Post New

(Headline)

Trump Gets the Retribution He Sought, and Shatters Justice Dept. Norms

(Subhead)

The indictment trampled the department’s tradition of keeping a distance from politics and the White House, and raised the prospect of more arbitrary charges.

The NYT's pearl clutching headline of the day. What were they saying before the election? Oh yeah, Joe Biden is old.

The indictment trampled the department’s tradition of keeping a distance from politics and the White House, and raised the prospect of more arbitrary charges.

A former DOJ prosecutor, on Amanpour, last night, said the real impact is the loss of credibility by the DOJ. Going forward, jurors and judges will be increasingly skeptical of anything the DOJ claims.

Steve

The indictment trampled the department’s tradition of keeping a distance from politics and the White House, and raised the prospect of more arbitrary charges.

But remember - Comey, the escalator/teleprompter, and Antifa conspired in a soft coup.

But remember - Comey, the escalator/teleprompter, and Antifa conspired in a soft coup.

Tell you what.

The next GOP candidate for President should pay for a bunch of "intelligence" showing how China was secretly helping the democrat win in the 2028 election. For good measure, show how the Chinese have loads of blackmail material and how the democrat was passing along information to his Chinese handlers.

(The above scenario probably doesn't need to be fabricated, given the propensity of democrats to sell out the country to foreign interests hostile to the US.)

Then play out the scenario and use it to impeach the next democrat and put his staffers under the microscope. Or jail some of them.

The droogs on this board would scream TREASON as loud as your COVID-wracked lungs will let you.

The next GOP candidate for President should pay for a bunch of "intelligence

Are you alluding to the Steel Dossier? What was Comey's connection to the Steel Dossier? How did Comey cause the Steel Dossier to happen and who was he in cahoots with for this "soft coup"?

The "Steele dossier" played a central role in the conspiracy theories>/b> surrounding a "soft coup" against Donald Trump, though official investigations ultimately debunked most of its claims. The dossier, which contained unsubstantiated allegations of Russian compromise and salacious material, was used by some critics of Trump to suggest he was unfit for office, while his supporters decried it as a politically motivated smear campaign and a basis for improper surveillance.

Op research is normal. And, IIRC, the dossier was given to the government for investigation by the GOP too.

Op research is normal.

Using it to do all the things I mentioned is not.

But that's the nation you want. So, it's the nation you shall have!

Using it to do all the things

Tell me how Comey is tied to a soft coup. Ya got nothin, so you try to evade and change the subject?

YOU GOT NOTHING!

Going forward, jurors and judges will be increasingly skeptical of anything the DOJ claims.

True.

But given that the guy at the helm is Trump….

True to establish precedent, after a couple of such prosecution failures, Trump will move directly to secret military tribunals, or simply arrest followed by disappearance into gulags, foreign prisons, or the deep blue sea

Tell me how Comey is tied to a soft coup.

You don't follow the news. Why should you? Others think on your behalf.

Start here
https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/15/unsealed-cros...

...and learn.

Dope1: Start here
https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/15/unsealed-cros...

...and learn.

Jeebus. The Federalist doesn't even have the origin of the Steele dossier correct.

The Washington firm Fusion GPS had been hired to produce the dossier during the Republican primary season, and it eventually assigned the task to a British former intelligence officer named Christopher Steele. That's all been known for months.

Now, we know who originally hired Fusion GPS. The chairman and the editor of the conservative website Washington Free Beacon confirm they did so for information on "multiple Republican candidates."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/conservative-sit...

True to establish precedent, after a couple of such prosecution failures, Trump will move directly to secret military tribunals

Trump will fall back on grievance tactics, conspiracy theories, and his normal outrageous lie. His base won't skip a beat, after all, look at Dope, he's a Trump nuclear bunker - nothing gets through - the actual act of trying to explain something to him reinforces his false beliefs and world view.

Tell me how Comey is tied to a soft coup.

You don't follow the news. Why should you? Others think on your behalf.

You believe in conspiracy theories - you can't explain it because it's all ephemeral quantum leaps that ignore the simple evidence before you. You fly there because it gives you an exciting sensation - but it isn't real. And you have to completely ignore both Occam's and Hanlon's razor.

You still haven't explained how Comey is involved in a soft coup. Just spell it out in 25 words.

YOU GOT NOTHING!

You believe
...that you're a doppel of the other guy. I'm going to ignore this version of you. <click>

Op research was not used in the Trump impeachments. There was no "soft coup" attempt against Trump, only normal political opposition to Trump, and normal legal proceedings. A coup is a sudden seizure of power. The January 6 United States Capitol attack was an attempted coup.

Articles of Impeachment Against Donald John Trump, December 18, 2019.
"Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a
foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election."
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-1...

H.Res.24 - Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. (Introduced 01/11/2021)
"Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house...

You believe
...that you're a doppel of the other guy. I'm going to ignore this version of you. <click>

The Surrender Monkey Conspiracist folds.

The Surrender Monkey Conspiracist folds.

Ahh, name calling. And you people wonder why I *own* so many of you.

Ever wonder why I don't need to reciprocate? There's a lesson in there for you.

-dope, always ready to debate issues even if the left can't summon up the nuts to try.

-dope, always ready to debate issues even if the left can't summon up the nuts to try.

Excellent.

I don't know if you saw my other post, but I was wondering if you could elaborate on what statement by Comey you believe involved him "lying to Congress." As I noted in my post, the media coverage has presented it as if it was his statement that he did not authorize the WSJ leak, which Ted Cruz has characterized as inconsistent with McCabe's statements. But McCabe never said that Comey authorized the leak, as far as I can tell - McCabe said that McCabe authorized the leak.

Do you know if McCabe has made other statements that contradict Comey? Or perhaps there's a different Comey statement that is the "lie" that underlies the indictment? The indictment doesn't clarify, and even the Fox News legal analysts were saying they think the case will get thrown out - so I was wondering if you knew of something else.

The Surrender Monkey Conspiracist folds.

Ahh, name calling. And you people wonder why I *own*


You continually denigrate people in your avoidance.

Ahh, name calling. And you people wonder why I *own*~ Dope

I have yet to see you own anyone, other than yourself.
Has our favorite low-information, right-wing punching bag ever won a single argument, ever?
If so, I haven't seen it. Prove me wrong.

Insults are the last refuge of the fool, on that we agree...
These insults are often used by Trump, who gets owned as much as Dope:

"Sleepy Joe"

"Crooked Hillary"

"Ron DeSanctimonious" and "Tiny D"

"Tampon Tim"

"Birdbrain" (for South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley)

"Little Rocket Man"

"Crazy Bernie"

"Lyin' Ted"

"Little Marco"

"Pocahontas"

"Cryin' Chuck"

"Sloppy Steve"

"Jeff Flakey"

"Crazy Megyn"

"Dumb as a Rock Mika"

I think it was Comey denying to Congress that he authorized Mccabe to leak info. McCabe leaked info on Clinton's investigation, and it seemed that was OK to do, but he had a conflict with his wife - it helped McCabe to leak. (I don't see this as a big deal to me.) I remember reading an article about McCazbe leaking to two reporters, and it seemed a common thing to do. Comey and McCabe contradict each other on whether Comey authorized the leak. Comey said he didn't.

In ant case, the Steel Doddier was just normal opp research which included a bunch of rumors.

Here's MBFC on the Federalist:

Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

I glanced through Dope's article, but don't take it seriously because of the source. I practice NOT READING junk, because I don't want to be contaminated. :) I've seen what it does to Dope, Jedi, and LM, and while I like them, I want to keep my faculties sharp and not dulled by bunk.

I don't know if you saw my other post, but I was wondering if you could elaborate on what statement by Comey you believe involved him "lying to Congress." .

I'm looking at his exact testimony where he claimed the Steele dossier was not the basis of the Russiagate stuff, when we now know that not only was it the basis but Comey and the IC inner circle (of which Comey was a member) all knew it was. What the media reports I'm not going to speak to.


https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/26/after-harming...

The declassified report further contradicted claims made by Comey and other Obama intel chiefs that salacious and false information from the infamous Steele dossier were not included in the main body of the ICA. Speaking before Congress in September 2020, Comey unequivocally stated of the dossier, “It was significant enough and consistent enough with other intelligence that it ought to be included, but it wasn’t sufficiently corroborated to be in the body of the Intelligence Community Assessment.”

Except that...it was:

https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/23/brennan-overr...

Newly released documents show former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan included the now-debunked Steele dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) despite warnings from intelligence experts that the dossier was flawed. The dossier was later used as the basis to launch the Russia collusion hoax.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a 2020 report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence showing — among other things — that members of the intelligence community were concerned with several aspects of the ICA.

So there's at least one lie. His defense - which will now be previewed in this thread - will center around the definition of the word "included". I'm not going to argue linguistics; his lawyers will get to do that for him in a court of law.

Dope1: I'm looking at his exact testimony where he claimed the Steele dossier was not the basis of the Russiagate stuff...

Umm.

Here's the timeline:

        Late July 2016: The FBI initiated its broader investigation into potential ties 
                        between the Trump campaign and Russia based on information received 
                        from a friendly foreign government about Trump campaign adviser George 
                        Papadopoulos.

         July 30, 2016: "Crossfire Hurricane" was officially opened. FBI officials involved in 
                        the decision later confirmed they did not see the Steele reports until 
                        weeks later.

       August 10, 2016: An existing case into Carter Page at the New York Field Office was 
                        transferred into the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

        September 2016: The FBI team working on the Russia inquiry received the first memos 
                        from Christopher Steele.

Capisce?

The dossier was later used as the basis to launch the Russia collusion hoax.

Nah. No bias evident in that screed. (sarcasm)

Trump claimed he was totally exonerated by the Mueller investigation.

Mueller said that was not true. He was not "exonerated".

Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells Congress

The questions focused largely on Mr Mueller's investigation of President Trump and his decision to say he could not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice, but Mr Mueller repeatedly stressed the importance of concerns over ongoing Russian interference in US democracy.

"Over the course of my career I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious," he said.

He added: "Much more needs to be done in order to protect against this intrusion, by the Russians but others as well."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778

Steve...HBTT

Nah. No bias evident in that screed. (sarcasm)

Sez the guy with the HBTT thing. Do better. Or sit on the sidelines with the other NPC's.

Trump claimed he was totally exonerated by the Mueller investigation.

Mueller said that was not true. He was not "exonerated".

Go ask ChatNPC for lessons on irrelevant facts. Before he got old he used to be pretty good at derailing threads by rolling in and shouting "2+2=4!!!!!" in a thread about, say, the right fertilizer for petunias. In case you can't follow that, while 2+2=4 is indeed a fact, it likely doesn't have much relevancy in a discussion about petunias that doesn't involve math. Later on he kind of lost his skillset but he still might be able to give you a tip or 2.

I'm looking at his exact testimony where he claimed the Steele dossier was not the basis of the Russiagate stuff,


DOPE AND FEDERALIST: Newly released documents show former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan included the now-debunked Steele dossier in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) despite warnings from intelligence experts that the dossier was flawed. The dossier was later used as the basis to launch the Russia collusion hoax


"No, the Steele dossier was not the basis for the Russia investigation, also known as Russiagate
. The investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016, two months before the FBI team received the dossier."

Or sit on the sidelines with the other NPC's.

There's only three slots there and you, Wilton, and LM are sitting in them. I can see you form up here in the box seats. :)

There's only three slots there and you, Wilton, and LM are sitting in them. I can see you form up here in the box seats. :)

Pro tip: you don’t seem to know what ‘NPC’ means. You might want to rethink your reply about…not being in the game…by bragging how you’re…not in the game.

Pro tip: you don’t seem to know what ‘NPC’ means. You might want to rethink your reply about…not being in the game…by bragging how you’re…not in the game.

Pro tip: Box seats are where you watch the stage (game) from a distance. NPCs are on stage (in the game) bit players controlled by the game (your party - Trump in this case). The rest of us are watching you think this is a game. This is not a game.

So there's at least one lie.

I doubt that's what they're going to use. That's pretty unlikely to hold up as the basis for a prosecution, because it isn't a lie.

Here's the full section of that exchange:

Do you recall a discussion between you and the CIA about whether the Steele dossier should be included as part of the intelligence community assessment? Mr. Comey: (01:05:22) I remember some interaction with my fellow leaders of the intelligence community agencies that were part of that assessment. I don't know whether it was over email or on the phone about how that we were contributing this material to the effort and how they were going to approach it. John Cornyn: (01:05:37) You don't recall that Director Brennan said it should not be included as part of the ICA because it has not been verified? Mr. Comey: (01:05:47) I don't know whether it was Brennan. I remember being told that the group's view was it was significant enough and consistent enough with other intelligence that it ought to be included, but it wasn't sufficiently corroborated to be in the body of the intelligence community assessment. So they put a brief summary of it in an annex.

https://www.rev.com/transcripts/james-comey-testim...

But....those statements are true. The dossier materials were put in an annex to the ICA. Per Grassley's own office:

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases...

No legalistic parsing of "included" necessary. The characterization of it as a "brief summary" is opinion, not fact - so that also can't be a basis for a perjury claim, even if reasonable people can disagree about whether a particular summary is "brief" or not (the Grassley press release makes it clear that the dossier was not included in its entirety, so it was certainly summarized to some degree).

Again, I was sort of hoping that since you're more plugged into conservative discussions about this issue, you might have some insight into what might be the alleged lie justifying the indictments. The article you linked to talks about a number of grievances conservatives have with Comey, but isn't really pointing out any actual lies he told Congress. Has anyone actually come out and speculated on what the false statement(s) actually are?

But....those statements are true. The dossier materials were put in an annex to the ICA.

Heh. I knew this would come down to the definition of “included”.

Again, I was sort of hoping that since you're more plugged into conservative discussions about this issue, you might have some insight into what might be the alleged lie justifying the indictments. The article you linked to talks

In conservative circles we’re wondering why he isn’t in prison already along with Brennan, Clapper and others.

Heh. I knew this would come down to the definition of “included”.

But it doesn't. The definition of "included" is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether his statements are true or false.

Comey made two statements on this point to Congress:

1 - "I remember being told that the group's view was it was significant enough and consistent enough with other intelligence that it ought to be included, but it wasn't sufficiently corroborated to be in the body of the intelligence community assessment."

2 - "So they put a brief summary of it in an annex."

Statement number 2 is true or opinion. A summary of the dossier was put in an annex, and whether that was "brief" or not is opinion, and therefore cannot support a perjury charge.

Statement number 1 does not depend at all on what "included" means, because he is not making any statement about what was actually put into the body of the ICA. What he says is that he "remember[s] being told" that other people had a view that it wasn't sufficiently corroborated to be in the body of the ICA. He's not making a statement that it was or was not "included" in the body of the ICA. He's saying he was told that people believed that it wasn't corroborated enough to be in the body of the ICA.

There's no way they can ever prove that statement was false. The truth or falsity of the statement is not contingent on whether the dossier was or was not "included" in the body of the ICA, because he didn't say whether it was "included" in the body or not. He only said that he remembers being told that other people believed it wasn't sufficiently corroborated enough to be included in the body of the ICA. To demonstrate that this statement was false, they'd have to prove that no other person ever told him that. That no person ever communicated to him that other people believed those things.

Actually, it's even worse - because his statement was prefaced with "I remember being told" those things, which makes it almost impossible for his statement to be falsified. Because people can remember things incorrectly. He never asserted to Congress that he actually was told these things, just that he remembered being told those things. There's no way that a prosecutor can prove that he was lying when he said that, because the truth of the statement depends on his memory - not whether the conversation actually happened.

In conservative circles we’re wondering why he isn’t in prison already along with Brennan, Clapper and others.

