August 11th – 2020 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #1300

In an effort to keep the Daily Open Thread a little more open topic we are going to start a new daily thread for “Presidential Politics”. Please use this thread to post anything relating to the Donald Trump Administration and Presidency.


This thread will refresh daily and appear above the Open Discussion Thread.

President Trump Twitter @POTUS / Vice President Pence Twitter @VP

Kayleigh McEnany Twitter @PressSec

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,119 Responses to August 11th – 2020 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #1300

  1. CopperTop says:

    Wall has just finished said he’s had it with the hypotheticals as they are not even close to what is going on here.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Eric C. says:

      I listened to a little bit of it, I’ve never really listened to these type arguments before, let’s just say I’m so glad I did not act on my thought of going to law school. I could not be around these types (judges/attorneys) all day. They are all biased, period. There is no blind justice.

      I’d probably lose if I were Wall, because I would say: “Judge, let me give you a hypothetical: A black man is arrested and screwed over by prosecutors. An independent review is done and another prosecutors shows that he was screwed over a moves to dismiss, unopposed obviously, the charges. The white judge says, no, even though I’ve properly denied all other amicus requests, I will appoint my own and prosecute this man”

      Do you think that example would go anywhere? It’d be the talk of the town and the white judge would be doxed and his resignation demanded, but hey this is someone who can bring down Obama so whatever can be done must. Replace the black/white dynamic with any alleged victim/oppressor and that’s what these far left liberal justices will do if it advances/protects Obama’s agenda.

      I have hop they’ll do right, but who knows.

      As soon as Sullivan asked for the en banc, the Court should’ve reversed on the recusal and reassigned. Period. He has entered himself as a party and there is no longer any perception of bias.

      Liked by 6 people

    • JAS says:

      After her first appearance I started to count how many time Judge Mullet (Millet) interrupted Wall. I lost count at 29 times right towards the end because her interruptions were coming every few seconds.

      Winning an argument by interrupting and not letting the other side speak. Sound familiar??

      Liked by 9 people

      • weather257 says:

        My brother-in-law? Belligerent, foul-mouthed! They yell the bullet points they’ve memorized but have no comprehension of, thinking they can bully their way to winning the discussion.


    • WSB says:

      I’ve been listening to this sham since 10:20. What a waste of time and money!!!!

      Sidney Powells’ summation nailed it!

      Liked by 2 people

      • WSB:
        It was indeed a frustrating 3 hours plus, but I heard every word.
        To give others a feel for the nature of this legal brawl, and how uncertain the outcome will be, please consider:
        1. The majority of judges were dogged, nearly to a man (and to a woman), in their attempt to allow Judge Sullivan that FINAL HEARING where he can FINALLY rule on the motion to dismiss.

        2. Magnificent arguments by Sidney Powell on behalf of Flynn, and by Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall on behalf of DOJ were JUST AS OVERPOWERING AS THE JUDGES’S DESIRE to send the case back to Sullivan.

        3. Attorney Beth Wilkinson, representing Judge Sullivan, was not convincing at all, and was reduced to merely stating that Judge Sullivan has the right to dismiss these charges himself before a writ of mandamus is issued, actually denying that Sullivan had any desire to probe DOJ motives for dismissal, in spite of the latter’s expressly-stated desire to do so.

        4. In a very close case, my bet would be in favor of petitioner Michael Flynn to have this case REASSIGNED (due to Sullivan bias) to another judge who will immediately dismiss.

        5. My general impression is that the will of the full en banc Appellate Court was finally ground down by the very, very reluctant realization that Sullivan is, indeed, a problem child, that he already took steps that can only disqualify him as a free, neutral judge in this matter.

        Also, the brilliant judge Rao asked toward the end whether Sullivan could continue to schedule hearing- after- hearing- after- hearing and still claim he has the right to make a final ruling before any mandamus could legally be granted, and his lawyer could only assure the court that Sullivan would dutifully agree to dismiss after Sullivan had his opportunity to hear arguments from counsel. Attorney Wilkinson could not however answer this very relevant question.

        Liked by 6 people

        • weather257 says:

          Excellent! Thank you!!

          Liked by 2 people

        • Issy says:

          Donald: I guess I don’t understand what the hearing Sullivan wants to have would entail. Will he still have the amicus briefs to prosecute Flynn? Will the doj be questioned as to why they want to dismiss? I thought they presented that in their brief. Will Barr be accused of taking a bribe like Flynn was accused of treason? 🙂 There is no telling what Sullivan will do. Why does the D.C. appellant court want to risk this? Scratch that question, they don’t care about integrity only power.


          • Sullivan wants the case to return to the moment before Sidney Powell filed her motion for the writ of mandamus, which the Appellate panel first agreed to, but Sullivan, acting as litigant, requested a full en banc hearing.
            Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall (quite excellent) provided the DOJ’s legal arguments for the writ.
            If I had to bet money, it would be that the Appellate Court grants the motion for mandamus, and reassigns the case to another judge.

            The simplicity of it is that these judges, without a break, asked questions for three hours PLUS WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST HINT OF FATIGUE. That shows a real commitment to reconcile their views with the law and precedent.

            They hammered away, always from the same notion that the case should return to Sullivan for his final ruling. It may just be a hunch, but I feel they exhausted all their possible scenarios, justifications etc, for why this case had to return to the District Court (Sullivan); however, by the end, I felt that they also realized there was no way humanly possible, consistent with the facts, precedents etc. to not grant Powell’s motion for mandamus AND REASSIGNMENT.
            JUST A HUNCH!

            Liked by 1 person

            • Issy says:

              Thanks Donald. I listened to it all and was distressed that while everyone seems to agree the case should be dismissed, they want to philosophize a fine legal point to death about process to accomodate Sullivan, with no concern for the real victim here, Flynn.

              I pray you are right.

              Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          I agree with absolutely every one of your points. That is why I hung on til the end.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. CopperTop says:

    Wilkinson up: Speculation of what a court intends to do before hearing isn’t allowed [Wall wrong if speculation makes a spectacle of co-equal branch] Sullivan didn’t make himself a party to the case [Sydney wrong he did]

    Judges up.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. snarkybeach says:

    Twitter is outing Sundance’s name. Some of my followers are upset by his threat to name the Durham investigator is wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sporty says:

      Tell your followers that we are upset the Treasonous bastards tried to overthrow our Govt.

      Liked by 27 people

    • Brian Baker says:

      So your followers are upset that SD in an effort for transparency and accountability is going to go public with the Durham government investigator, who has yet to bring a single indictment against the coup plotters, so they are going to go public with SD’s name. Well that’s some messed up logic, but whatever.

      Liked by 8 people

    • jeans2nd says:

      Sundance’s name is known. This is not Sundance’s first dance.
      So some of your followers are upset. They’ll get over it. Do they intend to try to stop Sundance? If so, how, exactly?
      Sundance is protected by Our Lord, Who gives Sundance what he needs to survive all of this.
      Would that the rest of us had that much Faith in Our Lord.

      Liked by 16 people

    • dawg says:

      I have a question. What is naming Durhams investigator publicly going to achieve? Im not saying im necessarily for it or against it, but what is that gonna do to help expose anything? I mean, so what? Now we will just know the name of another hack in the DOJ not willing to do anything, right? What am I missing?

      Liked by 5 people

    • Robert Smith says:

      Because government in secrecy works so well!

      Liked by 3 people

    • Cam Heck says:

      Oh yes, Twitterverse will go on the offensive for sure. We are not only over the target, but the first ones ever to locked on it, loaded and also counting down the days to action. They will work OT now to discredit us all, but of course will not be able to discredit the truth when it is released in its entirety- for the first time ever. They and theirs will then move into ‘punishment’ mode, and it will become a race to rally troops- ours vs theirs. Sundance has to be aware that this move literally makes him THE target, and would have protection and “insurance” in place. Safe Journey Treepers, as we embark on our vital but perilous mission.

