Nasleep Presidentsverkiezingen VS #94 - troempaloempa!

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 februari 2022 23:12 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Dat neemt Trump alleen maar aan? Dat is geen toestemming zeker niet als hij er bij zegt: "I don't even wait."

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 februari 2022 23:12 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Dat neemt Trump alleen maar aan? Dat is geen toestemming zeker niet als hij er bij zegt: "I don't even wait."

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 februari 2022 23:16 schreef HeatWave het volgende:

[..]
[..]
Helemaal prima, er is wat voor beiden kampen te zeggen.

Waarom hebben we er dan jaren een enorm punt van gemaakt maar is nu het neuken van dieren iets waar we het niet over mogen hebben?

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 februari 2022 23:22 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Van mij mag je het overal over hebben maar ik heb niet de indruk dat deze man het neuken van dieren propageert of zo? Geef anders eens een bron. Bij dieren geldt in wezen hetzelfde als bij kinderen: zodra er een machtsverschil is wordt het een heel ander verhaal. En in wezen is dat bij Trump ook het geval.

quote:

The new Biden hire went on to defend bestiality and argued that such practices should be normalized. “One of the hardest things about being a handler is that I’ve honestly had people ask, ‘Wait, you have sex with animals?’” Brinton said. “They believe it’s abusive, that it’s taking advantage of someone who may not be acting up to a level of human responsibility… The other misperception is that I have some really messed up background, like, did I have some horrible childhood trauma that made me like to have sex with animals.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 februari 2022 23:26 schreef HeatWave het volgende:

[..]
[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 februari 2022 23:29 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Maar dat gaat toch over het role playen

(De anderen verkleden zich als puppy's)

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 februari 2022 23:50 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Mensen fantaseren over zoveel dingen maar het propageren van het in de praktijk brengen ervan is toch wel even heel wat anders. Hij vertelt gewoon zijn verhaal waar hij niemand kwaad mee doet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 februari 2022 23:58 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]
E Jean Carroll is het daar niet mee eens. Net als een aantal andere vrouwen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 00:02 schreef HeatWave het volgende:

[..]
Tara Reade hoor je ook niet zo veel meer over, maar als het over Trump gaat nemen we het als 100% waar aan, want orangemanbad.

Draai er allemaal maar omheen, in mijn ogen is een sex pervert niet meteen de ideale kandidaat voor een hoge positie in een regering, maar daar mag iedereen het uiteraard prima mee oneens zijn. Maar kom vanaf nu dan niet meer met het pussy grab ding aan zetten aub.

quote:

Former deputy attorney general Monique Miles also espoused unfounded conspiracy theories about voter fraud and election interference in more than a dozen Facebook comments that spanned months. Four people who interacted with Miles on Facebook confirmed the authenticity of the posts.

Victoria LaCivita, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Jason S. Miyares, said the office had been unaware of the Facebook posts before The Washington Post, which obtained screenshots of the posts, shared them on Thursday morning.

"This information was unknown to the Office of the Attorney General prior to this morning," LaCivita said in a statement. "Ms. Miles has resigned from her position at the Office of the Attorney General."

"The Attorney General has been very clear -- Joe Biden won the election and he has condemned the January 6th attacks," LaCivita said.

In an email to The Post, Miles called the revelation of the Facebook posts a "character assassination to stir up controversy" and wrote that "some liberals have their daggers out for black conservative females."

"The posts were made at a time when the news was still developing re: the facts around the election, the court cases, the Rally on the Ellipse and what happened at the capitol," Miles said in the email. "That was before all the audits occurred. These posts have been taken out of context."

She added: "What we know now about the election today is very different from what we knew on Election Day 2020 or even what we knew on the day that President Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. I believe he is our president as he was certified as such."

Miles wrote the Capitol attack was being carried out by "patriots" on the afternoon of Jan. 6, a couple of hours after the assault began and after a riot was declared.

"News Flash: Patriots have stormed the Capitol. No surprise. The deep state has awoken the sleeping giant," Miles wrote, according to a screenshot. "Patriots are not taking this lying down. We are awake, ready and will fight for our rights by any means necessary."

In response to someone who commented on the post, Miles wrote the riot was a "peaceful protest." She added, "Don't believe the MSM," an acronym commonly used for the mainstream media.

Miles later edited the original post to blame the violence at the Capitol on "antifa dressed as Patriots," saying the supposed false flag operation was "Typical antifa and BLM intimidation tactics." BLM is typically used to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Miles went on to write "Patriots are peace loving, Antifa and BLM are not."

In other postings in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election, Miles made baseless claims that China interfered in the election and that there was evidence of significant voter fraud in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Michigan, among others states, according to screenshots. At two points, she flatly and falsely declared Trump was the true winner of the election.

"These left wing violent loonies better realize that DJT is getting a second term," Miles wrote, referring to Trump by his initials.

En nog veel meer ...

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 01:13 schreef Ulx het volgende:
[ twitter ]

De FBI moet nu toch gewoon ingrijpen? What the fuck is dit voor een idioterie van Trump? Gewoon Mar-a-Lago binnenvallen, desnoods met een SWAT team, en die tent compleet doorzoeken.
[..]

quote:

POLITICO Playbook: Dems try a course correction in California

THE CALIFORNIA CORRECTION — Good morning from San Francisco, where we’ve spent the last few days reporting on the first big election of 2022, which happens here Tuesday.

Perhaps fittingly in a year when voters are in a throw-them-out kind of mood, it’s a recall.

For months, a nationwide parental backlash to school closings has dominated headlines and driven speculation about a brewing electoral wave for Republicans. But what’s happening in deep-blue San Francisco complicates that picture:

• Here, a liberal school board is colliding with a group of angry, just-as-liberal parents who’ve mounted a recall campaign against them.
• The city’s Democratic mayor and big media organs have endorsed the recall effort. So has state Sen. SCOTT WIENER, who is eyeing Speaker NANCY PELOSI’s congressional seat when she retires.

What’s happening in San Francisco is the clearest sign of how Democrats are recalibrating — by backing away from the party’s 2020 swing toward progressive activist views on Covid-19, race and crime.

It’s happening throughout the Golden State. Gov. GAVIN NEWSOM is lifting mask mandates. Rep. KAREN BASS, who is running for mayor of Los Angeles, called this week for a surge in funding for L.A.’s police force because residents “don’t feel safe today.” Over and over, progressive shibboleths are being dispensed with in one of the most reliably Democratic places in the country.

Which brings us back to Tuesday’s election in San Francisco. Three members of the S.F. Board of Education — GABRIELA LÓPEZ, ALISON COLLINS and FAAUUGA MOLIGA — are facing the first recalls to qualify for the ballot in the city since 1983, when the White Panthers tried to recall then-Mayor DIANNE FEINSTEIN.

This campaign was launched from the laptops of SIVA RAJ and AUTUMN LOOIJEN, two Bay Area single parents who met on Tinder during the pandemic. On one of their first dates, Raj knew he wanted to work on a project with Looijen. Instead of the usual pandemic-era activities — like, say, baking bread — they launched a recall.

It all started when they couldn’t figure out why San Francisco’s public schools remained closed while other cities were sending kids back to in-person learning. So they dialed into the city’s Board of Education meetings — and, like a lot of other parents, were annoyed at what they saw:

• A massive budget shortfall.
• An inordinate amount of time and energy spent on a plan to rename 44 school buildings, including those honoring GEORGE WASHINGTON, ABRAHAM LINCOLN and Feinstein.
• Eliminating the merit-based admissions process at Lowell High School and transforming the coveted academic destination to a lottery so that it would better reflect the diversity of the city’s overall student population.
• A two-hour debate over whether SETH BRENZEL, a father who happens to be white and gay, brought enough diversity to be allowed to join a volunteer parental advisory committee. During the discussion, the board failed to ask Brenzel a single question, then blocked his appointment.

And while it focused on those issues, the board failed to do something more fundamental: It never reopened San Francisco’s schools.

“Here’s how I explain it to people who don’t have kids,” Looijen said. “Imagine you’re in San Francisco. There’s been an earthquake. You’re out on the sidewalk in a tent because you’re not sure if your home is safe to go back to. And you’re cooking your meals on the sidewalk, you’re trying to do normal things. You’ve been there for months. Finally, your elected leaders show up and you’re like, ‘Thank God, here’s some help!’ And they say, ‘We are here to help. We’re going to change the street signs for you.’”

Ryan sat down with Raj and Looijen on Wednesday night in their Haight apartment, which also serves as the recall campaign’s headquarters. Over chicken biryani and wine, the couple spent three hours talking about the recall, progressive politics and what both national parties might learn from the results Tuesday.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 06:40 schreef OMG het volgende:
Inb4 de meest kansloze kandidaat ooit als Tulsi Gabbard waar fophomo's als Dejannn zich kapot op fappen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 11:37 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
Het ultra woke en progressieve beleid van sommige politici in Blauwe staten en steden pakt toch niet zo goed uit. Het is me ook wat met de Blauwen, ze moeten eigenlijk worden beschermd voor hun eigen radicalisme.
[..]

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 14:33 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Hannity en Fox zitten nu ineens in het Defund the Police kamp.

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 08:12 schreef QuidProJoe het volgende:

Hihi, President Trump ziet wat ook ik zie, dat de Democraten niks onder controle hebben.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 16:36 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]
Aldus de rabiaat maoistische politiehater. Je bent theedrinkende geitenwollensok die teert op de staatsruif.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 17:49 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

TRUMP WILL LOSE to Hillary in a LANDSLIDE

HILARISCH!

Wat een fantasten. Zij weten het allemaal wel.

Ze hadden het bijna goed met hun voorspelling. Bij-na. Maar net niet!

The Young Turks Election Meltdown 2016: From smug to utterly devastated.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 18:16 schreef QuidProJoe het volgende:

[..]
Hihi, datzelfde wensdenken zie je ook hier op dit forum, waar het Establishment 100% in hun eigen hoaxes en psy-ops gelooft.

Maar nu hebben ze President Trump echt hoor! Deze keer is het echt anders.

Dit is trouwens mijn favoriet:

The Young Turks Election Meltdown 2016: From smug to utterly devastated.

Zo heerlijk progressief.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 22:19 schreef QuidProJoe het volgende:
[ twitter ]

Democraten zijn de ware vijand van de Republiek.

quote:

As he did with Igor Danchenko, John Durham has raised a potential conflict as a way to air his conspiracy theories so he can jack up the frothy right. In this case, he describes an uncharged meeting at which Michael Sussmann, who no longer had anything to do with the DNC, shared an updated version of the Alfa Bank allegations with the CIA on February 9, 2017.

The Indictment further details that on February 9, 2017, the defendant provided an updated set of allegations - including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating to Trump - to a second agency of the U.S. government ("Agency-2"). The Government's evidence at trial will establish that these additional allegations relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic that Tech Executive-1 and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump's New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider. In his meeting with Agency-2, the defendant provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol ("IP") addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider ("Russian Phone Provider-1"). The defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. The Special Counsel's Office has identified no support for these allegations. Indeed, more complete DNS data that the Special Counsel's Office obtained from a company that assisted Tech Executive-1 in assembling these allegations reflects that such DNS lookups were far from rare in the United States. For example, the more complete data that Tech Executive-1 and his associates gathered - but did not provide to Agency-2 - reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Provider-1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses. Fewer than 1,000 of these lookups originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower. In addition, the more complete data assembled by Tech Executive-1 and his associates reflected that DNS lookups involving the EOP and Russian Phone Provider-1 began at least as early 2014 (i.e., during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office) - another fact which the allegations omitted.

The frothy right is very excited that, among the data that someone heavily involved in cybersecurity like Rodney Joffe would have ready access to, was data that included the White House. They seem less interested that, to disprove the allegations Sussmann presented, Durham effectively (in their frothy minds) conducted the same "spying" on EOP networks of President Obama that Durham insinuates Joffe did of Trump.

Remember: This meeting is not charged. It's not clear such a meeting with the CIA could be charged. Durham presents zero evidence Sussmann knows anything about the comparative value of this data, either.

That'll become important in a bit.

The conflicts Durham raises to justify this filing are a bit more interesting than the ones he raised with Danchenko. Latham Watkins used to represent Perkins Coie and Marc Elias in this matter, now they represent just Sussmann, and Elias will be asked to testify about instructions Sussmann got about billing records in his representation of the DNC. Latham represented the DNC. Latham represented Sussmann in December 2017 House Intelligence testimony that significantly undermines Durham's indictment (and shows that the allegations at the core of this indictment originally came from Kash Patel, who by the time of trial may be charged for his participation in helping Trump attempt a coup). Latham also provided Perkins Coie advice regarding a PR statement that, Durham admits, he's not been able to pierce the privilege of and he knows those who made the statement had no knowledge that could implicate the statement in a conspiracy. Somebody on Sussmann's team used to work at the FBI and then worked for the White House. Those are the conflicts -- more substantive than the ones Durham raised about Danchenko, but probably nothing that problematic.

Which makes the relative timing of this filing all the more interesting.

With Danchenko, Durham raised the potential conflict, first, at a status hearing less than two weeks after Stuart Sears filed a notice of appearance for Danchenko, and then again, in a filing two weeks after Sears filed, for a less pressing imagined conflict involving different lawyers in Sears' firm.

With Sussmann, Durham waited for almost five months after indicting Sussmann to raise the conflict, even though all but one element of the imagined conflict would have been immediately apparent to Durham, not least that Latham had previously represented Elias.

That doesn't seem to reflect any real burning concern about this conflict.

But, as noted, it did give Durham an excuse to float previously unreleased information that may not even come in at trial, given that it'll have to be presented as 404(b) evidence and it, in fact, as presented, undermines the claim that Sussmann was hiding his ties to Hillary from the Federal government.

If the information doesn't come in at trial, this may be Durham's only chance to jack up the frothy right with it.

And that's interesting because of the date of that CIA meeting: February 9, 2017, five years and two days before Durham filed this belated notice of a conflict.

As I keep noting, Durham is obviously trying to pull his fevered conspiracy theories into an actual charged conspiracy, one tying together the DNC, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and Hillary herself. If he succeeds, these flimsy charges (against both Sussmann and Danchenko) become stronger, but if he doesn't, he's going to have a harder time proving motive and materiality at trial.

After charging Sussmann on almost the last possible date before the statute of limitations expired for his claimed lie to the FBI, though, Durham would need something on which to hang a continuing conspiracy to be able to charge the others. One of those events could have been the PR statement issued in 2018, which Durham says is inaccurate.

Privilege logs and redacted emails obtained from Law Firm-1 in this investigation reflect that in the days before the issuance of these statements, Latham attorneys sent, received, and/or were copied on correspondence relating to the drafting and dissemination of the statements. (Much of the substance of those emails was redacted and withheld from the Special Counsel's Office pursuant to Law Firm-1's assertion of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections). Because the defendant was aware of and/or reviewed these media statements, the Government may seek to offer them as evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) or other provisions of law to establish that the defendant sought to conceal the Clinton Campaign's ties to the Russian Bank-1 allegations from the FBI and others.3

3 According to counsel for Law Firm-1, the attorneys at Law Firm-1 and Latham who participated in drafting and/or reviewing these statements were unaware at the time that the defendant had billed work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations to the Clinton Campaign.

Except, as laid out here, none of the Perkins Coie people involved in writing the statement knew how Sussmann had billed his time. And Durham hasn't found a reason to otherwise pierce the privilege claims that went into the drafting of the statement.

So that's probably not going to work to establish his continuing conspiracy.

The other event on which Durham might have hung a continuing conspiracy was that February 9 meeting. It involved updated work from Joffe, after all. And Durham claims Sussmann again deliberately hid who his client was rather than (as he now knows Sussmann did for tips from Jofffe that had nothing to do with Donald Trump) just shared a tip anonymously.

But instead of rolling out what Sussmann presented in that February 9 meeting five years and two days ago in a conspiracy indictment, Durham instead packaged it up in a filing pertaining to a potential conflict. This February 9 meeting, it appears, won't be the hook on which Durham gets to charge a conspiracy.

I'm not saying that Durham won't be able to pull together his grand conspiracy. He might next point to testimony in Congress (possibly Glenn Simpson's) to claim that there was some grand cover-up of what he imagines was an attempt to smear Donald Trump. Except, as this filing admits, Sussmann's sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee shows that when asked -- by future coup investigative subject Kash Patel -- Sussmann testified consistently with sharing this information on behalf of Joffe, which is what Sussmann's currently operative story remains. Durham did suggest he thinks he can show Sussmannn misled members of Congress because, "knowingly and intentionally misleading insofar as it failed to disclose that the defendant billed work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations to the Clinton Campaign," except (as with the alleged lie more generally) that's not what he was asked about.

By all means, John Durham, make Kash Patel a witness at your trial. Give Sussmann an opportunity to ask how Kash came to learn of this meeting in the first place, to say nothing about whether Kash has recently been involved in efforts to overthrow the US government.

Whatever Durham hopes to use to sustain the claim of a continuing conspiracy, this filing seems to concede that the lies Durham claims Sussmann told in that meeting that took place five years and a few days ago will not be charged.

Ask not for whom the statute of limitations toll, John Durham. They toll for you.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 22:19 schreef QuidProJoe het volgende:
[ twitter ]

Democraten zijn de ware vijand van de Republiek.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 23:40 schreef Ulx het volgende:
De muur is klaar.

[ twitter ]

Of zo.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 10:45 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
Die Kari Lake (kandidaat voor gouverneur in Arizona) zit ook stevig op de MAGA-train. Ze schuwt het niet om flink van zich af te bijten tegen journalisten uit de MSM.

[ instagram ]

[ instagram ]

quote:

The arguing continued for a few more moments, with Ms Lake accusing Bartlett of being one of those people who would 'make his children wear masks' before she stormed out of the room.

It is not the first time a Republican has walked out of an interview when hit with tough questions.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 februari 2022 17:49 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

TRUMP WILL LOSE to Hillary in a LANDSLIDE

HILARISCH!

Wat een fantasten. Zij weten het allemaal wel.

Ze hadden het bijna goed met hun voorspelling. Bij-na. Maar net niet!

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 06:28 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]
We zullen het maar niet over jouw voorspelling hebben dat Trump voor eind 2021 weer in het zadel gehesen zou worden.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 06:37 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
@:Ixnay begrijpt niet zo goed dat peilingen een moment-opname zijn geloof ik

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 02:24 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Een useful idiot met spijt:

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 01:43 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
Proest. Je bedoelt dat ook zij met idiote claims/ leugens kwam (net als haar Grote Oranje Leider) en dat ze lafjes wegliep uit het interview toen de vragen te moeilijk werden om vervolgens haar toevlucht te nemen tot persoonlijke aanvallen op Bartlett? 'Klasse' hoor! De 'discussie'-methodiek van het domvolk

[ twitter ]
Wonderlijk toch dat mensen die geen enkel onderbouwd argument maken, maar die wel vanuit hun volkomen onterechte overtuiging dat ze gelijk hebben een grote bek opentrekken en persoonlijk worden, zo'n aantrekkingskracht hebben op het rechts georienteerde boosvolk. Haar 'argumenten' zijn blijkbaar ook totaal ondergeschikt aan het gedrag dat ze vertoont? Dat wijzende vingertje erbij ook

Blaffen kan ze wel maar bijten doet ze absoluut niet Wat een lafhartige aftocht!

Gaat ze er ook nog eens dom bij staan lachen (een teken van onmacht trouwens net als het continue ge'hihi' hier als er weer een 'bewijs' wordt gepost) terwijl Bartlett haar heel rustig en beleefd te woord blijft staan. Kennelijk verstoorden zijn vragen en reacties het bubbeltje waarin ze leeft behoorlijk, was haar veel te grote maar kwetsbare ego al snel aangetast en heeft ze volgens mij zelf niet eens door dat ze daarmee voor schut staat. Iemand uitlachen is sws al niet zo netjes als je wél goede argumenten hebt maar als je die niet eens hebt is het ronduit infantiel.

[ afbeelding ]
[..]
Hoewel Melania echt wel een goede tweede is, is Kari Lake vandaag toch wel met afstand de winnares

Kijk nu al uit naar de uitzending

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 06:37 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]
@:Ixnay begrijpt niet zo goed dat peilingen een moment-opname zijn geloof ik

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 06:28 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]
We zullen het maar niet over jouw voorspelling hebben dat Trump voor eind 2021 weer in het zadel gehesen zou worden.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 11:05 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]
Hij is nog steeds president. Of je het nou leuk vindt of niet.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 14:32 schreef epicbeardman het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

Wisten we allang natuurlijk, corrupte Hilldog.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 11:05 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]
Hij is nog steeds president. Of je het nou leuk vindt of niet.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 14:49 schreef Peligrosso het volgende:
1000x bigger than watergate, mensen.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 14:57 schreef Basp1 het volgende:

[..]
Dan gaan dadelijk zeker de ultra cyber ninjas het onderzoek waarop dit gebaseerd is publiceren.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 14:49 schreef Peligrosso het volgende:
1000x bigger than watergate, mensen.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 11:05 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]
Hij is nog steeds president. Of je het nou leuk vindt of niet.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 11:05 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]
Hij is nog steeds president. Of je het nou leuk vindt of niet.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 15:42 schreef QuidProJoe het volgende:
[ twitter ]

President Trump +1, Liegende Media -1.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 20:24 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Trump is niet alleen president, hij is ook nog een keer Napoleon.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 19:55 schreef theguyver het volgende:

[..]
Oh heb ik iets gemist..
Was ff druk dit weekend, heeft ie een rechtzaak gewonnen en zit hij weer in het witte huis?

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 21:32 schreef epicbeardman het volgende:
[ twitter ]

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 21:25 schreef QuidProJoe het volgende:

[..]
Dat mocht Napoleon willen. Waar hij slechts keizer was, is President Trump God-Keizer.
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 21:31 schreef Ixnay het volgende:

[..]
Hij heeft de verkiezingen van 2020 gewonnen.

quote:

Op zondag 13 februari 2022 23:19 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]


Je moet wel echt héél naïef zijn om dat nu nog te geloven.