Because there isn't evidence that can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed acts that constitute all of the elements of a crime under the criminal code.

It's the same reason why so few people went to jail for causing the subprime crisis leading to the Great Recession. You can't just jail someone because they did a bad thing. You have to prove they committed all the constituent elements of an actual, defined crime. Many bad acts either aren't criminal, or are almost impossible to prove in the context of a white collar/non-violent crime.

Because there isn't evidence that can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed acts that constitute all of the elements of a crime under the criminal code.

But we live under a fascist Nazi Hitler regime that politically punishes its enemies.

So why haven’t we locked them up already? Why are you talking about due process and all that when we live under the nailed fist of Donald Trump?

This board can’t have it both ways.

In conservative circles we’re wondering why he isn’t in prison already along with Brennan, Clapper and others. </it's ai>

Albaby explained it - you have to prove the criminal elements. And you don't do that by reading The Federalist, believing whatever is written there, and then standing back thinking you know and others don't. You ran into the conspiracy theory by reading from a bad source.

Albaby explained it - you have to prove the criminal elements

No I don’t. Because according to the ravingly dumb elements of this board - which is most of you - we live in a fascist totalitarian state under the mailed fist of Emperor Trump.

So why do we need evidence? Or any of that icky due process stuff?

Or maybe you’d care to walk back some the stupider…conspiracy theories..that the Namenda-prescribed folks in this board vomit forth on the daily?

So why haven’t we locked them up already?

Because even the Nazis did legal discrimination and disenfranchisement at first. Later you strip them of civil liberties and imprison them.

Albaby explained it - you have to prove the criminal elements.

Let me rewrite that so it may be understood better.

The elements of a crime have to be proven in court and a guilty verdict rendered for Comey, Brennan, and Clapper to be imprisoned.

Because even the Nazis did legal discrimination and disenfranchisement at first. Later you strip them of civil liberties and imprison them.

Ohhhhhhh I see. We haven’t reached Peak Nazi yet. Is that it?

We have be “saved” by the likes of liberals, amirite? So you people can get back on your merry way of doing the things you’re accusing Trump of?

So why haven’t we locked them up already? Why are you talking about due process and all that when we live under the nailed fist of Donald Trump?

I think that most folks on this board are concerned that we are moving towards fascism - not that we are presently living in a totalitarian state. And that actions like firing a prosecutor who refuses to prosecute someone when there isn't evidence of an actual crime, and replacing that prosecutor with a compliant neophyte who is unconcerned with any professional responsibility in exercising that office, is a terrible step on the road to actually implementing a fascist society.

ME: Because even the Nazis did legal discrimination and disenfranchisement at first. Later you strip them of civil liberties and imprison them.

Dope: Ohhhhhhh I see. We haven’t reached Peak Nazi yet. Is that it?

We have be “saved” by the likes of liberals, amirite?

No, historical accuracy. As I've said before - it's like rabies, once you have conclusive symptoms of rabies - you've got to hope you are one of the very rare cases that survive rabies when it goes that far. It's usually 100% fatal at that stage.

If everything goes right we'll get past this and you'll still be thinking there wasn't a chance of anything happening and that it was all overblown. I'd prefer you think that than have y'all go full Nazi on us.

think that most folks on this board are concerned that we are moving towards fascism - not that we are presently living in a totalitarian state

Riiight. We haven’t hit peak Nazi yet.

No, historical accuracy. As I've said before - it's like rabies, once you have conclusive symptoms of rabies - you've got to hope you are one of the very rare cases that survive rabies when it goes that far. It's usually 100% fatal at that stage.

And what do we do with rabid animals - we put them down, amirite?

Thanks for taking the mask off. You needn’t put it on again.

Riiight. We haven’t hit peak Nazi yet.

I don't understand your resistance to the idea that people are concerned that the Administration is trying to make the country more authoritarian but hasn't gotten us there yet.

This is not a new concept, nor limited to the left. Conservatives have constantly expressed concern that liberals were taking us towards a much less free society, worried about the slippery slope that comes with the initial adoption of things like gun restrictions or speech codes. For example, conservatives object to programs that abrogate the free market as "socialist" and argue that they represent a trend towards socialism - without making the claim that the U.S. is presently a socialist country whenever the Democrats happen to win some elections.

You don't have to say that the country is presently a completely authoritarian state to express concern that this is the direction that the Administration is taking us.

But to return to the conversation...is there anything else, other than the WSJ leak and this reference to the Steele Dossier in the ICA, that conservative news are suggesting are actual lies by Comey? Because again, I can't see how they can possibly expect to get a conviction on these charges - and I think they might even have a hard time convincing a judge that they've got enough to even get to a trial in the first place on those statements.

And what do we do with rabid animals - we put them down, amirite?

Why would you think of a human getting rabies as a rabid animal? No, we attempt a cure and make them as comfortable as we can as they take their chance. But there's a 99% chance they'll die.

So we tell people if they get bit to get to a doctor and get the shots. You have 3 days.

The analogy may be a little abstract. We can't wait for you to go full Nazi on us before we sound the alarm and organize. We have to fight fire with fire.

I don't understand your resistance to the idea that people are concerned that the Administration is trying to make the country more authoritarian but hasn't gotten us there yet.

Because
1. The same clowns said the same thing things about Bush43
2. I’m sure they believe lots of things that are equally ridiculous. This is just one more to add to the list.

There are those that believe we never landed on the moon. And those who think that airplanes spray chemicals out of their engines for some reason.

The nonsense spouted by these people is performative, nothing more.

No, the Steele dossier was not the basis for the Russia investigation, also known as Russiagate
. The investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016, two months before the FBI team received the dossier."

You’ve neglected to account for time travel.

No I don’t. Because according to the ravingly dumb elements of this board - which is most of you - we live in a fascist totalitarian state under the mailed fist of Emperor Trump.

He’s working on that- actually moving faster than Hitler did.

But he doesn’t have it locked down yet. Give him time.

We have be “saved” by the likes of liberals, amirite?

In Dopetalk, translate amirite as “I’m full of shite”

There's no way they can ever prove that statement was false.

The three NPCs are programmed to claim "that statement was", then "IT IS A CRIME !!" NPCs can not make judgments. They can only say what they have been given to say.

They are bad comedy, but that is the definition of how the right malfunctions.

In Dopetalk, translate amirite as “I’m full of shite”

Says the people screaming NaziHitlerFascist…just like they were during Bush43.

You people are nothing if unoriginal.

He never asserted to Congress that he actually was told these things, just that he remembered being told those things. There's no way that a prosecutor can prove that he was lying when he said that, because the truth of the statement depends on his memory - not whether the conversation actually happened.

----------------


This manner of phrasing in common and instinctive among political weasels.

Trump Gets the Retribution He Sought, and Shatters Justice Dept. Norms

How is FOX 'news' covering this?

In Dopetalk, translate amirite as “I’m full of shite”

Rite you are!

This manner of phrasing in common and instinctive among political weasels.

Sometimes. Trump's version of it is "many people are saying." That lets him add whatever he wants, and never be legally on the hook for making a false statement. He came about that instinctive habit from his real estate days (a profession that's just as filled with weasels) and not politics, of course. But it's the same sort of thing.

However, this also simply how people are advised to respond when testifying under oath. I haven't done a ton of witness prep in my practice, but I've been to a few. It's pretty standard. You teach the witness the proper way to answer a question. You get asked whether X is true. If you know X is true, say X is true. If you think you know X is true, don't say X is true - say that you think X is true. If you were told X is true, don't say X is true - say that you were told X is true. Etc.

It's not always weaselly. It's just making sure that when you answer questions, you are not merely accurate about the substance of your response, but also that you are precise about your degree of certainty or whether you know it firsthand or secondhand. The witness isn't just protecting themselves, either from perjury or being torn up on cross. They're also being more candid and truthful if they clarify whether they know, think they know, believe they know, they were told about, or they remember but aren't quite sure about some fact.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.