I was reluctant to accept her because I heard she made a bad ruling regarding the lockdowns. And because I feel like these lockdowns are the most unconstitutional thing ever done accept for slavery.
Can you show me or provide the source and links and an explanation where she currently supports lockdowns and mandatory vaccines ?
Also, isn’t the president himself pretty supportive of w Covid vaccine? He’s constantly mentioning it in a positive light and gushing graces and positive words on those working on it. Saying how it will be available soon and for all Americans who choose to want one. Continues to say the left hates that he’s doing so well with ushering in a vaccine so quickly.
Being this aggressive and delivering so rapidly in exactly what they've been demanding requires them to now take a contrarian position to the vaccine, at least until the election. Trump green gets to play it as it comes - no need to mandate the vaccine, but available to those that want it, he gets to nullify an argument from the left, his performance with the virus.
Literally every mainstream politician supported vaccines, until Trump announced the covid vaccine may be coming soon, then the Dems, who want to force vaccinations on everyone, became anti vaxx.
Trump is supporting the vaccine but not forcing it, and it would be political suicide for his presidency to be anti vaccine in his rhetoric when so many people are brainwashed into thinking the vaccine is the key to opening
These are actually good points. There may be levers in her background, and a good Catholic takes care of the abandoned children in his own eye before importing the spec from another country. Smacks of the kind of virtue signalling typical from the weak Catholics who are destroying the church now.
BUT even another Roberts is better than an RBG or whoever Hillary would have nominated. Iff Trump gets 5-6 picks, maybe conservatives have a good shot at eeking out a 5-4 win most of the time.
I don’t know what’s in her heart. And I cannot read her mind. But the reporting on that is fake news. I will copy here much of a prior post about it. I’m a lawyer and I’ve read it.
Remember that good judges address only arguments brought to them. In our system, they do not go fishing for their own (incidentally that’s why Sullivan is so wrong on Flynn).
So the ruling is limited to the arguments made. The plaintiffs did not make broad arguments that lockdowns are unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania case that held them unconstitutional was based on a different argument—a line of argument not made at all in the IL case.
The narrow question in the IL case was whether the fact that religious activity was carved out for PREFERENTIAL treatment under the lockdown orders renders the rest of the orders unconstitutional. That is, the complaint was about UNEQUAL treatment of religion and other speech.
The court rejected that argument. First of all the court stated it was afraid that holding the orders wrongful for being unequal (religion better than other speech activity) would mean the IL governor could just fix the problem by further restricting religion, instead of looser rules for everything else. The judges hated that idea.
But more importantly the court simply held that religion DOES enjoy special status under the Constitution, and therefore there is nothing wrong about treating it better than general “speech.”
Direct quote: “ A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies religious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates religious activities.”
Thanks for posting this. Based on this, it does sound like she has a constitutional jurisprudence and was ruling based on the specific arguments of the case. The more I think about it, the more comfortable I feel about the pick. How many times have we seen insane rulings that take into account items not even mentioned in the case arguments?
Something about the jacobson decision being cited from 1905 in the decision kind of concerns me because I'm not big on the idea of forced innoculation.
The basic gist there is there was a special exemption given to religious services, and the IL GOP wanted to have the same cap. And everyone said no, and said they would be watching BLM to make sure the Gov didn't give them unfair access.
Kav agreed and rejected the IL GOP's appeal
That' imo is a fair ruling.
As for vaccines, I work in healthcare, so I suspect we have very different opinions on vaccines pede. Let's not fight today, we, are not each other's enemy
I'm against MANDATORY anything. I'm suspicious of anything remotely Bill Gates because he wants to kill people to control the population AND he wants tracers in vaccines. Those tracers will be used to roll out the mark of the beast prohibiting anyone without it from being able to buy or sell ANYTHING. Once again, draconian punishment which is the equivalent of a MANDATE.
Putting RFID chips in people would be the "mark of the beast". He's probably part of the reason why Africans kill healthcare workers in their country. They force vaccines on their families and it ends up killing them.
My opinion on vaccines is pretty neutral. My grandmother worked in Jonas Salks lab in the 50s. I'm not her to fight. If anything just have a meaningful debate where I hope to come out with more information than coming in. So even if you are for forced innoculation (I am not), we can always respectfully disagree.
I’m more concerned senate republicans are going to argue over this and cause a scene right before the election. Democrats will read out her Scalia comments and vote no pretty quietly hoping the RINOs ruin it for us.
Not getting her confirmed after Trump nominated her while we have the numbers would truly be fucking disgraceful
If you get a chance check out "The Federalist Society"...it'll make more sense. The Wikipedia page hasn't been leftyfied yet. Barrett was a member off and on for a few years the past few decades.
Lagoa was appointed by Jeb Bush and had the support of 20+ Senate Democrats during confirmation. She also conveniently has almost zero judicial history to look over...
And that means that you've eliminated basically everybody with any kind of serious judicial record from that state. And if you repeat the same basic standard (i.e. anybody RINOs ever liked) across the nation, you've eliminated all of them, too. The Trump revolution is not even four years old.
I dont think we have to worry. She's against Obamacare and of course abortion. Dems hate her and are mad already. They knew it was gonna be here weeks ago, and Don Lemon was on CNN talking about getting rid of the electoral college and adding puerto rico as a state LOL They are TERRIFIED. She won't Roberts us.
Breyer is 82 - certainly no spring chicken. Likely to retire as well.
The "wise latina" is a diabetic blob. One seizure away from croaking.
Our majority could seriously go from 5-4 (after ACB confirmation) to 7-2 by 2024. GEOTUS gets 6 Supreme Court appointments during his two terms. KEK, please bless us with the continued greatest timeline.
A woman who cares more about the sanctity of life rather than fixing her “walked out of his apartment, heels in hand, hair sticking up, hangover to end all hangovers” mistake.
We have burned by Republican president's SCOTUS picks so I understand the skepticism but keep in mind we are replacing a radical leftist with a maybe conservative. Considering what the side of beef would have put on the court, I'll take my chances with ACB.
If you listened to her talking it was even worse, she belonged in a retirement home many years ago. The reasonable thing would have been to retire under Obama while he had a senate majority. But because she's a partisan political hack and dumb radical feminist she didn't retire, because she cared that much about the President replacing her having a vagina. Now she's given Trump another SCOTUS pick. That's her legacy, leftards.
I’m gonna respond to this comment because I think it’s fitting.
I had CNN on (don’t ask why, airbnb did me dirty but I fixed it quick) and some chick, don’t know who, was saying republicans are anxiously waiting for dems to fight the choice and throw a fit but the democrats may just stick with the catholic narrative/roe/wade etc.
Anyone will be an improvement over Ginsberg. That being said, Scalia was great. I still think he was murdered and they canned the autopsy to protect his family and the country.
Citizens United v. FEC is still one of the worst rulings he supported, since establishing money as free speech empowered the corrupt lobbying insanity that crowds out free speech.
Case in point every justice comes with baggage. If congress did its job, which is really comes down to doing less and keeping things simple we would not need a panel of oligarchs to sort through all of thier insanity.
This is amazingly symbolic. The deep state kills Scalia because he’s a constitutionalist down to the T. They try to ram Merrick Garland through and get packed by Mitch McConnell. Fast forward to 2020, RBG dies and Trump appoints the protege of the man they killed. Trump is giving them a giant middle finger.
Since you got beat up a bit and didn't get a big answer...
As someone below pointed out it's ACB (trumps pick to replace RBG who just died on the supreme court)
She's standing next to her mentor (and former employer) Antonin Scalia, who was also a SCOTUS member.
It's important to know these people, they ultimately decide what is and what is not constitutional. They are our last line of defense when it comes to defending the constitution from being changed and thus taking away the rights of all American citizens.
What is also worth noting is Antonin Scalia died under very mysterious circumstances. Many believe that he was murdered in anticipation of Clinton winning the 2016 election, there are even coded admissions within the podesta email leaks which seem to detail his murder.
Antonin Scalia was murdered at a vineyard, in his room next to the swimming pool. The podesta emails said "i never thought wetworks would involve a pool party at the vinyard"
"wetwork" is old school mobster terminology for murdering someone.
Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta used a term known to reference assassination in an email sent to a lobbyist days before Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s mysterious death.
The email, an exchange between Podesta and D.C. lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, appeared in a trove of documents dumped by the organization WikiLeaks Wednesday.
“Didn’t think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard,” Podesta says in the February 9 email under the subject line “Thanks”.
“I’m all in,” gay lobbyist and Hillary delegate Steve Elmendorf replies. “Sounds like it will be a bad nite, we all need to buckle up and double down.”
Not my first choice but I’ll stand behind Trump’s decision. Don’t Roberts us, ACB.
everyone’s saying she’s Robert’s 2.0, but in reality she’s Scalia 2.0
I was reluctant to accept her because I heard she made a bad ruling regarding the lockdowns. And because I feel like these lockdowns are the most unconstitutional thing ever done accept for slavery.
CNN: Pro Trump site claims freeing the slaves was unconstitutional
Seth Rich and Scalia will be walking out from behind the curtain together.
I mean, didn’t she..?
I do get JR2 vibes from her, but I trust Trump. I know an older Cuban would be 100% a solid pick, but we’ll see about ACB in time.
Can’t be worse than RBG at least
Can you be more specific on what you mean by “vibes”? And why?
What about ACB’s career specifically gives you “John Roberts vibes”
Supporting Vaccines and lockdowns
Big no no.
Can you show me or provide the source and links and an explanation where she currently supports lockdowns and mandatory vaccines ?
Also, isn’t the president himself pretty supportive of w Covid vaccine? He’s constantly mentioning it in a positive light and gushing graces and positive words on those working on it. Saying how it will be available soon and for all Americans who choose to want one. Continues to say the left hates that he’s doing so well with ushering in a vaccine so quickly.
Do you not support President Trump either?
You can support the president without supporting the vaccine lol.
You don’t have to agree 100%, we’re not leftists.
Wtf is this? He’s made zero comments about infringing on choice, the opposite in fact.
That's 1D chess thinking.
Being this aggressive and delivering so rapidly in exactly what they've been demanding requires them to now take a contrarian position to the vaccine, at least until the election. Trump green gets to play it as it comes - no need to mandate the vaccine, but available to those that want it, he gets to nullify an argument from the left, his performance with the virus.
Literally every mainstream politician supported vaccines, until Trump announced the covid vaccine may be coming soon, then the Dems, who want to force vaccinations on everyone, became anti vaxx.
Trump is supporting the vaccine but not forcing it, and it would be political suicide for his presidency to be anti vaccine in his rhetoric when so many people are brainwashed into thinking the vaccine is the key to opening
So, typical average female.
Many many females who do not support lockdowns and a vaccine for a fake virus
Not good enough.
She has international adoption just like Roberts.
And from a third world country where corruption is endemic and Hillary foundation operated.
Not to mention that only a Marxist would adopt black children.
I fear she's going to be worse than Roberts. She's probably a Democrat plant.
These are actually good points. There may be levers in her background, and a good Catholic takes care of the abandoned children in his own eye before importing the spec from another country. Smacks of the kind of virtue signalling typical from the weak Catholics who are destroying the church now.
BUT even another Roberts is better than an RBG or whoever Hillary would have nominated. Iff Trump gets 5-6 picks, maybe conservatives have a good shot at eeking out a 5-4 win most of the time.
I don’t know what’s in her heart. And I cannot read her mind. But the reporting on that is fake news. I will copy here much of a prior post about it. I’m a lawyer and I’ve read it.
Remember that good judges address only arguments brought to them. In our system, they do not go fishing for their own (incidentally that’s why Sullivan is so wrong on Flynn).
So the ruling is limited to the arguments made. The plaintiffs did not make broad arguments that lockdowns are unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania case that held them unconstitutional was based on a different argument—a line of argument not made at all in the IL case.
The narrow question in the IL case was whether the fact that religious activity was carved out for PREFERENTIAL treatment under the lockdown orders renders the rest of the orders unconstitutional. That is, the complaint was about UNEQUAL treatment of religion and other speech.
The court rejected that argument. First of all the court stated it was afraid that holding the orders wrongful for being unequal (religion better than other speech activity) would mean the IL governor could just fix the problem by further restricting religion, instead of looser rules for everything else. The judges hated that idea.
But more importantly the court simply held that religion DOES enjoy special status under the Constitution, and therefore there is nothing wrong about treating it better than general “speech.”
Direct quote: “ A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies religious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates religious activities.”
