Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, November 25, 2016

Members of the Electoral College should not make Donald Trump the next president unless he sells his companies and puts the proceeds in a blind trust, according to the top ethics lawyers for the last two presidents. Richard Painter, Chief Ethics Counsel for George W. Bush, and Norman Eisen, Chief Ethics Counsel for Barack Obama, believe that if Trump continues to retain ownership over his sprawling business interests by the time the electors meet on December 19, they should reject Trump. Eisen explained that "the founders did not want any foreign payments to the president. Period." This principle is enshrined in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which bars office holders from accepting "any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." This provision was specifically created to prevent the President, most of all, from being corrupted by foreign influences.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Virginia Governor Edmund Jennings Randolph addressed the issue directly during a Constitutional debate in June 1788, noting that a violation of the provision by the President would be grounds for impeachment. (Randolph was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.) There is another provision against the danger mentioned by the honorable member, of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered he may be impeached. If he be not impeached he may be displaced at the end of the four years. By the ninth section, of the first article, "No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people" … I consider, therefore, that he is restrained from receiving any present or emoluments whatever. It is impossible to guard better against corruption."

Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation's preeminent constitutional scholars after extensive research concluded that "Trump's ongoing business dealings around the world would make him the recipient of constitutionally prohibited ‘Emoluments' from ‘any King, Prince, or foreign State'  --  in the original sense of payments and not necessarily presents or gifts  --  from the very moment he takes the oath." Trump would be knowingly breaking his oath of exclusive fealty (under Art. II, Sec.1) to a Constitution whose very first Article (Art. I, Sec. 9)  --  an Article deliberately designed to prevent any U.S. official,especially the Chief Executive, from being indebted to, or otherwise the recipient of financial remuneration from, any foreign power or entity answerable to such a power  --  he would be violating as he repeated the words recited by the Chief Justice. Tribe said the violation would qualify as one of the "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" that would require Trump to be "removed from Office."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

We're soon going to find out whether this nation is ruled by laws or the feelings of the majority party. Please note, this is not based on Trump's politics nor party, this is based upon the US Constitution and its expressed intent that no President have the type of financial entanglements such as Trump does that will nakedly compromise his duties as POTUS and perhaps the safety and well-being of this nation.

All Trump has to do is divest his holdings if he wants to be President. If not, then step aside. It's not what I want, it's what the Constitution demands. Voters can be ignorant of its dictates, but lawyers, scholars and those who sanely understand why such walls were put in place surely do and are called not to ignore it.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-25 01:58 PM | Reply

Tony, I don't get the impression the Trumpets here give a damn about Trump enriching himself in office or compromising the security of the United States through conflicts of interest.

Maybe many of them only say that they live here but actually don't? Their lack of interest in the integrity and welfare of their own nation make me suspect one of two Russians running about here.

If Donald does not do the very obviously right thing, then he's not a legitimate president.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 02:18 PM | Reply

All Trump has to do is divest his holdings if he wants to be President. If not, then step aside. It's not what I want, it's what the Constitution demands. Voters can be ignorant of its dictates, but lawyers, scholars and those who sanely understand why such walls were put in place surely do and are called not to ignore it.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-25 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag

No actually you are incorrect. There is no constitutional provision preventing Trump from becoming president even if he still owns and runs Trump Inc. It would be wise of him however to divest.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-25 02:27 PM | Reply

Members of the EC are selected by the winning parties for their loyalty; they're a bunch of hacks so don't get your hopes up they'd do anything other than be hacks.

#4 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-25 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is no constitutional provision preventing Trump from becoming president even if he still owns and runs Trump Inc.

There are two provisions, that is what the article and research are all about. One is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. It states unequivocally that the President cannot accept payments from foreign crowns or governments. As enumerated above, the second Trump were to take the Oath of Office he would be subject to immediate impeachment for violating this clause. The second provision are the electors themselves knowing these facts contained within the Constitution and acting within their power to deny Trump the presidency through their refusal to vote him into office because of his refusal to divest his financial ties to foreign nations and governments.

