Trump 2020 Grand Jury, Witnesses May Have Lied

1. 89

   peoplepower73posted 14 months ago

   A majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more of the witnesses testifying before it
   
   The 26-member panel also rejected false claims from Mr Trump that the election had been rigged, saying it found "by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election.
   
   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canad … gn=KARANGA

   replyreport
   1. 89

      peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Text messages and emails between Fox hosts and executives reveal that while they privately accepted that Donald Trump had lost the election, the network continued to air pro-Trump conspiracy theories about election fraud.
      
      Rupert Murdoch, the head of Fox News privately described the election fraud claims as "damaging" and "crazy," according to the filing.
      
      
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment … c6e7de48a9

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathleen Cochranposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         I'm shocked. Shocked.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Kathleen:
            
            All you have to do is follow the money.  They lied to keep their ratings up, so they could keep the money flowing in.  In a sense, all three of them prostituted themselves for higher ratings.  The sad thing is their audience could care less about the truth, as long as the narrative fits what they want to believe.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathleen Cochranposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               Which is why I'm not surprised by FOX's antics or the response of their audience. PP73: Thanks for opening this discussion. I hope the American public follow this case closely.

               replyreport
      2. 79

         Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         This will be a very interesting case. Just due to   ---  "Attorneys for the cable news giant argued in a counterclaim unsealed Thursday that the lawsuit is an assault on the First Amendment. They said Dominion has advanced "novel defamation theories" and is seeking a "staggering" damage figure aimed at generating headlines, chilling protected speech and enriching Dominion's private equity owner, Staple Street Capital Partners.
         
         "Dominion brought this lawsuit to punish FNN for reporting on one of the biggest stories of the day- allegations by the sitting President of the United States and his surrogates that the 2020 election was affected by fraud," the counterclaim states. "The very fact of those allegations was newsworthy."   https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fox-news-h … tion-suit/
         
         I will be very honest, I can't comment much on what the media outlets were reporting. Yes, I naturally tuned in here and there, and I do remember Fox was reporting all of Trump's many claims, as well as his many losses in court.
         
         This will damage Trump in my view, just due to the fact if he truely believed his fraud claim, he has had more than enough time to come up with some form of proof. People should begin to realize that... 
         
         This one will damage Trump in my view. Most likely more followers, will reevaluate his claims, and back away from him.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Sharlee:
            
            Is lying with the intention of bringing in more revenue a crime? They lied about the Dominion machines being tampered with to change parts in the machines to give Biden the votes.  And Trump bought it hook line and sinker.
            
            Fox news had the right to lie, but as news reporters, they have the responsibility to tell the truth. The harm is to Dominion's reputation, Trump being ignorant of the truth, and to the audience who still believes the lies.
            
            Fox News has the responsibility to tell their audience that three of their reporters have lied.  Have they done that yet? I don't know maybe the courts will demand that takes place to make Dominion whole again.
            
            The way I see it, the courts have to decide if 1.6 B covers the damage to Dominion for defamation to their business. Do voter trust their machines for the next votes or do they still believe Fox News?
            
            1.6 B is chump change to Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News.  He is worth 18.3 B
            
            https://www.forbes.com/profile/rupert-m … 0cef0cb1af

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               Not sure how Dominion could have been damaged, at least from your comment here (I'm haven't followed the case).
               
               Someone claimed that Dominions machines were broken into and changed, giving a different result from what they were designed and built to do?  How does that affect Dominion?  ANY machine can be changed to do something different than it's design, but that does not reflect on the designer or builder.  On the person doing the change, yes, but not the original manufacturer.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  The legal opinion pundits are saying malice will be hard to prove, but Fox's internal messages show there was an effort to push known false claims.
                  
                  Dominion's reputational damage claims may fail to prove intentional malice, but I bet Fox also thinks reputational damage is a real thing—now.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     But that has nothing to do with actual damages.
                     
                     The point I was making, based solely on Fox's claim that someone changed the interior workings to produce fraudulent results, is that Dominion cannot be responsible for bad machines as a result.  Whoever made the changes is responsible; Dominion had nothing to do with it.  How can Dominion suffer damage for what someone else did?  Assuming Fox's story is true; if it is not then there was no bad vote counting and they still should not suffer damage.
                     
                     It is also quite possible that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about; my concept of what Fox said comes from what PeoplePower said happened.  Or at least what I garnered was said from his post.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        I think we are talking about different things.
                        
                        As I understand this, Dominion isn't saying Fox made the anti-Dominion claims, they are saying that Fox knowingly promoted (via their personalities) false presentations of those claims. With the caveat that there may possibly be the slimmest of slivers of a ray of hope that some contextual explanation might help somewhere, the excerpts drawn from the court papers appear to show those same personalities, and a supporting cast of producers and execs knew/believed their presented claims were bogus, as in looney tunes nuts.
                        
                        On top of that, the texts appear to show, via messages between those involved actors, that ratings concerns drove their presentations of the 'stolen election' advocates. (Sydney, Rudy, et al.)
                        
                        That's what I draw from the stories.
                        
                        As for Dominion's claim of reputational damage, I can see that. Their involvement in public elections would seem very much tied up in trust and security issues. Probably a primary concern of potential customers—like states and nations.
                        
                        To have a top-tier national (international?) news media presenting claims of; misuse, hackability, etc., probably does damage to their 'trust' factor in a customer's mind.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           I still don't get it.  Fox claims a third party, unknown, somehow modified the machine to produce wrong counts.
                           
                           If true (and I get they say it wasn't, and that Fox knew it wasn't), it STILL doesn't put any wrongdoing of Dominion.  Nothing they have done was responsible for the supposed fraud.  They are not responsible whether the claims were true or not.  No reasonable person can hold Dominion responsible for actions of a third party.  Not even if they break into Dominion's machines and change the workings of them, for Dominion was not responsible for the security of those machines.

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              IslandBitesposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              No. FoxNews had Trump people over, mainly pushing the idea of a Venezuelan/Cuban conspiracy ie. Dominion, designed to control the elections. Frequently. That without any pushing back, any real question. Some hosts even agreed with them live on tv, eventhough they knew them to be lies.
                              
                              This is what they argue:
                              
                              Dominion said in the lawsuit that it tried repeatedly to set the record straight but was ignored by Fox News.
                              
                              The company argues that Fox News, a network that features several pro-Trump personalities, pushed the false claims to explain away the former president's loss. The cable giant lost viewers after the election and was seen by some Trump supporters as not being supportive enough of the Republican.
                              
                              Attorneys for Dominion said Fox News' behavior differs greatly from that of other media outlets that reported on the claims.
                              
                              "This was a conscious, knowing business decision to endorse and repeat and broadcast these lies in order to keep its viewership," said attorney Justin Nelson, of Susman Godfrey.
                              
                              Though Dominion serves 28 states, until the 2020 election it had been largely unknown outside the election community. It is now widely targeted in conservative circles, seen by millions of people as one of the main villains in a fictional tale in which Democrats nationwide conspired to steal votes from Trump, the lawsuit said.
                              
                              Dominion's employees, from its software engineers to its founder, have been harassed. Some received death threats. And the company has suffered "enormous and irreparable economic harm," lawyers said.

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                 And that's a whole different story.  If FOX claimed Dominion was a part of the fraud scheme then they would certainly be damaged.  But that's not with the earlier post said.
                                 
                                 Makes a lot more sense.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 89

                              GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              We are still talking about different things. My point wasn't about whether Dominion was actually damaged by Fox's 'reporting', it was about Fox promoting stuff they didn't believe to be true.
                              
                              I don't see the network's personalities (of this issue) as reporting news, I see them as promoting claims. Claims they didn't believe. I don't think there is any context that could change the meaning of the reported texts.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 IslandBitesposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                 True.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 94

                                 wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                 Oh, I fully agree there - I don't watch Fox because I don't think of their "reporting" as news.  They are, perhaps, the worst of the big 4 (although real news is hard to come by from any of them).  (I don't count CNN at all - if there is one group worse than Fox it is them.)

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 89

                                    GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                    I do check two Fox segments: Neil Cavuto @ 4-5pm eastern time and Breit Bier(sp?) @ 6-7pm eastern
                                    
                                    I see them as the least biased of the entire Fox crew. (in front of the camera crew) I only do 5-6pm with CNN.
                                    
                                    As for the worst . . .  if MSNBC is one of the Big Four, they tie with Fox .
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                           3. 69

                              Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              Just few side notes. Some manufacturers always almost written into they products a specific time limit for any fault arising for they machines to be return if these develop faults.                                    Why were these not reported? Instead the voting goes on and the counting goes on. But who know the machines were deprogram?                                   Are the devices ever used for counting votes before, or are they newly acquired? These are food for thoughts.

                              replyreport
               2. 79

                  Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Point well made.  Fox, was reporting news, news that was coming from individuals, that were making many claims about the Dominion machines. Fox is very clever with context, as all of the news networks are.
                  
                  Since when does a news host need to agree with what they are reporting? This seems ridiculous.  Journalists investigate, report the news, and are very careful with the context of their wording.  News networks report news, they don't need to like or dislike what they are reporting.
                  
                  And the talking heads need not agree with what they are reporting, only report it in a proper context.
                  
                  When we start critiquing what we want to hear and not hear reported --- well we know where that could lead.
                  
                  Was it ethical to report the election fraud allegations, this seems to be a question some are asking.  I might ask, would it be ethical to not report the claims in the proper context?
                  
                  Again are we willing to have media that pick and choose what we hear?

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     I don't see Fox's participation as "reporting" news on the 'stolen election' proponents, I see them as promoting a bogus theme. Most of their big-name personalities—the ones that draw Fox viewers,  'reported' the claims over and over, night after night. That's not reporting, and that's not 'updating', that's promoting. Promoting claims they privately viewed as "nuts." And doing so for ratings, not viewer news service. That certainly affects the 'trust factor' for me.
                     
                     All news outlets pick and choose what 'we' hear. Viewers also pick and choose who they tune into.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        I see I have landed in the weeds again, my main comment was in regard to the legal case Dominion had filed. The ins and outs of "what it's".
                        
                        It is clear they were promoting a false narrative. A narrative that was being offered up to them by Trump, as well as many of his associates. ( does Russiagate ring a bell?)  Do you feel this is different, and not the type of media we have experienced for some years now? Is Fox any different than let's say CNN or MSN? 
                        
                        The hosts report whatever narrative will glean ratings. This is very unethical, but is it new? I guess I have come to face the fact that unethical is the norm today in network cable news.
                        
                        So hell yes, Fox promoted a false narrative, one they felt would sensationalize the lost election, and bring ratings.
                        
                        Yes, the host pounded the claims nightly and added what new claims they were given from the many Trump sources. They had many guests, that openly told their stories of all kinds of what they claimed was election fraud.
                        
                        I am pleased it affects your trust factor. Mine was gone many years ago. I am big on wording, and context, the cable news hosts are pros with words. One only needs to listen for the word allegation, this is from a source, and has not as of yet been proven as factual.
                        
                        In my view, which is jaded, one needs to really listen for context, and then research reports, look for quotes of live human beings, or just simply take any news report with a grain of salt.
                        
                        I must say this story has really caused a stir --- And when compared to some very serious reporting problems that have slipped by as of late --- this one is at the bottom of my list.
                        
                        My true feelings on the issue, the reporting was unethical, and I am sad to see the media sink this low --- but the mud is deep, and many media networks have left deep imprints.
                        
                        I am more interested to see what develops with the lawsuit. If anyone will stand up and answer for the unethical reporting. Otherwise, all my indignant feelings will be for naught.

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           I will be listening for the context that explains the texts when Fox's submitted response to Dominion's claims are unsealed on the 27th.
                           
                           I can't imagine any context that would change the message of the combined texts. But, I will at least listen for it.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              When speaking about the context, I was referring to the host's nightly reports on the election fraud, not the bombshell text. The texts were messages from one another sharing views. And no I don't feel one could confuse the context of the text. Just the fact that they were view oriented.
                              
                              We seem to be on different pages. The text shows the hosts felt they were pushing mistruths. They were doing the bidding for the network. Is the network liable for offering Trump's allegations with the caveat they may not be true, and also offering the Dominion statements to appear they were offering fair reporting? Because they did report statements Dominion put out.   
                              
                              Do you feel the various texts offer a close-and-shut defamation case?  I am hedging my bets that this will come down to  Fox falling back on free speech.

                              replyreport
            2. 69

               Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

               Fox news has the right to lie...Fox news also has the responsibility to tell the truth. I found the whole thing puzzleing.                                 How can a company or firm 'addict' to lie tell the truth?

               replyreport
            3. 79

               Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

               "Fox News has the responsibility to tell their audience that three of their reporters have lied.  Have they done that "
               
               No, they have not, and most likely will not just due to the context that Jornilist uses carefully when reporting these kinds of stories. As I always point out context is important, and journalists know this all too well.
               
               Fox News has no right to report lies. However, did they report lies or did they add the words Journalists are famous for --- allegation or this is from an unknown source? Context is the all-important last factor for journalists.
               
               The defense will point out all they can about the company, its prior problems with the voting machines, and actually, some well-known vulnerabilities of the machines. They will dive deep into the company, and most likely people that have left the company for their grievances against the company.
               https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/28/poli … index.html
               
               This will be very interesting to follow. It will most likely be dropped due to the great protection journalists have in regard to free speech, and able to protect (and more or less blame) unknown sources.
               
               Is this fair, IMO, no.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Sharlee: First, what you are assuming is that Hannity, Ingraham, and Carlson were acting as investigating reporters and reporting differently than what they found.  They were not acting in that capacity.  They made up the story about Dominion creating false votes to favor Biden because they were losing viewership and revenue. Second, is that you are assuming they are journalist. They are not by their own admission, they call themselves "news entertainers" every time they are investigated for libel.
                  
                  Trump and company, including Sydney Powel ran with those lies and presented them as part of Trump's one hour conversation to Brad Raffensberger, (Brad) the Georgia Secretary of State. It would be nice to hear what Fox told their viewing audience, but that may be revealed in the court proceedings.
                  
                  In the one hour phone conversation, Trump told Brad, that they had evidence that Dominion switched parts in their machines to give Biden the votes. They then asked Brad to give them access to the machines so that Trump's team could check them out for "fraudulent votes." Brad said he couldn't do that legally, but he would have his lawyers meet with Trump's lawyers because there was no evidence that the machines had been tampered with. He further asked for Trump to provide the evidence that the machines were tampered with.  Trump's team said we want access to the machines tomorrow.
                  
                  There is now evidence the three Fox news people had sent emails to each other stating they knew Trump lost the election and they lied to increase revenue for Fox.
                  
                  Dominion is now suing Fox for 1.6 B for defamation damages.  The following is from IslandBites post:
                  
                  "This was a conscious, knowing business decision to endorse and repeat and broadcast these lies in order to keep its viewership," said attorney Justin Nelson, of Susman Godfrey.
                  
                  Though Dominion serves 28 states, until the 2020 election it had been largely unknown outside the election community. It is now widely targeted in conservative circles, seen by millions of people as one of the main villains in a fictional tale in which Democrats nationwide conspired to steal votes from Trump, the lawsuit said.
                  
                  Dominion's employees, from its software engineers to its founder, have been harassed. Some received death threats. And the company has suffered "enormous and irreparable economic harm," lawyers said.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     First I see this issue as unethical. However, this in my view, is not anything we should not be accustomed to. The media dragged Trump through many mud fields with Russia gate, and many of our own Congressmen and retired Washington officials appeared to lie over and over. We saw the lies after the dust settled. In fact, in my view, we have fewer Americans at this point who even care about all the lying going on.
                     
                     However, when you say ---  "They made up the story about Dominion creating false votes to favor Biden because they were losing viewership and revenue".
                     
                     You need to add a factual quote. What I witnessed, was they presented reports from Trump and many of his associates. And after just a bit of visiting youtube, one can see they covered themselves with context.
                     
                     I don't think the talking heads made up stories, just passed on stories others in Trump's circle may have made up.
                     
                     I have read the text, and it is clear that the hosts did not believe what they were reporting. I would think it comes down to the bigwigs telling them what they were to report.
                     
                     This will be a very interesting case to watch.  Wonder if Fox will go all the way or settle with a huge cash payout.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        Sharlee
                        
                        You need to add a factual quote. What I witnessed, was they presented reports from Trump and many of his associates. And after just a bit of visiting youtube, one can see they covered themselves with context.
                        
                        I don't think the talking heads made up stories, just passed on stories others in Trump's circle may have made up.
                        
                        I have read the text, and it is clear that the hosts did not believe what they were reporting. I would think it comes down to the bigwigs telling them what they were to report.
                        
                        Here you go.  There are so many articles describing the same thing. I am only providing three of the links.  Enjoy the reading.
                        
                        https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ … a-ingraham
                        
                        https://www.npr.org/2023/02/20/11582230 … raud-claim
                        
                        https://www.politico.com/newsletters/pl … w-00083407

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           Not sure you are understanding my comments here. I have been commenting on the legal side of the story. As I said I find what Fox did unethical at best. . But ask if was it illegal, and will they be able to cover themselves legally due to how they presented the "lies" with careful context, that purely was passing on Trump, and his associate's claims.
                           
                           The texts I read were clearly views passed among hosts. If I have any complaint it is with the hosts not refusing to present the claims of what Trump and his associates were dishing up, knowing that all were unverifiable. As well as not standing up to the network bigwigs.  Fox hosts, have certainly shown themselves as unworthy to trust.
                           
                           You do realize Dominion also is seeing Powel?  It appears they have her dead to rights, she out and out slandered the company. The context of many of her statements was said as a matter of fact, and she slandered the company.
                           
                           Again, I feel that Fox was unethical, and hoped to boast a rating. But they were careful with context to cover themselves in case of a lawsuit.

                           replyreport
   2. 79

      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Well now it is up to  --  Ms. Willis, a Democrat, has promised to have a decision soon. If charges are filed, it is at that point that the public will learn more about the evidence the prosecution has to support its case.
      
      As I have shared, it's all about evidence that can be legally permitted in a court of law.

      replyreport
   3. 69

      KC McGeeposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      if there is anyone that's a liar, it's the ENTIRE Nazi Democrat party. Never trust the Nazi democrats.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Ah ah!

         replyreport
2. 69

   Miebakagh57posted 14 months ago

   Too bad for Trump. Why don't the jury ask Trump to produce evidence instead of just rejecting his claim? A legal backed jury shouldn't arrived at such a conclusion. It smarks bs.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Miebakagh57:
      
      Trump has no evidence other than lies and conspiracy theories. The Georgia  Secretary of State and his team have asked Trump and his team to produce evidence, but they can't do it. They asked them to find11,780 votes that Trump needed to win the election in Georgia. Instead, they asked the secretary to let them have access to all the ballots, which is illegal under Georgia law.
      
      Here is Trump's one hour conversation with the Georgia Secretary of State where Trump tries to intimidate his team.  It is the recorded audio.  If you want to listen to the whole conversation.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         PeoplePower, its a pity that Trump and his team can't produced the evidence. I give him the benefit of the doubt. There was no link for the audio. Thanks.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry Miebakagh:
            
            Here is the link
            
            https://youtu.be/IXYTS20dlIU

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

               Thank you

               replyreport
   2. 77

      Kathleen Cochranposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      If the grand jury finds enough evidence of a crime to issue an indictment, at that point the accused has his opportunity to defend himself. The process you describe is the actual trial. This is how the American judicial system works.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Thank you, kathleen.

         replyreport
   3. 77

      Kathleen Cochranposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      https://apnews.com/article/politics-new … osition_03

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Thank you. The link is a good read.

         replyreport
3. 69

   Miebakagh57posted 14 months ago

   There's something fishy and sinister about all this.                                                Fox is reporting news. News that Joseph Biden, won the election. It also at the same time knowly reporting a form of rumour or slander? Against Trump? Against  Dominion? It looks dual.                                          Too bad for Fox. Why not enbarked on a single and safe course? My knowledge and understanding of news reporting is very scary.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      KC McGeeposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      biden didn't win a damn thing. Nazi democrats stole the election for him.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         You would be willing to bash your head into the wall to continuously hold to the tireless refrain of Trump won. I am glad you and folks like you don’t get to control the outcome.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            And I'm grateful there are fewer and fewer of you these days.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

               I still remain surprised that there are as many "head bashers" among us all.

               replyreport
4. 69

   KC McGeeposted 14 months ago

   I wonder if those 26 member panel are made up of Nazi Democrats?

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Kathleen Cochranposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      In a red state like Georgia? Probably not.

      replyreport
5. 69

   Miebakagh57posted 14 months ago

   Fox is associated with cunning and cleverness! But in Nigeria, 'one day na one day', meaning they's a limit to any craftness.

   replyreport
6. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 14 months ago

   Learning the difference between a reporter and a commentator is basic to forming an opinion based on what you hear/read. A friend who is a college history professor speaks to this difference at the beginning of every course she teaches. Wish more educators would.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Miebakagh57posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you. It makes sense.                                     I hope to begin applying the rope soon.

      replyreport
7. 87

   Valeantposted 13 months ago

   Looks like Trump is getting indicted in New York next week as law enforcement has begun to coordinate what that is going to look like.  Maybe Trump will just ask DeSantis to not honor the New York indictment since he's been so nice to the guy recently.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyPjezlZE5c&t=677s

   replyreport