Give Americans A Break!”) and (“The Mueller Report: A Monumental Travesty”) and (“The Mueller Witch Hunt Is Over”) and (“The Democrats Are Evil But Smart, While The Republicans Are Neanderthals And Dumb”) and (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?”) and (“Robert Mueller Should Be Executed For Treason”) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”) and (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix”) and (“The United States Department of Injustice”); see also (“Barack Obama Is Responsible For America’s Tragic Racial Divide”) and (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) and (“[Totally-despicable] Jerry Nadler says ‘formal impeachment proceedings’ against Donald Trump have been launched’)



2 responses

24 08 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Democrats Are The Enemies Of Israel And Jews Globally [UPDATED]

Global Jewry must never forget that American president—and the father of today’s Left—Franklin D. Roosevelt, turned away the MS St. Louis from docking at American ports, and consigned most of the Jewish refugees aboard to their deaths in Europe. The other anti-Semites in FDR’s administration knew of the Nazi concentration camps, yet did nothing about them.

See, e.g., (“Is Israel Doomed?“)

Clearly, President Donald Trump has been a great friend and champion of Israel and global Jewry, yet America’s despicable Democrats—and yes, I began as a Democrat, but will never vote for one again—keep trying to undercut him at every turn, and destroy his presidency.

Eric Cortellessa has written for the Times of Israel:

For the last several decades, one of the easiest positions to take on Capitol Hill was to unequivocally support Israel. The reasons for this were manifold: from the power and efficacy of the pro-Israel lobby to the simple reality that most Americans have historically believed in the legitimacy of the Israeli cause.

In today’s Washington, however, things may no longer be so clear cut.

The views of congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar — who each support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel — are far from mainstream. They are only two out of 235 Democratic lawmakers.

But Jerusalem’s decision to bar the two of them from entering the country last week has brought to the forefront a new reality: Israel has become increasingly more difficult for Democrats to defend.

“I think we’re going to have to work harder to make the case,” Democratic Congressman Brad Schneider, a staunch pro-Israel supporter, told The Times of Israel on Friday. “I don’t think it’s harder to make the case. The facts are still the same. Israel is still our most valuable ally in the region. But we will have to work harder.”

That’s not because Democrats have become suddenly hostile to the notion of a Jewish state. It’s because the leader of the Jewish state has aligned his country with an American president who has made it his mission to turn Israel into a partisan cause.

“This was obviously an attempt to hurt Israel,” said California Congressman Brad Sherman, a Democrat. “Maybe not intentionally, but he’s taking a country with essentially one friend in the world and is trying to turn it into a country with half a friend in the world.”

Sherman, who is one of the strongest Israel supporters in the House, pinned the blame for the incident almost exclusively on US President Donald Trump, who he called a “pseudo-Zionist” who “uses Israel to benefit his own interests.”

In July, Israel announced it would allow Omar and Tlaib to visit, despite a 2017 Israeli law that bars any foreigner who knowingly promotes Israel boycotts. But last week, the Netanyahu government reversed course after Trump warned that it would “show great weakness” for Israel to allow them in.

“This was not an Israeli action,” Sherman told The Times of Israel. “Israel has taken action under intense coercion of the president of the United States. When the president tells them to do it, they have to do it. God knows what Trump would have done if they didn’t.”

Since then, Trump has tweeted multiple times that the two freshmen congresswomen “hate Israel” and are “the face of the Democratic Party.” In other words, he’s been using the incident to boost his standing among pro-Israel constituencies — most notably, with evangelical Christians.

Yet this is just the latest episode involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the past year that has made his government unpalatable to American liberals. In February, he struck a deal to allow an anti-Arab racist party into the governing coalition, a move that US commentators equated with nominating someone from the Ku Klux Klan to a cabinet post. In March, he vowed to annex West Bank settlements.

Some liberal activists see the the US and Israel as facing a similar challenge: that of combating the rise of an autocratic, populist leader who energizes and enables his nation’s darkest forces.

“For people who are upset by what’s happening here and there — this is a political fight,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, who heads the progressive Zionist group J Street. “There is a right and wrong, and if you believe in certain democratic principles, you have to fight against those who don’t.”

What about the next wave of freshmen Democrats?

Schneider is known by some in Washington as an AIPAC Democrat. He’s closely aligned with the powerful pro-Israel lobby. Indeed, he wrote and introduced a House resolution passed earlier this summer that condemned the BDS movement. As such, he often meets with freshmen members of Congress to discuss the importance of the US-Israel alliance.

But since the Omar and Tlaib ban, he envisions those conversations will require a much harder sell.

“When I sit down with new members of Congress, as I’ve done in the past, there may be some initial reluctance and resistance,” he said. “But I think we’ll still have the facts on our side to make the case, which is why it would have made sense to let Omar and Tlaib go to Israel, because now Israel looks like it has something to hide.”

Schneider said that Israel’s Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer called him shortly before the decision was announced last week. While Schneider says he believes that on Israel, Omar and Tlaib are “not just wrong, they’re dead wrong,” he noted that he had “an extended conversation” with Dermer in which he warned him about the possible ramifications.

Schneider said he’d told Dermer that “keeping them from visiting the country would not just amplify their messages but give them a soundstage to broadcast them.”

He added wistfully, “And that’s exactly what we’ve seen happen. They’ve gotten a lot of air time since the decision was made.”

See (“Dems Schneider, Sherman: Defending Israel harder under Trump-Netanyahu alliance“); see also (“Ilhan Omar fires back at Jerry Nadler after the senior Democrat accused her of anti-Semitism“)

If it was up to the Democrats, Israel might cease to exist.

If Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have become “the face of the Democratic Party” today, it is because their fellow Democrats have allowed this to happen.

Democrats are so bent on destroying Donald Trump and his presidency that they will say anything and do anything to achieve their goals. The despicable Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are perfect examples of this.

Because of the Democrats’ unbridled and irrational hatred of Trump, and everything that he says and does, it is true that “Israel has become increasingly more difficult for Democrats to defend.”

There is a “sickness” in the Democratic Party and among America’s Left today, which many of us—who began as Democrats—find difficult if not impossible to comprehend.

Some call it “Trump derangement syndrome,” which may be true—an identifiable mental illness. At the very least, America’s Democrats and Leftists constitute forces of darkness today.

See, e.g., (“Trump derangement syndrome“); see also (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES“)


28 08 2019
Timothy D. Naegele

Next Year’s Elections [UPDATED]

Conrad Black—the Canadian-born, British former newspaper publisher, author and life peer—has followed up what he wrote about in the article that I discussed above, with a new article in The New York Sun entitled “2020 Vote Looks Like 1972 — With No Watergate”:

It is not too early to speculate on what the national political press, and especially the high-brow conservative Never Trumpers, are going to do after this president is comfortably reelected. The Washingtonp [sic?]-New York-Los Angeles press threw everything they had against candidate Trump, nominee Trump, and the president, and they have lost everything they had.

All surveys show that their audience/readership is sinking and their commercial economics are shriveling, and no reasonable person can fail to be disgusted with the endless malicious slanders and distortions by the Lemons, Maddows, Scarboroughs, Blitzers.

It is exquisite that Mr. Trump has used the hard-left social press to outmaneuver the traditional media kingmakers and now nods approvingly as Senators Warren and Sanders and their allies attack the new media cartel, whose leading figures are almost as hostile to the president as [they] are [to] those seeking the Democratic nomination against him next year.

Whatever anyone might think of the president’s public personality, his progress toward his goal of radically altering the government and shattering or co-opting the long-tenured OBushinton political establishment has been a relentless and unstoppable juggernaut. His candidacy was mocked, his chances of election were minimized, his ability to avoid impeachment was artificially maintained in doubt for over two years, and the idea that he will be easy to defeat next year is only starting to expire, strangled by facts.

The country is prosperous and the attempt to orchestrate economic pessimism will be no more successful than all the bunk about misogyny, incitements to violence, “racially charged” demagogy, corruption, treason, chaos in the White House, and the rest of it.

I don’t read all the formerly highbrow conservative commentators assiduously enough to know where they are going, but their relevance has vanished, and it is not easy to see how they might come back. Almost all of them supported Reagan and were a loyal and skeptical gallery through both Bushes, and a fairly distinguished part of the opposition to Presidents Clinton and Obama.

One of the many sadnesses in the premature death of Charles Krauthammer is that he was starting to light a path for intelligent conservatives to recognize the positive aspects of Trump’s program and of his political achievement.

National Review and Commentary have more or less made their peace with the administration and have carved out a very sustainable position of regular expressions of their reservations about the president’s style and chapters of his career, but recognition of his successes when he has them and of the generally acceptable and sometimes courageous nature of some of his key policies.

They have at least acknowledged his legitimacy as president and the importance of his political strength and acumen. He is, in short, generally accorded by them and their contributors the customary respect accorded the president of the United States, without stifling their still serious reservations, many of them perfectly arguable. They recognize that up to now, he has won every round, and that the Republican party in Washington, which for the first six months of this administration sat on its hands, neutral about whether he would be impeached or not, is now in the final stages of the awkward grace of conversion.

Former Arizona senator Jeff Flake’s one contribution to contemporary American political science was his resigned assertion, of the Republicans, as he retired from the Senate: “It’s the president’s party now.” How ludicrous and pretentious now are the sniping from the sidelines of former Ohio governor John Kasich and a few others that they had “called out” Mr. Trump’s “insensitivity,” or whatever.

The rap that Mr. Trump didn’t get everything he promised done in his first two years, when the Republicans had both houses of the Congress, is nonsense because most of the Republican legislators had no more use for Mr. Trump than did the Democrats who were promising “scorched earth” and “total resistance.” This is the generally unrecognized point of these scores of retirements of Republicans from the Congress.

They were almost all Never Trumpers, such as Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Bob Corker, and from Mr. Trump’s standpoint, they were a viper at his throat: RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) were worse than Democrats, not a band of party loyalists with whom he could easily work.

The transformation in less than three years of the Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, from proposing to “drop [Trump] like a hot rock” to working closely with him for the Republican program and Trump nominees to government and the federal bench, is remarkable.

So is the evolution of Senator Lindsey Graham, from being joined at the hip to Senator McCain and seeing the Access Hollywood tape as the “exit ramp” from the Trump candidacy to his current preparations as Judiciary Committee chairman to follow up on the report of Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz and help create the proper ambiance for what should be a series of indictments of Trump’s most reckless and perfervid enemies in the Obama intelligence and justice hierarchy.

It is hard to imagine the country, especially amid a cascade of damning indictments of prominent members of the former administration, turfing out a president who has produced a full-employment, minimal-inflation economy, energy self-sufficiency, and much-improved trade balances, and has grappled consequentially with the intractable problem of illegal immigration, while rescuing the country from the impoverishment of the Paris Treaty’s green terror.

It is especially hard to see it when the alternative will be either a shopworn and muddled if amiable journeyman or an outright red-diaper socialist. In the 2016 election, whatever else may be said of them, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump kept the ball between the 30-yard lines, which would not have been the case if their chief rivals, Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz, had been the nominees.

The 2020 election is shaping up as a 1972 rerun, with no Watergate to enable the crucifixion of the victorious Republican president. The Democratic party will learn the lesson and engineer a course correction, as it did after the great Reagan sweep of the 1980s.

It is hard, though, to see the comeback of the former lions of intelligent conservative opinion. I will not name them, as most are friends and, as far as I am concerned, will remain so. Few of them have shown much disposition to realign or even to make an artful revisionist approach to the winning side.

Even if their only motive were to regain influence or position themselves to return from the limbo they have placed themselves in — go-to useful idiots for the Dems to denounce Mr. Trump, and traitors to the continuing Republicans — most of them are thoughtful and articulate, and the country needs them.

I refuse to believe that anti-Trump lunacy is an incurable disease; it is certainly a boring and tenacious ailment, but it should pass when its carrier, the president, retires. Whoever ends up as his successor, that person will be, to take a phrase from Monty Python, “something completely different.”

See (emphasis added); see also (Newt Gingrich: “2020 and 1972: The Amazing Parallels”—”[T]he more I have watched and analyzed what is going on, the more convinced I am that 2020 is becoming a referendum almost exactly like 1972 was. . . . [T]he background for virtually every fight we are now in can be found in the late 1960s. The modern Left has simply metastasized and grown more aggressive, intolerant, and totalitarian. The elite media has grown further apart from the average American, and the reporting standards of an earlier generation have been replaced by advocacy standards. Amazingly, many of our worst problems can be found described in the politics of 1972 including quotas, the destruction of the cities, dramatic increases in crime and violence, anti-American attitudes, and new cultural standards on abortion, sexual redefinition, and the rise of identity politics as an unchallengeable force on the Left. . . . The radicalism of George McGovern ultimately cost him one of the worst defeats in Presidential history. President Nixon won in a landslide with 61 percent of the vote. . . . When the election results came in, it was clear that Nixon understood America better than his left-wing opponents. . . . What is fascinating about the current campaign is the degree to which all the Democratic presidential candidates who are going to survive are to the left of McGovern. Every moderate Democratic candidate is going to be squeezed out of the race. The pictures of all the presidential candidates raising their hands in support of radical positions indicates the danger for the Democrats. Their entire party will have left the American people behind by the time of the convention next summer. The fate of McGovern in 1972 may well be the fate of the entire Democratic Party in 2020. The parallels between 1972 and 2020 are real”)

I despise the evil Democrats and the pathetic GOP RINOS equally, which is why I left both parties. Like him or not, Donald Trump is a courageous leader, who earned the presidency. He did not have to do it.

See, e.g., (“Donald J. Trump: The Long Road to the White House (1980 – 2017)“) and (“The Democrats Are Evil But Smart, While The Republicans Are Neanderthals And Dumb“) and (“What Is This Blog All About?“)

I respectfully disagree with Conrad Black. I do not like or trust Lindsey Graham, any more than I came to feel positively about John McCain whom I voted for—and the same is true of the Utah carpetbagger Mitt Romney and his despicable running mate, Paul Ryan, whom I voted for as well.

Regarding next year’s elections, I am guardedly optimistic that President Trump will be reelected, possibly by a landslide—at least electorally, which after all is the only thing that really counts in our constitutional democracy. I believed he would win in 2016, and he did; and my guess is that his presidency will end in January of 2025.

His successor is not on the horizon yet, but my guess too is that it will be someone who follows in his footsteps policywise—and that it will not be a treasonous racist like Barack Obama or his ilk.

Again, I respectfully disagree with Conrad Black when he states:

Whoever ends up as his successor, that person will be, to take a phrase from Monty Python, “something completely different.”

See, e.g., (“Will The Trump Presidency Conclude In 2025?“) and (“Barack Obama Is Responsible For America’s Tragic Racial Divide“) and (“Lindsey Graham: I ‘absolutely’ want to grill Obama about what he knew on origins of Russia probe“)


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: