This list this week continues to expand.

1. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez new "Green New Deal". The single most surefire way to destroy the economy of the United States, not to mention the fallout that would come from it worldwide.

2. Nancy (Skeletor) Pelosi's threat to have the next democratic president use executive orders to override the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. This would be a bonafide declaration of war against the American People, and will result in the complete elimination of these crazy folks from the government. They would be arrested and tried for Treason, Sedition, and possibly even dereliction of duty. Not to mention that there would be almost 10 Million Veterans like me, who have not forgotten their oath, and WILL DEFEND the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, Foreign or DOMESTIC!"

3. The promotion of infanticide in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the "Late-Term" Abortion law in New York State.

There are hundreds of other infringements on the rights of the people, if these aren't already enough.

I believe it is MUCH more than Socialism at work here, I think that the democrats have sold their souls to Satan in exchange for earthly power and the abortion laws are their way of providing a blood sacrifice to the Devil, after all, what soul could be more pure than an almost born, or just born blood sacrifice.

Why are you posting this here, people want to escape political garbage or they would join political forums, here's an idea, post that on some political hash tag :-)

I will be disappointed if, during the presidential debates in 2020, President Trump does not declare someone's face a state of emergency.

Theres only 10 million of us?

1. I dont think legitimate terms of the Green New Deal have even been discussed. For all intensive purposes it could just be a plan to convert electricity to solar which would give more jobs to installers and while in process, would send government subsidies to electric companies, etc. I'm sure some parts of it could be good or bad for the economy but without knowing the actual details of what they're planning, all debate on the subject is just hyperbole. I know fox and rush are hammering it, but I'm at least waiting to say it's bad until I know what the hell it is. It seems like your negative opinion is probably largely based on your opinion of Democrats because it's not based on anything contained in the Green New Deal, because the Green New Deal doesnt even exist outside of an idea. I'd like to see a professional opinion on your assertion after more details come out.

2. The supreme court is currently arguing to change the structure of freedom of religion and the first amendment. Prohibition was also an amendment in the same document which has been repealed. While I like my guns, and will fight to the death to keep them, I think the second amendment could be changed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally I'll or criminally insane. I don't view that as an attack on America, nor do I think the dems are stupid enough to try to come for rednecks like Us's guns. They'd have to be nuts. Trump declaring a national emergency when he "didnt have to" sets a dangerous precedent tho for executive order. Could the next dem declare a national emergency about guns and use the military to take our guns? Its theoretically possible if the national emergency clause is used in this manner.

3. The late term thing is weird and I dont fully understand it. What I've read from both sides on that is strange. I had heard originally that it was only allowed when the fetus was already deceased or the mother was in a life or death situation. Not just killing babies late term for a prostitute or something. Idk. I'm on the fence about it. For already dead fetuses I'm way ok with it, but for the life or death situation for the mother idk how to feel. Itd be a tough decision for sure........

I don't mean to degrade your points. I happen to think the dems have gone completely off the rails as well, I just have absolutely 0 faith in the Republicans being any better while blocking supreme court picks and then complaining when the dems block a wall. In my opinion, politics now is just theater for the people to keep the wealthiest becoming wealthier. Both parties are completely effin insane rn.

^^^^^^^^

The slippery slope argument doesn't work when your already on the slippery slope Derrick. Trump isn't setting any precedents here, it's just getting more publicity. I don't know if it's still in place (though I imagine it is) but the 9/11 national emergency was being extended well into Obama's second term. Now ask yourself, where did the justification for the US to bomb half of the middle east come from? Do you remember congress approving the bombing of, say, Yemen? Somehow using a national emergency to get a border wall built is more worthy of discussion than fighting a clearly illegal foreign war in order to bolster Saudi interests, but hey, it is what it is.

ASSGRENADE! <3

Well yeah. The extension of the wouldnt have stopped us tho. They kind of blanket that as powers of commander and chief. It's not like Somalia, Panama, Granada, desert storm etc were a product of that executive order just before it happened. We invaded places for years and years without Congress approval before the 9/11 natl emergency so I hear your point, but i dont believe the precedent has been set for a natl emergency to be engaged when its admittedly not needed for domestic affairs. Like the dems dont need to take your guns away but could under similar circumstances. I hear your point but overextending an already overextended act does in my mind set a precedent that the president can use the military for whatever he wants domestically and frankly I'd like to avoid that.

Call me heartless but I really dont care when the government invades somewhere else. I'd just prefer to keep them off my own lawn and this sets a precedent where the president can tell the military to park a tank in my back yard.

The thing that is most evident from someone outside of the usa, is that both sides exist for their own special interest groups / agendas.

The everyday American is forgotten and the circus continues to appear so extreme because those special interest groups are far left or far right.

Both sides have to take such extreme stances and rally in their base otherwise they appear to be taking another side.. it’s the perfect combination Of people who have joined the circus and are still in middle school.

You know that precedent already exists too but I guess you know that the NSA is reading your comment so you gotta play it cool, I gotchu ;)

I was actually having a discussion about how I preferred the professionalism of the William Barr hearing to the crying drunken fluff show that was the kavanaugh hearing. Meanwhile both the left and the right leaning friends I had screamed at me about how I need to stand up for something other than expecting a professional to lead the country haha. I have things I believe but right now I see both sides feel like "winning" is just to fluff over the other side as much as possible rather than acknowledging differences and trying to work together for a better tomorrow.

On that note, i was reading an article in like the Florida Sun Herald or something the other day that profiled a conservative TSA agent. The quotes of the article were super intuitive but this guy was arguing that he and other Floridians had voted for trump because they thought he would "stick it to the democrats" and he felt like he was sticking it to the wrong people (because at the time he wasnt getting paid). The guy even said we never wanted him to make America better for everyone, not even for whites. They just wanted to make it a harder life for immigrants and they wanted to see Democrats get their ass beat.

I think when politics have reached a point in toxicity where neither party is trying to do good things for Americans and they're just trying to stick it to the other side, or react to their fears instead of their dreams, we will never ever improve as a nation.

Dont get me wrong tho. The gun toting, beer drinking, monogamous, standard ass white guy that I am wants to see it get stuck to the dems and thinks Hillary is a criminal and the Clinton foundation is about as far into operating illegally as a nonprofit that you can get, while my left brain can easily draw a line between sanctions relief for Oleg Daripaska and donations to trumps inaugural and the money laundering thru Cambridge Analytica. All of them are so blatantly criminal and maybe they always were but they at least gave us the impression that they were professional people that we should try to respect when I was a kid.

Not directly but indirectly yes. The national guard bombed the MOVE compound here in Philly is probably the best example after the governor declared an emergency. Sure. I cant deny that at all. However, there was a genuine emergency there and I dont think reflectively the governor would say he didnt need to do it. There is not really a precedent set for the president to use the national emergency act in a non-emergency situation tho. If that bypasses courts and is approved it will set what's known in the states as a judicial precedent whereby the president can claim emergencies for political gain. In essence it would set a judicial precedent where the dems could take our guns or do forced abortions for population control or whatever. It sets up an extremely dangerous precedent. While I know it seems like just a small difference in what has happened in this country already, it's actually a far more dangerous judicial precedent than either side will admit.

If trumps national emergency succeeds in getting a wall built (something i truly couldnt give less of a fluff about), in the future, our judicial system will rely on that precedent in regards to that natl emergency act. In so far as the next president could do a national emergency after the first shooting to take our guns away. And due to a judicial precedent there would not be legal action in the courts. The military would just mobilize immediately. That's simply a scary thought to me. Can you imagine if a pro population control or pro gun control or even pro-prohibition president gets access to these same rights?

Because there is no precedent now, trumps wall will get hung up in court for a time (I assume the courts will deny the overreach of the act to be completely honest but you never know). If it succeeds tho, it will set the precedent that the president can use the natl emergency act in non-emergency situations. After that the military will be able to mobilize against the citizens for any reason. Whether you support the wall or not (which again....5b is chunk change to the us Gov. This is so far from a real issue) if you aren't worried about what your opposition can do given the same rights, you're completely missing the point.

I'm not opposed to a wall. I'm opposed to giving the president that much power. Checks and balances are goddamned important.

Taking our guns away would interfere with a constitutional right, building a wall in our border DOES NOT do that, it ensures a border, weak sauce argument.

Here's another fun fact, Congress gave that authority to president's in 1976, since then it has been used 50 some times and there are currently 31 active declarations, all off a sudden it is a "problematic situation" all I see is smoke in mirrors as the globalists continue to seek open borders (no sovereignty) THAT should be what you people should worry about, not border enforcement...or should I say, lack thereof.

Meh, before they got that authority, they just did whatever they wanted anyways. I blame Woodrow Wilson.

Suggested reading:
Trump declared a national emergency at the border. I asked 11 experts if it’s legal.
https://www.vox.com/...al-emergencies-act-border

Or if reading is hard:
Let's talk about national emergencies....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coh3j4EH-DY

Trump is a socialist. And I'll move on.

Liberals have been big fans of this since 76. Trump is following liberal socialists with this one.

Just like 20 acres and a mule....

Honestly most people outside of the states thinks that the republicans have completely lost their minds, if they ever had any and I seriously wonder why all republicans imagine that the past is the best thing ever and no change shall ever be made or ever exist.

That's a gross misrepresentation of their position.

It is a very bizarre administration that is much further right than usual on things other than gay rights. But yeah. This weeks Mark's the first time the current administration has even had a legitimate attorney general. Its closing in on a 2 and a half years in office and half of the cabinet is not even confirmed. I doubt the administration will ever have a UN ambassador. It's real weird.

VOX...really LMFAO, that's worse than CNN, stop getting brain washed.

well said Cerberus, the USA needs to rid ourselves of those people.

Correct.

As an Aussie Id laugh at the USA if our own political system wasnt so fluffed as well.

My parents in England would laugh harder except they are facing a no-deal Brexit.

As an outsider looking in - Trump is a joke and is trying to run a country like a business. Unfortunately that doesnt work. It also seems that the Dems are looking for anything to continue to make trouble and oppose him - much like the Senate did when Obama was in power.

Trump declaring a national emergency, from the outside just seems like a way for him to circumvent the checks and balances of the two-house system.

We seriously need to rid of career politicians, they clearly lack real world experience.

I understand everyone outside the US wants us to have open borders, you really don't understand the problems it attracks by being driving distance from the most prosperous country in the world and I truly don't blame you for not understanding, but you simply don't.

As an Aussie you would think it would be in their best interest to have a Republican Party in Power the way Australia and Britain want to project "HARD POWER" to protect their interest in the South China Sea and homeland security.

walks in nekked oppps wrong room. been into politics for over 60 years, never saw anything like what is going on. I have worked both sides of the fence, ran campaigns from school board up to u.s. senate, for both sides!
you need fair and honesty
for me things that need revamping are

removal of electoral college, that page from the 1800s is no longer needed

no fricken super delegates.

term limits

states rights

DEcrim.hell yeah.

all primaries to be done by CAUCUS style only. they lock u into a room and you sign in. you must be from that local area. it is usually in a school. it is only you the local people who live there that are allowed into the room. none of this TV BS stuff. you get to hear from your neighbors, and why they are for a specific candidate. to stay viable for a candidate you must have 15% of the total present. If not, then you must blend with another candidates group or you can go uncommitted. I personally love this one....
I was a jerry brown in 92 delegate and then put on clinton p00pie list lol. then stayed uncommitted in 90 2000. I truly believe that caucus is the only way to go for primaries. doing it one on one is soooo much better.

Unfortunately it won't happen, too much corporate and special interest money corrupting both political parties, between them they're running our country like a mafia, and don't think for a second that either party cares about you, well unless you have million$ to contribute to the mob, there's a reason both parties hate Trump.

I live here and "Trump declaring a national emergency, from the outside just seems like a way for him to circumvent the checks and balances of the two-house system." That's just a correct assertion. He literally said "I didnt have to do this" before he boarded a plane to Florida to golf for the weekend.

I agree with everything they said. What's incorrect about it? Didnt seem like either were calling for open borders....

Look. I voted Green Party for a long time but considered John McCain because I like the fact that that he votes with his conscience. Sarah Palin turned me off and I voted 3rd party. I'm a center left leaning conservative. But seriously. It doesnt take a genius to see this administration is criminal and circumventing law. Come on.

Also not saying the other side is any better at all but man this guy is really really criminal. We need to do better all around.

How is he a criminal?, He's trying to do what none of his predecessors did, and that is secure the border, stop hiding your liberalism globalist point of view, you ain't fooling anyone, Derrick, you're just another butthurt big government supporter that can't get over the fact that he won, I'm a Hispanic and came into this country the legal way, I've been to every border crossing in the southern line since the late 90s in my line of work, you are a fool for not believing there's a crisis, Clinton declared national emergency 17x, Bush 13, and Obama 12, there are currently 31 active ones, show me where he's a criminal.

And McCain was a piece of fluff sellout to globalism, glad he's gone, good riddance.

The 'legitimate term of the Green New Deal' are published in the Congressional Record.
https://www.congress.gov/...house-resolution/109/text
Some choice quotes:

"meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" -Seriously? 100% in only 10 years?!?

""upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification" - Yes, it says to upgrade ALL existing buildings in the United States. ALL.

"guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States" - Yes, it says a family-sustaining wage to ALL people of the United States. ALL. GUARENTEED.

I encourage everyone to read the resolution that was actually submitted. [https://www.congress.gov/...house-resolution/109/text] And please dont just listen to the flowery words, but consider each point in how the goals could actually be achieved by legislation (and by coercive use of government power to enforce the legislation if it turns out unpopular or difficult). And at least a thought to the cost to implement.




I dont know why you think it is weird and it is actually pretty easy to understand. The law passed in New York, and the legislation proposed in Virginia allows abortion for virtually any reason (the 'mothers mental health' provision has been upheald as meaning virtually anything to include depression and anxiety - and what woman who is pregnant does not have some depression and/or anxiety? New York law removed provision for a psychiatric professional to diagnose and now the abortionist can 'validate' the mental condition, without even evidence of prior history of the condition.). The provision is explicit in allowing abortion up to the time of actual birth. So a full 9 month term baby can be aborted -- and for a baby at that stage of development that is viable and capable of life outside of the mother 'abortion' means killing the child in the womb either by injecting corrosives or poisons into the amniotic sac or by using sharp instruments to cut the baby into smaller parts.

Governor Northam took it one step farther - to his credit this is the logical conclusion of the 'abortion up to birth' position - by stating that even if a child was born alive during the abortion then the mother/doctor could decide to kill it or let it die from inattention. His actual words: "The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother". Sorry, not hard to understand infanticide when it is so clearly stated. The governor says he was only talking about cases of severe deformity and 'non-viable' babies. However those cases resolve themselves - the babies die even when provided basic care and treatment. And - most importantly - while he mentioned the most horrific and extreme cases, the LAW DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH DISTINCTION. So what if the baby delivered has Downs... or a cleft palate... or one limb shorter than the other... or the birth was difficult and the doctor says there is high chance of brain damage.... or really anything else. The mother could have the baby aborted 30 minutes ago, why not get rid of it now? Surely she would have chosen abortion half an hour ago if she had known of the problem and there is no difference between the baby then and now except a minor change in geographic location.

The law - as stated clearly by the bill author Delegate Tran - allows abortion even while the mother is in labor. So why not AFTER labor? That is the question that Governor Northam honestly answered.

You're wasting your time Garry, these people regurgitate what the media tells them, they don't bother looking and dissecting, if it sounds cool, they're for it.

It's strange that you say all of this because just yesterday I was thinking the same thing. But the 10 Million man Army you're speaking of will consist of state militias as well. The one thing that you havn't hit on the mark is the fact that it's not just the Democrats who sold their souls to satan, it's the Republicans too! I have been telling people for years to vote third party from now on. Even though the third parties will not win straight away, once the Democrats and Republicans see that they are losing the influence they have on voters they will be forced to change course and begin representing the interests of the people or they will pass new laws and take executive actions that further their power which will lead to an eventual crisis where the people are going to have to muster a force that is large enough to overthrow those corrupted individuals who are in power. Nobody wants this to happen, but America needs to be rebalanced.

The thing that's really scary is that the government has a system in place where they are profiling the general population and veterans then placing them on watchlists. What the government is going to most likely do is then create and pass new silent laws where they begin targeting the fighters in the population and make their arrests legal so that they can catch the people off balance before they have a chance to form this resistance Army. Better to start sounding the alarm now before things spiral too far out of control.

[quote poster=macdaddy; 46514;]

As an Aussie you would think it would be in their best interest to have a Republican Party in Power the way Australia and Britain want to project "HARD POWER" to protect their interest in the South China Sea and homeland security.
[/quote]

Most certainly not. In fact Trump in particular has been bad for Australia in regards to China. The tarrifs imposed on Chinese goods by the USAhas the potential for them to flood to other markets, screwing what little is left for Australian manufacturing. China is also the reason Australia has avoided alot the financial strife many other countries have endured, as Chinese thirst for Australian steel has driven the mining sector for a number of years, propping up our economy. Australia is torn between it's biggest ally in the USA and it's biggest trading partner in China.

Ive got no issue with a country wanting to protect its borders. Given the amount of asylum seekers we get in Oz - we might understand a little more than you think (but that is a policy discussion for another day). Trump is seemingly using a National Emergency to circumvent a political process designed to ensure that policy is sound and representative of the people. Any democratic society should be up in arms over this abuse of power. Hopefully the courts in the USA overturn this decision.

Lol. 36 indictments do nothing for you including his campaign chairman that's only coming out of prison feet first? Ill go with some trump crimes off the top of my head:

He took payments to his inaugural from Concord management in exchange for sanctions relief for Oleg Daripaska. That's a crime.
His campaign shared internal polling data with Konstantin Klimnick which violates the statute for conspiracy to defraud the United states. A crime.
Officials leasing the Old Post Office Building for the Trump International Hotel in Washington improperly ignored the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses when they continued to lease the government property to President Trump even after he won the White House, which violates the emoluments clause and is a crime.
Donald received 413 million from fred trump by way of a "gift" to circumvent the taxes on inheritance in the us. An illegal corporation was set up in Donald's name to allow Fred to transfer hundreds of millions in income at a 5% rate instead of what hes supposed to pay on his income tax which deprived the government of millions of dollars. This is a form of tax fraud. A crime.

In Donald Trump's life hes been in court as the defendant on over 1700 legal cases. Something like 60 times he's settled, including criminal cases in which he paid restitution to avoid imprisonment.

Even such basic crimes as paying a doctor to say he was too unhealthy when he was drafted for Vietnam. That's also a crime.

I mean fluff bro. You might like his politics but hes at a minimum a very very very chronic criminal.

ProPublica has been doing some great investigative journalism in this regard and it's worth checking out. You even get to learn about Trump Jr's hydroponic lettuce farm. Good or bad for the country politically, he's very definitely a criminal.

The problem is that you're focusing on Trump. Who cares? Let's say he's a criminal, and this emergency action was unconstitutional. Do you really want to raise the alarm about Trump? No, it's the system. You could find easy examples of high crimes (far, far, far, far, far, far more egregious than the examples you just gave of Trump, ie. the rape of the Haitian people, war crimes en masse, money laundering, pay-for-play with foreign governments, etc) all over that city. And the emergency action is not a precedent no matter how many times you want to say it. It doesn't even make the cut for the scariest things that have come out of Washington in the past 20 years. They no longer need a reason to lock you up, to spy on you, to take your property, and even if you have enough notoriety that they can't bury you right away and have to look for actual dirt, it doesn't matter. Process crimes are wonderful for that-- that is, crimes where there is not actually a crime but they get you on lying about something that was not a crime, or even better, making the process the punishment (ie. What is happening to Julian Assange, for which the US is a key actor, one of America's most shameful moments, and it is being supported widely by people on both sides of the aisle).

The system is corrupt and you should be fighting to make laws that do not block Trump's right to use an emergency power, but an extended limitation of executive power and unelected officials that even people as Machiavellian and outright corrupt as Obama and (the staffers behind) Bush could not get around them. Say what you want about Trump, but at least he is not politically astute enough to throw the wool over your eyes. People still think that he is somehow worse than people before him that regularly destroyed people and journalists that got in there way.

So you should very carefully figure out a way to go beyond orange man bad, lock her up, etc, and into the realm of demanding mass investigations on both sides of the aisle. There should be a special counsel for every single politician in Washington, and those special counsels should not be part of that same sesspool. Why is it that Mueller has close personal relationships with pretty much everyone involved here? Hell, his close personal relationship with William Barr might raise an eyebrow or two if it wasn't for a fact that Mueller is close with everyone because they're all part of the Washington establishment. I'm not going the conspiracy route, but you have 350 million people in your country. If you looked at the news, you'd think your country was a town of 500 people because it's almost uncanny how almost every single person you hear about went to the wedding of everyone else you hear about.

OK, to address some of the questions that you seem to have, here's what irritates me the most about the whole situation. Let's look at the larger picture first. A simple list should suffice.

1. Democrats want open borders. (This much is pretty clear) of which more on motivation for it.)
2. Democrats want abortion all the way up to and including straight out infanticide (stated plainly by the democratic governor of Virginia, and is closely followed by legislation in the State of New York.)
3. Democrats have willingly engaged in fruitless investigations costing millions of dollars which have destroyed the credibility of the premier law enforcement agency in the US.
4. The Clinton Foundation is happily doing business selling out the nation to the people that they are accusing Donald Trump of Colluding with.
5. There has never been an investigation of Clintons activity related to many fishy schemes related to arms sales, while occupying the Secretary of State Office, The UnraniumOne deal. The theft of donation money for the people of Haiti post earthquake relief.
6. I could start listing the murders that have been attributed to the Clintons, yet never investigated, but I won't.
7. Crazy corrupt election schemes by the democrats, surprise absentee ballots etc.

As an anecdote on that, My grandmother voted republican for almost 80 years, and then suddenly the election after she died, she started voting democratic. Still looking for how that happened.

It's high time to institute term limits and not necessarily be allowing the legislature to vote them in themselves, it should be done by national referendum, and let the people make the rule.
Time to consider how anyone can pay millions of dollars into a campaign to win a job that only pays 180K a year, then when they leave office, they are a multimillionaire and no one questions this.

Thank you, I'm so with you, it's a fluffed up deal all around and the deep state is real.

Sin. You're pretty on point on that but I think you can turn a precedent inside out. Any sort of limitations put on this president will be enforced going forward. If ultimately Trump's being wildly unpopular ends up setting new standards of checks and balances for the next president or at least sets a line of what a president can do domestically I'm ok with it. We had a long discussion about how the money is nothing and in terms of mitigating illegal immigration it will only stop a nominal amount. I know you're more of a pessimist about that but I see the wall thing as more or less a non-issue with future political implications.

Cerebus I have to balk one of your points. The "fruitless investigation" has produced a guilty plea from Paul Manafort. According to a filing in December, the Mueller probe has cost about $25 million (far greater than the $17 million trump claims). However, Manafort alone agreed to $46 million in asset forfeiture and back taxes so the Mueller probe is at this point a profitable industry. That doesnt mention the other 35 indicted people and companies. The secret case in the DC court is currently getting $50,000 per day in sanctions. The whole investigation has been extremely profitable.

Also there totally was an investigation into the Clinton Foundation that culminated in a congressional oversight hearing in December. https://youtu.be/pbZSuN7vTXw

Special council was appointed by then AG Jeff Sessions to investigate the Clinton foundation. It resulted in 0 indictments and used around $6 million to complete. To be honest with watching the hearing, the Republicans just did a bad job Haha. They badgered their own witnesses and made their own case look terrible. The foundation itself was found to be a pay to play corporation, and while registed as a non profit, was clearly not making donations unless they would turn a profit. But there was no tax fraud or anything to allow the US govt to recuperate any money spent on the investigation. While the foundation could eventually receive a fine, it probably is not likely.

Watch the hearing though. Republicans seem completely unaware that it even happened and theres some pretty damning stuff about the foundation in there. If you want to back up your Clinton hate with some facts, that hearing is a bountiful tree and a concrete conclusion to an investigation that your peeps have been calling for.

What makes you think that the Republican party was really looking to take her down? It was a show, Do you have any clue as to the degree of power the Clintons and Bush family have? Those two entities are fluffing scary, if any go down... there's going to be blood trail that can circumference our planet, those two families are responsible for more crimes than you can imagine, Derrick, Trump's alleged crimes are a drop in a swimming pool compared, take off the blindfold, brother!