      Liked by 6 people

      • dawg says:

        “….this move…”

        What move? Revealing the name of Durham’s investigator? Sundance said its not a name that even we would recognize. So why would revealing that name result in any significant action, progress, etc…

        Im just trying to understand.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ConcernedALMom says:

          Perhaps “outing” someone who has been willing to help with honest investigation regarding what has gone on for past 3.5years but is perceived amongst DC power players as one of their own. A couple of weeks ago Sundance references a serendipitous meeting, about time he talked about coffee shop, and mentioned “they” tipped off their significance inadvertently in answer to question. Sort of an “oh $@;$ moment.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Free Speech says:

          Know how Tim Fitton, Joe DiGenova and others have been saying, at first Huber, and now Durham haven’t interviewed anyone? That’s because this person has been interviewing suspects. Having an unknown talk to people keeps that investigation out of the public eye. Once you know who’s really doing the interviewing, you can go after trying to find out who has actually been interviewed.

          What’s the purpose? Sunlight. If you’ve talked to u, v, w, x, y, and z, why haven’t there been any results after a year? You obviously know something, just won’t ACT.

          Liked by 1 person

          • dawg says:

            So by revealing the name of Durhams investigator, the public will be able to pressure them into acting?

            Not buying it. That doesnt make sense. Thats nothing new. There’s got to be another angle.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Cam Heck says:

          Nooo, the reveal of his information package which we will assist on the dissemination of .


      • Auntie Anxiety says:

        Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.
        T. S. Eliot

        It’s past time for us to rock & roll.

        Liked by 4 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      Tell those ‘upset’ twitter followers that #WE KNOW and WE ARE ABOUT TO TELL ALL and we could care less if they are upset.

      You’re barking up the wrong tree to being that whining here. Just saying….

      Liked by 1 person

  4. CopperTop says:

    Srinivasan: In re: Coequal branch can be questioned by the court but doesn’t the coequal branch just get to say no and if there is something ruled against govt. as a result of saying no is the remedy appeal and petition for mandamus appropriate only then.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. redhotrugmama says:

    My goodness our country is in trouble when our judges become politicians!

    Liked by 10 people

    • TJ says:

      “Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

      “The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments.”
      –Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341

      Liked by 5 people

  6. berniekopell says:

    Wilkenson now up. Mandamus not appropriate when the judge has not yet ruled on motion to dismiss.There are adequate means of relief here. Says Suspicious Sullivan is not a party. Does not have to recuse. Shortest opening statement of the three.

    Srinivasan – what could a judge do at a Rule 48 hearing to warrant mandamus? BW – try to question the Attorney General. Asks her to reconcile Cheney. BW claims because there was a discovery order, that makes the case different.

    Henderson – no questions.

    Rogers – asks about the Cheney case. BW claims that holding of that case is narrow. Rogers asks hasn’t Suspicious Sullivan hinted that his process is going beyond the norm? BW argues that Suspicious Sullivan has not “signalled” what he is going to do. He may not do what Gleeson has asked him to do.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. CopperTop says:

    Okay lost on CHENEY citations. Look forward to others comments on this…

    Liked by 1 person

  8. CopperTop says:

    Tatel: Can a judge deny a rule 48?

    Wilinson: Limited.

    Tatel: Well okay what then happens

    Wilkinson: Then the govt is no longer in the case it moves to sentencing….

    BINGO That’s what Sullivan is after. But Wilkinson said there would have to be an appeal for mandamus…
    Kill all the…/sarc

    Liked by 4 people

  9. burnett044 says:

    interesting….in Hollywood

    Liked by 3 people

  10. barnabusduke says:

    Wow! Big Brother cut them off of Meeting!

    Liked by 2 people

  11. burnett044 says:

    Listening to the judges on the FLynn hearing…is much like getting a root canal…

    Liked by 8 people

  12. berniekopell says:

    Tatel – lets assume the judge has a role and some discretion to deny the motion, then what happens? BW – Suspicious Sullivan would go on to sentencing, then there would be an appeal. Tatel persists: Then what happens when we get the appeal (of the denial of the motion)? BW concedes Suspiscious Sullivan is on shaky ground, would probably get reversed is she “reads the tea leaves correctly.” Boom!!

    So what is the point then, asks Tatel, of not granting mandamus now (if an appeal gets us to the same place)? BW goes back to arguing mandamus still premature. No more questions from Tatel. This is a significant exchange.

    Garland up now now. Throws a few softballs. BW says this will not be a circus. Garland quotes form the briefs as to what Gleeson might do on terms of inquiries. Are these things that Gleeson wants to do going to happen or not?

    Griffith now sees an opening. Why don’t you forecast what Suspicious Sullivan will do at the hearing? BW claims it will be a very limited inquiry. He then asks what is the scope of the “leave of court requirement?” BW says look at the history of the rule. Claims that protecting the public interest is one purpose and “favoritism” in dismissing is a factor.

    Court feed fails (technical problem). Wilkerson get dropped. Freudenschade?

    Liked by 4 people

  13. truenorthseeker says:

    Technical difficulties? Hmmm.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. truenorthseeker says:

    Technical difficulties? Hmmm.


  15. CopperTop says:

    9:29 PST Comic relief intermission after BW dropped from ‘call’ : JUDGES JUDGES HOT MIC HOT MIC still live for you all on conference

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Patriot1783 says:

    DC Circuit Court of Appeals case re Sullivan & Flynn case live on C-Span now.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. sync says:


  18. jay says:

    This hearing, this entire proceeding is a set up. If the government refuses to present witness, refuses to answer Sullivan questions….it creates appearance of impropriety. The Media will run with this appearance.

    Liked by 6 people

  19. sunnydaze says:

    Apparently, Cuomo believes he can speak for every person on the planet.

    The All-Knowing Gov. Cuomo of N.Y.:

    Liked by 2 people

  20. sunnydaze says:

    Violent crowd prevents NYC cops from getting to 11 YO girl who needs help in Harlem:


  21. CopperTop says:

    Millett: Bill of Rights issues…for custodial restrictions on Flynn this is taking too long…why is this case as fast as possible.

    Hooray for her!!!!

    Liked by 3 people

  22. berniekopell says:

    Feed Lost Judge Millet.

    Rao now up. Asks what the alternative remedy is if we deny mandamus. BW – deny mandamus and let Suspicious Sullivan grant the motion. Rao persists – so he denies the motion, then what? BW – there will be an appeal. Rao asks – what if there is a postponement, not a denial? Is the right being remedied? Wouldn’t mandamus be appropriate then? BW – probably.Rao – what if he asks for a full blown, fact intensive hearing? Would mandamus be appropriate then? BW – Suspicious Sullivan should rule first. She presumes he will follow the law.

    Millet now asks the tough question – what is Suspicious Sullivan schedules an evidentiary hearing? to examine the government’s decision? Can Suspicious Sullivan do that? BW waffling now. Says he might not do that. Wrong says Millet. His minute order says there may be an evidentiary hearing. BW – claims the government can refuse to answer questions. Millet – Cheney case says the government is harmed by that, doesn’t it?

    Millet hypothetical. A good one. Government finds DNA evidence exonerating a defendant, moves to dismiss. Defendant is incarcerated. Shouldn’t the judge dismiss immediately? BW on her heels now. BW – Says judge should act “as fast as possible.” Well well, says Millet, trial judge here is not moving fast at all. Seven weeks to decide a simple motion to dismiss? Flynn is not confined, but harmed nonetheless.

    Liked by 8 people

  23. beach lover says:

    who were the 3 judges in the first appeal? They are part of this full body right? sorry.. layman here


  24. berniekopell says:

    Wilkins asks one question about public interest scope of Rule 48.

    Rao up now. What is the judge’s interest in continuing to refuse to grant the motion to dismiss? BW – rehearing is to protect the process and the mandamus standard. Rao – so a district judge has a right to litigate? Is he a free wheeling amicus? Isn’t he a party now? BW says not a party because he was asked to respond. No says Rao. He sought rehearing himself. No one asked him to do that. what is he seeing to vindicate? BW – seems to claim that the judge is not a litigant. He is just suggesting that the 10 of you decide if mandamus is appropriate.

    Rao brings up the presumption of regularity. How does the motion here not meet that presumption? BW – presumption does not have to be accepted. There is just a hearing” here. Rao disagrees. Much greater scrutiny is contemplated here. BW – claims she made an error in the briefing as to the scope of the hearing. Says government may ignore improper questioning.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Heavy Mecha says:

    I passed the April 26 2017 Collyer report to my co-workers. Most are cool biker dudes, but one never really knows. I so hope I have a job after all this. But there really is no going back after all I read. Just compelled to print and pass out as many copies as I can of page 86-87 of the Collyer report (footnotes 68&69 highlighted).

    Just Google Search: April 26 2017 Collyer

    to print out your own copy.

    On the flip side, on the daily road trip to work I see more and more Trump signs every week. Have not seen a single Biden sign.

    Thank you Sundance!

    Liked by 6 people

  26. Patriot1783 says:

    Who is paying for Beth’s Wilkinson legal services for Judge Sullivan ?

    Follow the money, bet it would lead to conflict of interest.

    Liked by 4 people

  27. jay says:

    The Court does not trust the DOJ.
    The DOJ does not trust the Court.
    Each asserts they are expected to follow the law and will follow the law.
    What we have here is a public pissing match.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. dawg says:

    Has anybody thought about the fact that if the country weren’t shutdown, these kids would have something to do other than loot, riot and vandalize?

    Im not saying thats an excuse, Im saying these types of people would be going to bars and smoking weed while watching sports, going to concerts, etc, etc…. Some of them would even be, I dont know, maybe, IN SCHOOL?

    Could it be?

    “Pandemic”—>shutdown—->video of an arrest of a black man who happened to die from massive fentanyl overdose——> nationwide riots

    No Im not a conspiracy theorist but I did take the Red Pill a few years ago.

    Liked by 6 people

  29. Patriot1783 says:

    Judge Henderson giving it pretty good to Wilkinson re her invoking “rule 35”
    which claimed Sullivan is a party and afterward saying Sullivan is not a “party” …can’t have it both ways.
    Henderson nailed her points well.

    Liked by 5 people

  30. sync says:

    CBS News Feature About Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College Nominated for Emmy Award

    Liked by 2 people

    • cheering4america says:

      This saga has broken my heart from the beginning, every stage of the incident, the smear of the family and its 100+ year bakery, the trial, and the post-trial shenanigans (some still going on) have been a stark reminder of why

      We can’t have nice things anymore. (Think Chicago, Seattle, Portland, DC …)

      Surprised but gratified that Ted Koppel actually committed an accidental act of true journalism.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. sunnyflower5 says:

    Your computer can catch a virus 🤣😂🤣😂

    Liked by 5 people

    • dawg says:

      I knew it. I knew this S#!T was coming.

      Watching sporting events where the camera wont show public people if they arent distancing or wearing a mask and immediately pan away.


      Liked by 3 people

    • TJ says:

      “Do I take my mask off at home? No, I’m not suicidal.”

      People that wear a mask in their car

      Liked by 1 person

    • Robert Smith says:

      Employees need masks even for at-home Zoom calls, Wisconsin agency says. Here’s why
      AUGUST 10, 2020 06:32 PM
      “…Some Wisconsin state officials aren’t fooling around when it comes to the spread of COVID-19.
      In an email to employees sent out on July 31, the head of Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources not only reminded employees of Gov. Tony Evers’ mask order going into effect on Aug. 1, he also said that every DNR employee must wear a mask … even while on a teleconference.
      “Also, wear your mask, even if you are home, to participate in a virtual meeting that involves being seen — such as on Zoom or another video-conferencing platform — by non-DNR staff,” Preston Cole said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Set the safety example which shows you as a DNR public service employee care about the safety and health of others.”
      Evers’ executive order said that face coverings are required to be worn whenever a person is in an enclosed space — other than a private residence….”

      Liked by 1 person

  32. sunnydaze says:

    Liked by 9 people

  33. sync says:

    Haven’t been to a target or shopped on line at their website ever since they decided grown men could use their bathroom while young girls are inside..\

    Special racial identification badges

    ””Following the Black Lives Matter riots, major retail chain Target announced it will, “implement icons online to help our guests find and support Black-owned brands and founders when they shop online.”

    Liked by 3 people

  34. TJ says:

    President Trump On A SCOTUS Vacancy, China, College Football, Joe Biden’s VP And More
    (a lot more, like Obamagate)

    [audio src="" /]

    Liked by 2 people

    • Robert Smith says:

      A teaser portion that stood out to me.

      Hewitt: “..Is it outside of the FBI, Mr President .. did it get into the intelligence community?”

      Trump: “…it’s into every community… This thing was prevalent. It was all over the place and it was a disgrace. They spied on our campaign. They tried to take me down both before and after the election…They wrote a fake dossier…”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Robert Smith says:

        Trump: “…And by the way John McCain tried, they all tried…John McCain, you’re supposed to think wonderful things about John McCain, but they brought it to John McCain…”

        Liked by 1 person

  35. berniekopell says:

    Tatel – what would be permissible inquiry/questioning at a hearing held by Suspicious Sullivan? BW does not answer the question. Again claims that we have to wait to see what the judge does. Might be some fact finding, says BW but would be a “thin reed.”

    Millet returns to DNA hypothetical. Flynn’s liberty is being harmed by this delay, right? BW claims that governmental restraints on Flynn are not that bad. Millet does not buy it. BW then pivots to Flynn never seeking reconsideration.

    No further Qs for Wilkenson.

    2 minutes of uninterrupted rebuttal.

    Super Sidney hammers home how Flynn is harmed, how out of bounds Suspicious Sullivan is. Imperative that this court “restore the rule of law.” Runs out of time but keeps talking.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. beach lover says:

    go get em Sidney!

    Liked by 4 people

  37. Patriot1783 says:

    Sydney Powell back on to rebut.

    “Time to restore the rule of law.”

    Liked by 5 people

  38. Blind no Longer says:

    GO Sidney!!! Finally some common sense and the actual facts about the person involved, whose life has been turned upside down for 4 years!!!!!! He deserves justice and NOT some damn court exercise in bullshit theory!!!!!!!
    Rant off.

    Liked by 12 people

  39. JAS says:

    The Flynn hearing just concluded. Did I just hear right at the end when the gavel was struck that they wont be back in session until December 9????

    Liked by 2 people

  40. Og Oggilby says:

    Audio of Flynn rehearing available. Sydney Powell’s two-minute rebuttal at 3:43:15….

    Liked by 2 people

  41. berniekopell says:

    Wall with great analogy. “Rope a dope” by BW / Suspicious Sullivan. Points out shifting positions before the panels. First he argued that he had a role and was going to do certain things, take evidence, go on fact finding, question the DOJ, etc., now he says its just a simple hearing.

    Case taken under submission.

    [End of live reporting].

    Liked by 5 people

  42. lfhbrave says:

    Thank you for all of you keeping me informed of what was going on at the Flynn hearing -. Appreciate it.

    Liked by 10 people

  43. Mortimer says:

    Disgusting how these liberal judges are willing to use hypotheticals to lay the talking points groundwork ….. suggesting Trump somehow forced or bribed the DOJ to let Flynn off.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. Hezzy says:

    EVERYONE: Thanks for the blow by blow on the hearing. I would have never been able to follow the proceedings without your work. FANTASTIC JOB!!!!!!

    Liked by 9 people

  45. Summer says:

    Liked by 14 people

  46. sunnyflower5 says:

    No wonder Nutty Nancy was hanging out in SF’s Chinatown in the end of February telling people it was safe to shop and dine……Dr. fauci and Nancy are old pals.

    Joe Promises to keep Fauci on.
    Let us know when Fauci sends you a love letter like Hillary

    Why would Fauci be against closing our border/ flights to China? Why was Fauci saying no masks were necessary during the highest peak of the China Virus attack?

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    Quote of the Orals:

    The straight laced, by the lawbook, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall’s rebuttal:

    “Your Honors……we’ve all been ROPE-A-DOPED.”

    Liked by 1 person

  48. mot2grls says:

    Wow! This is such a smart discussion by these intelligent priests. They are so knowledgeable about what’s going on in the world. I can’t wait for Part 2. This is well worth the 65 minutes to listen:


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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