The oath is a vow of fealty to the interests of the United States of America with no regard for the president-elects personal business encumbrances. It's truly that simple. A President cannot serve two masters, something I believe you stated yourself recently.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-25 03:21 PM | Reply

No actually you are incorrect. There is no constitutional provision preventing Trump from becoming president even if he still owns and runs Trump Inc. It would be wise of him however to divest.

Did you even bother to read the article?

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-25 03:24 PM | Reply

www.washingtonpost.com

The Facts

The law doesn't say the president can't have a conflict of interest. But Congress, under Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code, did exempt the president and vice president from conflict-of-interest laws on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.

"As a general rule, public officials in the executive branch are subject to criminal penalties if they personally and substantially participate in matters in which they (or their immediate families, business partners or associated organizations) hold financial interests," the Congressional Research Service said in an October report. "However, because of concerns regarding interference with the exercise of constitutional duties, Congress has not applied these restrictions to the President. Consequently, there is no current legal requirement that would compel the President to relinquish financial interests because of a conflict of interest."

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-25 03:32 PM | Reply

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution bars office holders from accepting "any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

What "present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state" is Trump receiving?

#8 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2016-11-25 03:33 PM | Reply

e·mol·u·ment
iˈmälyəmənt/Submit
nounformal
a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

If he is receiving fees or profit from his foreign investments then he is receiving an emolument. The real point boils down to if emolument is only referring to his employment as POTUS or any employment. That is a question for more learned people than me.

The fact is he will have two employers for the next 4 years, Trump Inc. and the people of the United States. While not of that magnitude I do work for a fireplace company and also work on the side as "gas log guy" I have to be very careful to keep my interests separate and not risk any view of impropriety. I could be fired and even sued for infringing on my primary employer and that is as a small time employee and freelancer. The scale that Trump will be operating at dwarfs what I do and the risk of impropriety is therefor much larger.

If he operates as I do where when in doubt I always defer to my primary employer even when perhaps I wouldn't have to, I wouldn't see an issue. If he refuses to divest then it is on him to hold himself to a high ethical standard realizing that any slip could be grounds for impeachment or even jail.

Given how closely he will be watched and the chances of a Democratic congress in 2 years I don't think I would like the risk, but then again Trump is much less risk adverse than I am.

#9 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-11-25 04:16 PM | Reply

#9 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

"If he is receiving fees or profit from his foreign investments...."

The U. S. parent corporation (The Trump Organization) receives dividends and probably interest and stewardship fees from the foreign subsidiary corporations that do business in foreign countries. Trump receives his income from The Trump Organization, and other sources. There is no emolument to Trump "from any king, prince, or foreign state."

#10 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2016-11-25 05:11 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Translation: Clinton Foundation Was Corrupt, Trump Foundation Pure as the driven snow. I call --------.

#11 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-25 05:15 PM | Reply

What "present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state" is Trump receiving?

#8 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2016-11-25

You know, if Donald revealed his complete finances I think we could answer that question.

You do want the question answered, don't you?

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 05:59 PM | Reply

There is no emolument to Trump "from any king, prince, or foreign state."

#10 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2016-11-25 05:11 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Ah...So Donald sat you down and told you that? You must be a lot more special than anyone else.

Is potential conflict of interest an issue with people like you, or do you feel being honest is a bit too old-fasioned?

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 06:01 PM | Reply

10 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2016

Not to make too fine a point of it, but all indications are that Donald Trump is a crook of long-standing.

Pretty much the same way he's been an adulterer and philanderer of long-standing, right up through this "marriage" with his current "wife".

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 06:12 PM | Reply

Trump is not the recipient of the funds, his corporation is.

#15 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-11-25 06:59 PM | Reply

Trump is not the recipient of the funds, his corporation is.

#15 | Posted by Prolix247 at

Ah...So Donald sat you down and told you that? You must be a lot more special than anyone else.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 07:05 PM | Reply

In other news, Rightwing Don just described himself as being a member of the Alt Right. That is to say, Don is an admitted fascist.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 07:06 PM | Reply

I don't think Don will contradict me here. He seems rather proud of it all.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 07:07 PM | Reply

#13 | POSTED BY ZED

Having spent my career working with multinational corporations, I have good knowledge of how business is carried on in foreign countries.

#19 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2016-11-25 07:12 PM | Reply

I have good knowledge of how business is carried on in foreign countries.

#19 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2016-11-25 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wouldn't trust you to wash my dog.

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 07:16 PM | Reply

I'm getting tired of having to be polite to fools, fascists, and fascist fools.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-25 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump is not the recipient of the funds, his corporation is.

LOL

Are people really this dumb?

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-25 09:22 PM | Reply

LOL

Are people really this dumb?

Posted by jpw at 2016-11-25 09:22 PM | Reply

Caution you might give the Republicans a reason to declare corporations are people too my friend.

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-25 09:28 PM | Reply

It takes time to divest and trying to make this an issue now is a waste of time.

#24 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-25 10:48 PM | Reply

It takes time to divest and trying to make this an issue now is a waste of time.

Yeup. You're the giant idiot hack I always figured you to be.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 02:16 AM | Reply

It takes time to divest and trying to make this an issue now is a waste of time.

#24 | POSTED BY CRASSUS

IOW, screw the Constitution, Donsld's got a country to eff up!

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 07:53 AM | Reply

No, it takes time and he hasn't taken office yet. Why can't you understand this.

#27 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 09:26 AM | Reply

#27

He has said that he is not going to divest or create an actual blind trust, that is why the article quoting he last two White House ethics counsels is germane. Please read the article. If Trump takes the Oath of Office while his personal finances remain enmeshed with income from and debt service to foreign interests, he is in instant violation of the Constitution and subject to immediate impeachment for said violations. The oath demands fealty to the United States unconditionally. That is why foreign business ties are constitutionally verboten for a sitting POTUS.

Of course, the GOP isn't going to do it, but there is no argument about what the Constitution demands as it regards emolument. Perhaps you should educate yourself about this before spouting off nonsensical and demonstrably false retorts.

#28 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 09:38 AM | Reply

This is a incredibly important rule. It must be obeyed.

#29 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-26 09:40 AM | Reply

Blah blah blah, scare scare scare.....nothing factual all political pandering garbage.

Trump will do everything he needs to do to follow the constitution and law, to think otherwise is ridiculous.

my word, talk about pandering to false slanted news.

#30 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 09:51 AM | Reply

"nothing factual"

On the contrary, we know several facts:

1. The Constitution forbids Presidents making profits from a foreign state, without a prior approval of Congress.
2. Trump the Businessman has many foreign investments.

What we don't know, because the PEOTUS won't release the information, is whether or not Trump is in violation of the Constitution.

And "We don't know" isn't an acceptable answer. At least not in America...so far.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:01 AM | Reply

Is trump president.....not yet.....no violation......fact!!!!

All other stuff is nothing but garbage speculation for sake of political pandering a false front.

#32 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:08 AM | Reply

"Trump will do everything he says he needs to do to follow the constitution and law, to think otherwise is ridiculous."

FTFY

Trump will pretend there are no requirements for incoming Presidents because he is a liar and everyone knows it.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-26 10:10 AM | Reply

BTW, it is time that we started referring to him as "Crooked Donald." I, personally, will make it a point to do so.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-26 10:11 AM | Reply

Blah blah blah, scare scare scare.....

#30 | Posted by Crassus

It even has you scared, doesn't it? Perhaps you're not as stupid as I thought. Maybe you're discovering the first great truth about a Trump presidency? To be intelligent is to live in fear.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:14 AM | Reply

No, it takes time and he hasn't taken office yet. Why can't you understand this.

Yes it takes time and should be done before he takes office but he hasn't even started. Why can't you understand this?

#36 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-11-26 10:14 AM | Reply

Is trump president.....not yet.....no violation......fact!!!!

#32 | Posted by Crassus at 2016

He's president in less than sixty days. What's your plan of action if Donald tries to brass things out and dares the rest of us to do something about it?

You going to surrender your nads and defend your victimhood?

#37 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:17 AM | Reply

There is no job that allows one to work for a competitor simultaneously.

I assume anyone who doesn't understand this has not been employed.

#38 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-26 10:17 AM | Reply

Why can't you understand this?

#36 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-11-26 10:14 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

I think he understands it all fine. He may not be all that honest, though.

#39 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:18 AM | Reply

Since day one from posting on this site I have always stood for following the law regardless of party.

#40 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:25 AM | Reply

How does anyone know he has not started? Speculate all you want but it is just that, speculation without fact.

#41 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:27 AM | Reply

"Since day one from posting on this site I have always stood for following the law regardless of party."

Well, are you for DJT following the Constitution, or should you stop that claim as of now?

And if you're actually FOR following the law, why would you be okay with "He might be violating the Constitution, he just won't tell us"...?

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:30 AM | Reply

"How does anyone know he has not started?"

So if he hasn't, what happens on Dec 19?

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:31 AM | Reply

Since day one from posting on this site I have always stood for following the law regardless of party.

#40 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10

My man. I think you'll be put to the test.

#44 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:31 AM | Reply

And if you're actually FOR following the law, why would you be okay with "He might be violating the Constitution, he just won't tell us"...?

#42 | Posted by Danforth at

It's a Shroedinger's kind of thing. Until Trump discloses his finances, both states of reality exist simultaneously. He is violating the Constitution and he is not violating it.

It's good to be King.

#45 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:34 AM | Reply

"How does anyone know he (Trump)has not started?"

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2016

Um...It might have something to do with Donald not talking to anyone about it and keeping secrets. What's your thought?

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:36 AM | Reply

I don't know, what happens on Dec 19?

#47 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:38 AM | Reply

#46

I was actually quoting from #41.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:38 AM | Reply

Speculate all you want but it is just that, speculation without fact.

#41 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:27 AM |

It's not speculation, its worry.

What are you going to do about it if what we worry about is valid? What are you going to do? Jump up and down and hold your breath until you turn blue? Or just fall quietly into the Trump line?

Yes, I'm talking to you. You're involved. Are you a toad or a human being? Getting in touch with why a wise man once said that politics is the only game for adults?

#49 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:39 AM | Reply

"I don't know, what happens on Dec 19?"

Depends...are you still planning on making your claim on Dec 20th?

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:39 AM | Reply

I don't know, what does DEC 20th have to do with anything?

#51 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:44 AM | Reply

Jan 20 then there is something.

#52 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:45 AM | Reply

Jan 20 then there is something.

#52 | Posted by Crassus at

Come on, be honest. No matter what happens here, you're on Donald's side.

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:46 AM | Reply

The President of the United States needs to do more than follow the law, he/she needs to avoid the appearance of violating the law. Trump is definitely not doing so. It is unconscionable that he has deals with foreign governments while at the same time pretending he can be a lawful President. Mark my words, even the Republicans in Congress will impeach this jerk. Mike Pence is probably the smartest politician in the country, he joined what he knew was a terribly flawed candidate's ticket knowing he would end up as President. A terrible President but still a president.

#54 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-26 10:48 AM | Reply

No, you're just trying to make issue when there is none, even with me.

#55 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:48 AM | Reply

"I don't know, what happens on Dec 19?"

535 American citizens show up in Albany, NY to follow the dictates of the US Constitution and cast their electoral ballots for POTUS. These electors are chosen to act as the representatives of their respective state's vpters but remain legally autonomous to cast their ballot as each sees fit. The US Constitution mandates certain requirements of Presidents and if a President-elect is openly and blatantly unwilling to follow the Constitution's dictates, the electors have both the right and duty to insure that the highest office of the nation be denied such a person who refuses to follow said Constitution as the oath forswears them to do.

That's what happens on December 19th.

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 10:54 AM | Reply

No, you're just trying to make issue when there is none, even with me.

#55 | Posted by Crassus a

It's always intellectually dishonest to just whistle past the graveyard and then try to justify your behavior out of "fairness". You're being a coward, own it.

Here's what I think will really happen. Donald will wheel out some con he thinks covers this issue and as far as you Nancy Boys are concerned, it will.

#57 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:54 AM | Reply

Excuse me, 538 electors, not 535.

#58 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 10:55 AM | Reply

"I don't know, what does DEC 20th have to do with anything?"

Pick up a history book, for God's sake.

The Electoral College votes on Dec 19. If Trump hasn't divested by then, and Congress hasn't given him a waiver, he's very possibly in violation of the US Constitution.

On Dec 20, either you raise hell, or you stop making your claim about law above party.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:55 AM | Reply

On Dec 20, either you raise hell, or you stop making your claim about law above party.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26

He won't raise hell on 11/20 0r on 01/20. He'll come up with some rationalization that attempts to make weeniehood look like heroism.

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-26 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And the beat goes on:

The Historic Cash-in Continues

A long-stalled Trump building project in Georgia (the country) is back on track and ready to go just days after Donald Trump's election. That's major new nugget in a WaPo round up of how Trump's election less than three weeks ago is already turbocharging Trump building projects around the globe.

All of it highlights the muddy new world that Trump's election may usher in -- a world in which his stature as the U.S. president, the status of his private ventures across the globe and his relationships with foreign business partners and the leaders of their governments could all become intertwined.

In that world, Trump could personally profit if his election gives a boost to his brand and results in its expansion overseas. His political rise could also enrich his overseas business partners -- and, perhaps more significantly, enhance their statuses in their home countries and alter long-standing diplomatic traditions by establishing them as new conduits for public business.

The tone and assumptions contained in these two paragraphs are the key. What is being described here is a personalization of diplomacy and self-enrichment that generations of laws and norms are meant to prevent. Josh Marshall

#61 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 02:27 PM | Reply

Yes pick up a history book, electoral college cast the ballet of the people, for whom the people elected, has nothing to do with how trump decides to run his business, that is done when he takes the oath of office until then you're all just whining.

#62 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 09:19 PM | Reply

I would think this should be a no-brainer.

When Bush won convincingly in 2000 Dick Cheney divested himself from Halliburton.

Trump made a conscious decision to run for POTUS. If this issue didn't come up at some point within his team, it is further proof of my belief that he is unfit for the office he just won in dominating fashion. If it did come up and Trump made a decision that if he won he would run his business and be POTUS congruently....well....it's terrible judgement and it goes back to him being unfit.

We saw what interspersing private interests with public power - a la Hillary and the Clinton Foundation - looks like during this campaign-cycle. it was ugly. Of course, some Democrats who are making the divestment argument in regards to Trump were some of the fiercest defenders of Hillary/Clinton Foundation graft. But, I digress.

Trump made a choice. And here he is. If he doesn't divest I predict it will bring down his presidency.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 01:20 AM | Reply

When Bush won convincingly in 2000...

...the office he just won in dominating fashion.

Nice trolling, but a bit too obvious.

#64 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-27 02:09 AM | Reply

Nice trolling, but a bit too obvious.

#64 | POSTED BY REDIAL

You're no fun!

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 02:15 AM | Reply

Redial,

It was clumsy and obvious as heck...but given the emotional state of some on this site right now, had a few others stumbled across my comments before you....

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 02:17 AM | Reply

When Bush won convincingly in 2000 Dick Cheney divested himself from Halliburton.

Sorry but no he didn't.

#67 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 03:27 AM | Reply

Mr. Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes. The officials also said he had promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits he made from exercising his stock options. These steps are not unusual for corporate executives who enter government.www.nytimes.com

It just depends on how the divestment is done.

#68 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 03:39 AM | Reply

"Halliburton, the oil services firm formerly run by the US vice president, Dick Cheney, last night said two of its divisions had filed for bankruptcy as part of a $4.2bn (£2.5bn) plan to settle hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims.
The company has filed for chapter 11 protection for its DII industries division and the Kellogg Brown & Root construction and engineering services business. The KBR unit does not include the government contract division working on Iraq reconstruction because it does not have any asbestos liabilities, the company said."

www.theguardian.com

The Republicans Presidents have often used the office for profit. Make no mistake, Trump plans to also.

#69 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-27 06:17 AM | Reply

Yes pick up a history book, electoral college cast the ballet of the people, for whom the people elected, has nothing to do with how trump decides to run his business, that is done when he takes the oath of office until then you're all just whining.

#62 | Posted by Crassus at 2016

Back agai to tell us we're all ninnies until the day when Donald hurts someone and you can tell the victim he deserved it.

#70 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort