On character and grace

by Jamison Koehler on January 4, 2021
Trump at Resolute Desk

One of the nicest things anyone ever said about me came from a woman many years ago on the occasion of her retirement from the federal government.  She recalled that whenever she poked her head into my office, I would stop whatever I was doing, get up from my desk and greet her at the door.  She said this was particularly noteworthy considering that we were at opposite ends of our country’s skewed social hierarchy:  I was head of the office and she was a clerk-typist.  I was a man and she was a woman.  I was white and she was black.  I was young and she was old.  

This was one of the best compliments I have ever received.  I wish my mother had been present to hear it.  

I thought of this self-congratulatory thing recently upon seeing yet another photograph of Donald Trump sitting at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office – self-satisfied smile with thumbs up — as other people stand around him.

There is no question that Trump lacks basic manners.  Recall Trump emerging from the limousine before his inauguration and lumbering toward the door, leaving the Obamas to attend to Melania.  There is also the photograph of Trump holding an umbrella over himself, exposing his wife walking next to him to the rain.  Someone on the internet juxtaposed this photograph with one of President Obama holding an umbrella over two staff members while he himself – the President of the United States — got wet.  

If manners can be taught, what does it say about the character of a man who allows himself to be photographed seated while others – including heads of state from other countries — are left standing around him in supplicating positions?  A man who pushes his way past the prime minister of Montenegro so that he can take center stage for a photograph?  

Character evidence is an anomalous area of the law.  It is, for example, the one instance in which the rules of evidence actually encourage the introduction of hearsay.

Special treatment of character evidence in a criminal case is based on the longstanding recognition that – notwithstanding the emotional growth we see portrayed again and again in movies and on TV – a person’s character tends toward immutability.  The special treatment acknowledges that circumstantial evidence pertaining to someone’s personality could in fact be a good indication as to how that person may have acted on the day in question.  

In Trump’s case, his lack of character is reflected in more than his inability to tell the truth or remain faithful to his wife.  It is more than the feelings of deep-seated insecurity that are suggested by his need to be seated and at the center of every photograph when everyone already knows that he is the most powerful man on Earth.  

The recent recording of Trump’s phone conversation with the Georgia Secretary of State only confirms what we already know about Trump’s character.  In fact, that he learned nothing from his phone call with the Ukrainian prime minister and that he has no problem acting like a mob boss suggests that Trump’s problems go beyond a mere lack of manners or character.

The man is a sociopath.  He does not learn.  He has no shame.  He is driven only by immediate self-interest.  

24 Comments on “On character and grace

  1. You nailed this one.

    It is unfathomable to me that the GOP has turned so much into a party that does not care in the least for the rule of law.

    I used to think it would be enough for Trump to go back to where he came from. Now I believe he needs to be put in prison.

  2. Rick:

    I don’t see criminal charges — either federal or state — sticking in connection with the Raffensperger call. What Trump intended with his words is too unclear. But I agree: Trump has violated the law in so many other ways. He needs to be held accountable.

  3. I doubt anyone would really try to hold him accountable. And, if they did, I suspect he has some kind of presidential immunity, or maybe a pardon, up his sleeve.

    But interfering with an election does seem to be a crime. What Trump intended by his words is, indeed, clear: change your certification of the election, to show that I won, and not Biden.

  4. Presidential immunity or pardon would not help him with the state charges. But I agree that he will never be held accountable: We have too many other challenges, and people will want to move on.

  5. I was glad to find many things in this well-written post and following comments I agree with:
    1. I agree with the woman who gave Jamison the compliment. He does have the best manners, particularly in showing others respect and granting them importance;
    2. Trump could stand for photos and let others shine more, taking pleasure in others’ successes;
    3. He learned nothing from his phone call with the Ukrainian Prime Minister;
    4. There are many in the Republican Party who don’t seem to care for the rule of law – and I’d expand that to include members of both parties; and
    5. Interfering with an election is a criminal act and all those who interfered should be held accountable. In fact I believe a full investigation should be held and it’s time to not just get the small participants at the bottom but trace it all the way to the “mob boss” or bosses calling the shots and manipulating the others. When they are exposed maybe leniency can be extended to those who did it for money or because they were threatened somehow. I would say 97.5% of Americans, no matter their political persuasion, actually want a fair and free election.

  6. Carla:

    Thank you. It is always great to have you visiting and commenting on this site.


    You are the older brother I have loved and admired my entire life. But I have to say I find your comment disingenuous. You don’t really think, for example, that this post was about whether Trump stood or sat for photographs. Right?

    Unless you are suggesting that this “full investigation” be carried out after Biden is inaugurated (after all, the default position should be that he won the election), it is a little hard to take this proposal seriously. Instead, you sound a whole lot like the people who are looking for any excuse to keep Trump in office.

    As for your suggestion that 97.5% of Americans support a fair and free election, recent evidence clearly suggests the contrary. This is what I have found so disillusioning.

    Finally, your point about mob bosses sounds like some paranoid conspiracy theory.

    I hope this response doesn’t make you want to re-visit point #1 about me showing respect and granting importance to others.

  7. “So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”

    That is from Trump’s phone call with Georgian Secretary of State Raffensperger, and it belies the notion that Trump is trying to protect the constitution (hahahaha!) or do anything other than to overturn the results of a validly conducted election. Listen to Trump: He just can’t believe he lost in Georgia. This is despite the fact the votes in Georgia have been counted three times in a process overseen by Republicans with long history of allegiance toward Trump. No “full investigation” is going to change this.

    And Trump’s sycophants in Congress should be ashamed of themselves for putting their own personal interests — based on their fear of “angry people in red hats” — over democratic principles.

  8. No, Jamison, your response could not possibly make me revisit my point #1 about your showing of respect and granting others importance. The fact you respond to my comments and even allow them here further reinforces my point #1. In fact, if you did not post them, it would only be to, in your opinion, protect your admired, older brother from the risk of losing that admiration and respect your grant me in the eyes of others. And I will further say that having had you visit one of my on-line virtual high school classes and share your work and address their questions, my admiration and respect for you and what you do is higher than ever.

    That said, I did not miss the point of your post when I agreed that Trump’s inclination to sit at his imposing Mahogony Desk in the company of world leaders could be taken as revealing in regard to his character and grace.

    I also stand by my remark that 97.5% of Americans want to see the truth come out about these recent elections as well as past elections and want any corruption in government to be brought to the light. There are in my opinion very few people who actually have what one might call “destructive” personalities. It may seem larger because others come under their influence and can be intimidated. Those in Washington you are calling sycophants I, at the moment, see as those standing up for their ideals and for our Democracy.

    I don’t consider it a conspiracy theory to say that there are two (at least) opposing sides here with very different views of our country’s (and the world’s) future and that there are some players probably on both sides that are as of yet invisible. Afterall, that is the world of what we call espionage. Perhaps once intelligence agencies were to gather information on the opposing side, but they have morphed into efforts to manipulate people and their ideas.

    And since you quoted from Trump’s most recent phone call, I will conclude with another quote from it: “And, Brad, we just want the truth. It’s simple.”

    I hope this will not stop you from visiting another of my high school classes that has requested you. Whether they just want a break from Latin or have a real interest in the law will become irrevelant once they meet you and get to ask you questions.

  9. Raymond:

    Thank you for your most recent comment.

    I disagree with your claim that “97.5% of Americans want to see the truth come out.” I believe instead that it is this same percentage of Americans who want to see THEIR VERSION of the truth emerge.

    This is because “truth” is such a squishy term.

    So let’s begin instead with what I think we can both agree are the building blocks for ascertaining the truth: facts.

    Centuries of jurisprudence in the U.S., Britain, and other countries have developed an elaborate system for teasing out facts. Although it is not a perfect system (to paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is the worst system ever created except for every other), it is best system I know of. It certainly beats you and me shouting at each other. It is intended to be fair: Every party is heard, and there are rules for admitting evidence.

    Many Republicans criticized Trump’s impeachment as an infringement on the prerogative of American voters. The ballot box was where this issue should be decided.

    When the issue was in fact decided on November 3, 2020, Trump and his sycophants (yes, I stand by that word) decided to move the goal posts.

    But, because by every indication the system had worked fine, it was up to them to prove through the courts that some type of fraud had occurred. Trump filed, as I understand it, 60 lawsuits and the courts then engaged in this comprehensive fact-finding process. (It was a pretty abbreviated process because there were not a lot of facts to decide.). The one suit Trump won on was on a minor procedural matter, directing Pennsylvania to do what it was already doing. Every other suit was thrown out for lack of evidence, including by many judges appointed by and presumably sympathetic to Trump.

    Because no self-respecting lawyers would touch the cases, Trump was represented by a fourth-rate team of lawyers who didn’t seem to understand the basic rules of evidence. They didn’t seem to understand, for example, that conclusions are not evidence and that the courts wouldn’t simply take their word for things. When pressed for actual evidence, the lawyers introduced affidavits from multiple people who lied about their credentials. For example, “Spyder,” the man who was supposed to be high-ranking intelligence official, turned out to a former auto mechanic with the army.

    Apart from isolated instances of voter fraud (a Trump supporter voting for his dead mother, for example), there has been no evidence of fraud, certainly not fraud at a level to have affected the election.

    In fact, no matter what allegations Trump’s lawyers made to the media, many of the lawsuits themselves did not even allege fraud. This is, I imagine, because the lawyers themselves knew that they could not commit fraud on the court without subjecting themselves to discipline.

    This brings us to Senators Cruz, Hawley and these other champions of “ideals and our Democracy.” Unlike Trump’s lawyers, Senators Cruz and Hawley are lawyers with impeccable credentials. Because they are too sophisticated to allege fraud without actual evidence, they choose their words very carefully. Cruz, for example, complains about “unprecedented allegations of voter fraud.” Notice, for example, that Cruz doesn’t claim actual voter fraud. What he claims instead is that the ALLEGATIONS are unprecedented. In that, he is absolutely correct. We have never had a president who has gone to these lengths to reverse the results of our democratic election. This is the same with Hawley. He doesn’t say there was fraud. He says that millions of American BELIEVE there was fraud.

    In other words, when you put aside all the verbiage about election fairness and the Constitution, the only thing Cruz and Hawley actually claim is that Trump and his supporters BELIEVE there was fraud. And this is TRUE! They are betting that Trump supporters among their constituents will not actually examine their words carefully. This too is true.

    So what does Trump say? Trump has never run in an election in which he has NOT claimed that the voting was rigged against him. Trump set up a commission headed by his friend Kris Kobach to investigate allegations of voter fraud after the 2016 election. The commission examined the allegations in great and quietly folded after failing to find any evidence.

    Now listen to Trump before this election. When asked about this, he said that the only way he could lose would be if the system was rigged. In other words, the only truth for Trump involved victory. Apart from the conspiracy theories that have been debunked by the courts, his major argument seems to be that there is no way he could have lost to a weak candidate such as “Sleepy Joe.” After all, Biden does not draw thousands of people at campaign rallies. Trump also could not understand how he lost the big lead he appeared to have on the day of the election. This is true even though pundits had been predicting for months that mail-in ballots that would not be counted until after election day would skew heavily in Biden’s favor.

    So now we are left with Trump supporters. They, like Biden supporters, do not have any special knowledge and insights. They seem to believe there was election fraud because Trump keeps claiming there was. