Impeachment

64,646 Views | 406 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by RunsWithWolves26
PackBacker07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?
RunsWithWolves26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackBacker07 said:

A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?


I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.
PackBacker07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RunsWithWolves26 said:

PackBacker07 said:

A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?


I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.


Yeah all this talk and bs has me thinking about this question, and not necessarily related to Trump. Is there a Mendoza line on criminality for impeachment? Or should any crime committed while holding the office be grounds for impeachment, no matter how small? It does state misdemeanors. Are we to brush that aside and go more towards "high crimes?" Who decides the definition of high crimes? And shouldn't this be expanded to all elected officials? (Maybe it already is and I am not aware?) A lot to ponder while the country goes to Hell and Guiliani grabs another whiskey.
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackBacker07 said:

RunsWithWolves26 said:

PackBacker07 said:

A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?


I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.


Yeah all this talk and bs has me thinking about this question, and not necessarily related to Trump. Is there a Mendoza line on criminality for impeachment? Or should any crime committed while holding the office be grounds for impeachment, no matter how small? It does state misdemeanors. Are we to brush that aside and go more towards "high crimes?" Who decides the definition of high crimes? And shouldn't this be expanded to all elected officials? (Maybe it already is and I am not aware?) A lot to ponder while the country goes to Hell and Guiliani grabs another whiskey.


Impeachment is a purely political process. The guy might jaywalk and Congress could decide that it fits the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors.

There may be a political cost for going after a president by the use of impeachment, but that doesn't mean that Congress won't go through with it anyway.
PackBacker07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

PackBacker07 said:

RunsWithWolves26 said:

PackBacker07 said:

A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?


I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.


Yeah all this talk and bs has me thinking about this question, and not necessarily related to Trump. Is there a Mendoza line on criminality for impeachment? Or should any crime committed while holding the office be grounds for impeachment, no matter how small? It does state misdemeanors. Are we to brush that aside and go more towards "high crimes?" Who decides the definition of high crimes? And shouldn't this be expanded to all elected officials? (Maybe it already is and I am not aware?) A lot to ponder while the country goes to Hell and Guiliani grabs another whiskey.


Impeachment is a purely political process. The guy might jaywalk and Congress could decide that it fits the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors.

There may be a political cost for going after a president by the use of impeachment, but that doesn't mean that Congress won't go through with it anyway.


I am open to the idea it is purely political, but am currently in the other side of that fence. Why would the old fogeys back in '76 put a purely political mechanism in the Constitution? That seems pretty counter to the rest of the document. Could be wrong though, who knows.
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackBacker07 said:

cowboypack02 said:

PackBacker07 said:

RunsWithWolves26 said:

PackBacker07 said:

A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?


I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.


Yeah all this talk and bs has me thinking about this question, and not necessarily related to Trump. Is there a Mendoza line on criminality for impeachment? Or should any crime committed while holding the office be grounds for impeachment, no matter how small? It does state misdemeanors. Are we to brush that aside and go more towards "high crimes?" Who decides the definition of high crimes? And shouldn't this be expanded to all elected officials? (Maybe it already is and I am not aware?) A lot to ponder while the country goes to Hell and Guiliani grabs another whiskey.


Impeachment is a purely political process. The guy might jaywalk and Congress could decide that it fits the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors.

There may be a political cost for going after a president by the use of impeachment, but that doesn't mean that Congress won't go through with it anyway.


I am open to the idea it is purely political, but am currently in the other side of that fence. Why would the old fogeys back in '76 put a purely political mechanism in the Constitution? That seems pretty counter to the rest of the document. Could be wrong though, who knows.


Had I to guess they probably figured that politicians would have integrity and wouldn't put the country through that because they didn't like a guy but who knows.

I think we should just skip the house completely and let's just get the trial started in the senate. It's pretty obvious at this point that Adam Schiff and crew are just gonna make something up that they think Trump is guilty of if they can't find anything concrete. Since the role of the House is to bring the charges and then the Senate actually holds the trial let's just get to it. That way we can just get it out of the way. Democrats in the house act they have already decided he is guilty, they just need a crime to go with it
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:


But Trump didn't ask Ukraine to interfere in the election. He didn't ask Ukraine to so on some hunting expedition to manufacture or find evidence against a candidate. He asked Ukraine to work with his attorney general to investigate corruption (that was admitted to on tape). That's it. He didn't threaten to withhold aide or anything like that if he didn't to get his way.

The only way that what has happened can be viewed as interference is if you are saying that if any political candidate that is investigated for anything it should be considered as interfering in an election. If that is the standard since Trump is running for president again then every democrat who wants to investigate him for anything is interfering in next years presidential election and should be removed from office. You sure that's where you want to go there?
The video below from the BBC seems to indicate that the sacking of the prosecutor in Ukraine because he wasn't doing enough to fight corruption, not because Joe Biden didn't want him investigating the company his son was on the Board of Directors for.



RunsWithWolves26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
statefan91 said:

cowboypack02 said:


But Trump didn't ask Ukraine to interfere in the election. He didn't ask Ukraine to so on some hunting expedition to manufacture or find evidence against a candidate. He asked Ukraine to work with his attorney general to investigate corruption (that was admitted to on tape). That's it. He didn't threaten to withhold aide or anything like that if he didn't to get his way.

The only way that what has happened can be viewed as interference is if you are saying that if any political candidate that is investigated for anything it should be considered as interfering in an election. If that is the standard since Trump is running for president again then every democrat who wants to investigate him for anything is interfering in next years presidential election and should be removed from office. You sure that's where you want to go there?
The video below from the BBC seems to indicate that the sacking of the prosecutor in Ukraine because he wasn't doing enough to fight corruption, not because Joe Biden didn't want him investigating the company his son was on the Board of Directors for.






Biden has been caught in tape saying what he said. Regardless of if he was fired for it or not, Biden said it. Trump said nothing close to that yet the far left wants to impeach him. Trump is an idiot, just took at his tweet today about China for evidence, but he didn't do anything to be impeached. Facts are facts. The only reason this is happening is because the far left didn't get their way and they are throwing the tantrum of all tantrums because of it. Didn't vote for the dude in 2016 but at this point, I sure as hell hope he wins re-election. Just for the pure comedy value of the pathetic left throwing more tempertantrums. Sadly, when the left takes over the white house, this same **** will be used against them and they will claim it's not fair, just as the right does. It's all complete crap and the fact that do many want to hang tight to their side of the line and not call out what is wrong on both ends is absolutely pathetic.
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Impeachment is vague in part to give flexibility to use it for crimes that are not "on the books." A lot of shadiness and correuption can fall outside of normal criminal conduct, but still be grossly inappropriate for a federal official.

Impeachment with conviction is extraordinarily difficult. They probably thought that that was an appropriate level that a president would only be removed with cause.
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Joe Biden was bragging about pushing Ukraine to fire a prosector that wasn't doing enough to fight corruption:

Quote:

Trump and his allies, including his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, accuse Biden of using his position as vice president and point man on relations with Kyiv in 2016 to help Burisma -- a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Biden's son Hunter, who was on its board of directors -- avoid damage from a criminal investigation.

They assert that Shokin was overseeing an active criminal investigation into Burisma and that Biden at the time told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired.

But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.

Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.

...

For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.

"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.

Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.

Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin's predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.

"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html

RunsWithWolves26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And Trump wasn't doing the same? Spin it however you want to spin it. Your left can spin it in your favor and the right can spin it in their favor. Fact remains, both are wrong. It's not that hard.
statefan91 said:

Joe Biden was bragging about pushing Ukraine to fire a prosector that wasn't doing enough to fight corruption:

Quote:

Trump and his allies, including his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, accuse Biden of using his position as vice president and point man on relations with Kyiv in 2016 to help Burisma -- a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Biden's son Hunter, who was on its board of directors -- avoid damage from a criminal investigation.

They assert that Shokin was overseeing an active criminal investigation into Burisma and that Biden at the time told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired.

But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.

Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.

...

For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.

"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.

Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.

Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin's predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.

"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html


cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
statefan91 said:

Joe Biden was bragging about pushing Ukraine to fire a prosector that wasn't doing enough to fight corruption:

Quote:

Trump and his allies, including his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, accuse Biden of using his position as vice president and point man on relations with Kyiv in 2016 to help Burisma -- a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Biden's son Hunter, who was on its board of directors -- avoid damage from a criminal investigation.

They assert that Shokin was overseeing an active criminal investigation into Burisma and that Biden at the time told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired.

But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.

Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.

...

For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.

"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.

Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.

Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin's predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.

"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html




I'm gonna leave this right here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-prosecutor-biden-burisma-back-off-state-department-files.amp?__twitter_impression=true
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm a bit confused by your link. Are you saying that notes from the President's personal attorney are proof that his political rival did something that has been debunked from basically every other source? It was a long article so maybe I missed where you are trying to focus attention.

On that note, President Trump also asked China to investigate the Biden's while speaking with the press. The same China we're in a self-inflicted trade war with (that we've had to bail out farmers to the tune of almost $30B). So he's giving a signal to China as to what they can use as leverage against him in a trade war.

None of that is in the best interest of the US because now China has another variable they can use in the trade war.
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also, here are some of the GOP Senators echoing VP Biden's sentiments regarding the prosecutor. Wonder what's changed since when they were in support of these actions?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/03/politics/trump-biden-call-xi-secure-server/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
ChetManley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So Trump offered to stay silent on the Communist takeover of a free Hong Kong as a concession in a trade war that he started? What a brilliant negotiator, truly the best deal maker in history, Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase better lookout.

Trump is legitimately unfit to be President and his actions are Impeachable.
Francis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I want to see Trump re-elected just to see Glasswolf go off the ledge!
ChetManley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As a Republican it terrifies me that anyone wants this clown to get a second term for any reason. He is aiding Russian foreign policy at the expense of our own. It's ok though, his trillion dollar deficits and faltering economy at least mean everything on the home front is swell.
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is really apparent that people aren't supporting "Republican" - they're supporting Trump and anything to "own the libs"

Otherwise, I would assume Republicans would have a problem with the following:
- Farmer bailout
- Trade wars that we seem to be losing readily
- Doubling of deficit since Trump took office
- Pressing foreign governments to investigate political rivals in exchange for aid / trade concessions / ignoring human rights controversies

I think any Republican that has supported Trump would be pretty PO'd if the following scenario took place in 2011, and are only kidding themselves if they don't think they'd be calling for Obama to be impeached:
- Obama paused aid to Israel
- Obama pressed Bibi to investigate Mitt Romney and his children's investments / work
- Obama, speaking directly to the press, requested that Germany investigate the Romney's as well
griff17matt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The best thing that could happen for the Pubs with impeachment is Trump is removed swiftly and with enough time for other candidates to make themselves known. The worst thing that could happen is impeachment drags on into the actual presidential race. I feel like the Dems will try their best to make it drag on. Best thing Cocaine Mitch can do is make the Senate trial happen asap.
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Republicans were smart they would let him get impeached and then get Romney in for 2020. So many moderates are looking for someone to vote for and assume a lot would swing that way if it was someone like Romney, especially with Warren trending up.
PackBacker07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seems like the Trump Administration is going to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Didn't Nixon try this and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him?
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
statefan91 said:

If Republicans were smart they would let him get impeached and then get Romney in for 2020. So many moderates are looking for someone to vote for and assume a lot would swing that way if it was someone like Romney, especially with Warren trending up.


Ain't nobody voting for Romney. Dude had his chance and **** the bed
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackBacker07 said:

Seems like the Trump Administration is going to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Didn't Nixon try this and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him?


Difference is that Congress actually voted to start impeachment proceedings with Nixon. Trump has already said that he would provide Congress with what they had requested if they took a vote so maybe that should be the next step before continuing.
ChetManley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's very worrying and border lining on a cult of personality. It's to a point where I'm actually starting to believe his supporters would be unfazed if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. With their inability to take a step back and recognize how unhinged he is becoming you can forget about holding him to the same standard as Obama. That would require them to be self aware of their own hypocrisy.
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I haven't seen anywhere that says Trump / WH would cooperate if there was a vote, or that a vote is actually required anywhere in the Constitution. Please send if you have found somewhere.
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ChetManley said:

It's very worrying and border lining on a cult of personality. It's to a point where I'm actually starting to believe his supporters would be unfazed if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. With their inability to take a step back and recognize how unhinged he is becoming you can forget about holding him to the same standard as Obama. That would require them to be self aware of their own hypocrisy.
Its not like he provided guns to drug cartels that ended up killing border agents or anything....that would just be crazy
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
statefan91 said:

I haven't seen anywhere that says Trump / WH would cooperate if there was a vote, or that a vote is actually required anywhere in the Constitution. Please send if you have found somewhere.
.

Funny you should ask:
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/white-house-no-house-vote-no-impeachment-cooperation/?utm_content=buffer4edb1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tw-cr
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackBacker07 said:

Seems like the Trump Administration is going to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Didn't Nixon try this and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him?
I'm drifting further towards supporting impeachment each day. You can't stonewall congress. One of their main functions is to be a check on the executive branch.

But I still believe an impeachment without conviction helps Trump in 2020. That plus a Warren or Bernie nominee give him his only shot at reelection. The best thing for Republicans would be to turn on Trump, kick him out and then run with someone else.
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks - I still didn't see where it said the White House would cooperate with Impeachment proceedings once a House vote was taken. Nor did I see where it said a House vote is required in the Constitution.
ChetManley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd encourage you to look up Kevin Kruse in Twitter and his thoughts on impeachment, specifically how the tide turned against Nixon in a similar manner it is now turning against Trump. Base of the argument is that Trumps approval will begin to plummet as he stonewalls and take a beating from the press (currently happening), and his supporters in Congress will eventually jump ship in an attempt to save themselves. For what it's worth, poll our today showed Tillis at 22% approval in N.C.
statefan91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's interesting on Tillis. I have noticed a hard right turn for him into more of the conspiracy / full-throated support of Trump. I think he is banking on R's in NC coming out strong in 2020. He hasn't talked much about the money that is being taken from NC Military Bases to go toward the wall, rather deflecting that it's the Democrats fault. He's also posted recently about checking on criminal referrals from Kavanaugh's confirmation process and how the Impeachment is a witchhunt.

I don't think Tillis has much of a chance at picking up Independents, his twitter replies are usually full of people excited to vote him out.
PackBacker07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
statefan91 said:

That's interesting on Tillis. I have noticed a hard right turn for him into more of the conspiracy / full-throated support of Trump. I think he is banking on R's in NC coming out strong in 2020. He hasn't talked much about the money that is being taken from NC Military Bases to go toward the wall, rather deflecting that it's the Democrats fault. He's also posted recently about checking on criminal referrals from Kavanaugh's confirmation process and how the Impeachment is a witchhunt.

I don't think Tillis has much of a chance at picking up Independents, his twitter replies are usually full of people excited to vote him out.


He barely nudged out a win last go 'round, and I suspect if the Democratic nom is halfway decent, he'll be tweeting from his couch in January 2021. He's one of the more ball-less characters in the Senate right now IMO.
PackBacker07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

PackBacker07 said:

Seems like the Trump Administration is going to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Didn't Nixon try this and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him?


Difference is that Congress actually voted to start impeachment proceedings with Nixon. Trump has already said that he would provide Congress with what they had requested if they took a vote so maybe that should be the next step before continuing.


I don't believe there has to be a vote before an impeachment inquiry? The inquiry could produce articles of impeachment, which then the House could potentially formally vote to impeach. And what has this administration done to earn trust on producing documents, outside of a Nixonian Supreme Court decision? Would they defy the SC also?
ChetManley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Cunningham is going to mop the floor with him. If he wasn't so spineless I'd almost pity him. NC really is fascinating when it comes to Senate seats. Burr's done a great job not hitching his wagon to crazy while simultaneously getting work done and looks to have a lock on that seat as long as he wants it. Whereas the other seat will likely flip for the 3rd straight election.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.