Thanks for posting this. Based on this, it does sound like she has a constitutional jurisprudence and was ruling based on the specific arguments of the case. The more I think about it, the more comfortable I feel about the pick. How many times have we seen insane rulings that take into account items not even mentioned in the case arguments?
That really is a stain on her career so far. Ideally it'll be the only major one and I hope she can follow Scalias legacy
Did you know Kavanaugh also refused to take the case up (cuz he agreed)
But I'll bite, what exactly do you think the ruling said?
I didn't read the whole thing there is like 22 pages. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2175/20-2175-2020-09-03.html
Something about the jacobson decision being cited from 1905 in the decision kind of concerns me because I'm not big on the idea of forced innoculation.
Oh I thought you meant the lock down case
The basic gist there is there was a special exemption given to religious services, and the IL GOP wanted to have the same cap. And everyone said no, and said they would be watching BLM to make sure the Gov didn't give them unfair access.
Kav agreed and rejected the IL GOP's appeal
That' imo is a fair ruling.
As for vaccines, I work in healthcare, so I suspect we have very different opinions on vaccines pede. Let's not fight today, we, are not each other's enemy
I'm against MANDATORY anything. I'm suspicious of anything remotely Bill Gates because he wants to kill people to control the population AND he wants tracers in vaccines. Those tracers will be used to roll out the mark of the beast prohibiting anyone without it from being able to buy or sell ANYTHING. Once again, draconian punishment which is the equivalent of a MANDATE.
Putting RFID chips in people would be the "mark of the beast". He's probably part of the reason why Africans kill healthcare workers in their country. They force vaccines on their families and it ends up killing them.
You can’t get your lady balls waxed without a vaccine.
Who said anything about mandatory vaccines?
One could be in favor of mandatory vaccination in principle....
But absolutely not for a new unproven vaccine for a disease that has such a low death rate!!
My opinion on vaccines is pretty neutral. My grandmother worked in Jonas Salks lab in the 50s. I'm not her to fight. If anything just have a meaningful debate where I hope to come out with more information than coming in. So even if you are for forced innoculation (I am not), we can always respectfully disagree.
As someone who got COVID19, this isn't a fun illness to get. That's all I'll really say. A vaccine is a godsend
Whether she is Roberts or not is yet to be seen, but her record says she's no Scalia.
Agree, she was sold to Trump as someone who worked under Scalia so must be same as having Scalia.
Trump or advisers did not bother to dig deeper in to her past rulings?
It's disinfo. People are believing rumormilling likely started by those in opposition to her and seeded lies into our movement.
Easy people. There is literally nothing to call her a Roberts on. Nothing. IF that changes, then it changes. So far? No.
Yep.
International adoption
Who knows? Maybe, maybe not.
But in third world countries everything works with corruption and bribes.
I would be very surprised if there wasn't any shady deal that the Democrats can uncover. Or already have.
Still better than whoever Hillary would've replaced RBG with.
I’m more concerned senate republicans are going to argue over this and cause a scene right before the election. Democrats will read out her Scalia comments and vote no pretty quietly hoping the RINOs ruin it for us. Not getting her confirmed after Trump nominated her while we have the numbers would truly be fucking disgraceful
Perhaps Trump could put forward a second nomination and have that one nominated in record time
They have the votes. This will move along fine.
If you get a chance check out "The Federalist Society"...it'll make more sense. The Wikipedia page hasn't been leftyfied yet. Barrett was a member off and on for a few years the past few decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
I like how advocating that the law follow the constitution is considered “moving the judiciary to the right.”
Fucking Whacko world.
Lagoa was my first choice....but she might fill Breyers spot lol
Lagoa was appointed by Jeb Bush and had the support of 20+ Senate Democrats during confirmation. She also conveniently has almost zero judicial history to look over...
Fair enough.
Dont know much about her, have heard some good things but she just kind of stands out like a diversity pick to me.
She has been a law professor at Notre Dame for years and has a long time to contemplate the Constitution.
Anyone praised by Rubio and Jeb is a hard pass NO!
That rules out basically everyone in Florida prior to Rick Scott's election to the governorship, and a lot of people after that.
And?
And that means that you've eliminated basically everybody with any kind of serious judicial record from that state. And if you repeat the same basic standard (i.e. anybody RINOs ever liked) across the nation, you've eliminated all of them, too. The Trump revolution is not even four years old.
I dont think we have to worry. She's against Obamacare and of course abortion. Dems hate her and are mad already. They knew it was gonna be here weeks ago, and Don Lemon was on CNN talking about getting rid of the electoral college and adding puerto rico as a state LOL They are TERRIFIED. She won't Roberts us.
Thomas would likely retire if GEOTUS wins.
Breyer is 82 - certainly no spring chicken. Likely to retire as well.
The "wise latina" is a diabetic blob. One seizure away from croaking.
Our majority could seriously go from 5-4 (after ACB confirmation) to 7-2 by 2024. GEOTUS gets 6 Supreme Court appointments during his two terms. KEK, please bless us with the continued greatest timeline.
The fairness-obsessed libs may never recover.
So? Who fucking cares?
I hope the libs move out by that point
He was saying it because it's a good thing.
And I’m buttressing his idea. Fuck’em. I’m over what they think or whether they recover.
Won’t matter if a leftists ever wins again
They’ll just bump it up to 15 judges or give them term limits. There’s a lot more work to do.
You would have thought the marches and riots tonight would have been all about this, but they weren't.
I doubt Breyer would retire under Trump, plus Thomas is still relatively young so I think it’s unlikely he would get another pick.
Never saw the response to his question: "Do you think I would do better playing dominoes on pizza or pasta?"
Or a pizza related map on a handkerchief
What a collector's item!
This is the number for Seattle + Portland antifa bail fund, this is how they get out of jail free, 877-622-6223 SPAM IT
https://www.nwcombailfund.org their website to prove it..
If you think he's hot now wait until you hear his bedroom talk.
"The constitution isn't a living organism. It's a legal document, and it says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say."
Tell me that doesn't turn you into putty.
And “it’s dead, dead, dead”.
I dunno but I hear the pillow talk is a killer
Take your damn upvote, you heathen.
Fucking HAWT freedom-defending Constitutionalist ... no homo.
Italians were the first Latin lovers.
She can actually smile unlike RBG.
RBG just kind of snarled.
You know how they never showed the Wicked Witch of the East? RBG is what she'd look like if they had pulled her out from under the house.
I love how morons call infanticide "reproductive rights". Let's make these sluts and betas reeeeee like never before!
I recently found out I'm gonna be a dad. It'll be one more MAGA baby that Planned Genocide won't be able to get their forceps on.
CONGRATULATIONS 🎊 🎂
Congrats, Pede! A brand new centipede on the way!! 🥳🥳
MAZELTOV!
RegularAmerican,
I'm a fan of your posts. I think you'll make an excellent father!
Congrats pede!!! 🍻 🇺🇸
Funny how it all works out
"As ani intern, ACB had a romantic relationship with scalia" - the left, soon
A woman who cares more about the sanctity of life rather than fixing her “walked out of his apartment, heels in hand, hair sticking up, hangover to end all hangovers” mistake.
We have burned by Republican president's SCOTUS picks so I understand the skepticism but keep in mind we are replacing a radical leftist with a maybe conservative. Considering what the side of beef would have put on the court, I'll take my chances with ACB.
I would take 5 ACBs over 1 RBG,
We're also replacing what has been a walking corpse for a long time with an actual person. I mean just look at them: https://thedonald.win/p/HXy7KLaK/acb-vs-rbg/c/
If you listened to her talking it was even worse, she belonged in a retirement home many years ago. The reasonable thing would have been to retire under Obama while he had a senate majority. But because she's a partisan political hack and dumb radical feminist she didn't retire, because she cared that much about the President replacing her having a vagina. Now she's given Trump another SCOTUS pick. That's her legacy, leftards.
The salt will be off the charts!
I’m gonna respond to this comment because I think it’s fitting.
I had CNN on (don’t ask why, airbnb did me dirty but I fixed it quick) and some chick, don’t know who, was saying republicans are anxiously waiting for dems to fight the choice and throw a fit but the democrats may just stick with the catholic narrative/roe/wade etc.
Nadler filled his seat.
This picture and the story behind it will come in handy when they start looking into the meaning of "wetwork at the pool by the vineyard".
How quickly can we get her in? What's the timeline look like roughly or best case scenario?
Before the end of October.
Lindsey said hearings start Oct 12.
Why not fucking Monday? They've had all week to get ready for the nomination. Why the hell are they gonna take a 2 and a half week break?
Plus it's Lindsey's Judiciary Committee
Campaign season.
They don’t need hearings. She’s recently been confirmed by the senate for her current job. Vote on Monday!
They killed Scalia, so we killed Hillary's chances and put Scalia's intern in his seat.
She's an originlist, pro 2nd amendment, anti-abortion.
Good enough for me.
THEE SPECTACULAR ACB
Not only that, but the horde of lesbian Karens see a beautiful woman with an awesome family and REEEEEEE even harder.
I still believe Scalia was murdered. It's amazing how fishy everything was, and how fast the story was dropped by all of the media.
Dems are doing a post-modern critical theory interpretation and filling their seats by shitting their diapers.
Jerry Nadler shuffles exit stage right.
Every picture she's got them crazy eyes lol
Sounds like a scene from Rounders
link to 4chan discussion?
She’s the clerk of a Supreme Court Justice that was murdered during 0bama’s Reign of Error.
I wish I trusted this pick. It's 50/50 for me. Make me wrong, please.
She is likely to be better than Roberts, but women are always going to be more liberal than men.
I would fill her seat
Anyone will be an improvement over Ginsberg. That being said, Scalia was great. I still think he was murdered and they canned the autopsy to protect his family and the country.
Citizens United v. FEC is still one of the worst rulings he supported, since establishing money as free speech empowered the corrupt lobbying insanity that crowds out free speech.
Case in point every justice comes with baggage. If congress did its job, which is really comes down to doing less and keeping things simple we would not need a panel of oligarchs to sort through all of thier insanity.
Scalia reborn as a hot mom who knows shit.
Always there are two, a master and an apprentice
🔥🔥🔥
I was hoping it would be judge Napolitano but alll good!
Yesssssssss
Much better his seat than the one Jerry Nadler waddles his shit stained butt crack into everyday. Stay away from the pillows at The Wetworks Hotel.
The longer they leave it the worse any outrage is going to get, there is zero reason to leave it any longer than necessary.
If any Republican votes against this they are idiots, they think the anger will subside if they wait till after wins the election?
The left freaks out, but why? We know the judges from the left will march in lock step. Judges appointed by the right are all over the place.
We have the most beautiful FLOTUS in history, and now we'll have the most beautiful Supreme Court Judge in history too.
This is amazingly symbolic. The deep state kills Scalia because he’s a constitutionalist down to the T. They try to ram Merrick Garland through and get packed by Mitch McConnell. Fast forward to 2020, RBG dies and Trump appoints the protege of the man they killed. Trump is giving them a giant middle finger.
She's a RINO and a very bad decision.
TEACHER N STUDENT
I mean shes cute. Very cute. But that lazy eye. I cant unsee it.
who are these people?
Scalia and ACB.
Thanks i didn't recognize ACB at all. People don't need to be so harsh. She was unknown to most people until this week.
Context bruh
she's been getting linked on TD for years
You know she looks like a different person in this photo. At least to me
She was younger. Her face was more rounded.
Since you got beat up a bit and didn't get a big answer...
As someone below pointed out it's ACB (trumps pick to replace RBG who just died on the supreme court)
She's standing next to her mentor (and former employer) Antonin Scalia, who was also a SCOTUS member.
It's important to know these people, they ultimately decide what is and what is not constitutional. They are our last line of defense when it comes to defending the constitution from being changed and thus taking away the rights of all American citizens.
What is also worth noting is Antonin Scalia died under very mysterious circumstances. Many believe that he was murdered in anticipation of Clinton winning the 2016 election, there are even coded admissions within the podesta email leaks which seem to detail his murder.
Antonin Scalia was murdered at a vineyard, in his room next to the swimming pool. The podesta emails said "i never thought wetworks would involve a pool party at the vinyard"
"wetwork" is old school mobster terminology for murdering someone.
I am shocked I didn't recognize her
Ok if you don’t know, you should probably not be here
Who doesn't know about that delightful, brilliant, and accomplished human? And Amy next to him? SCALIA, THE SECOND COMING.
Mork and Mindy
The people have spoken: They don’t like your question.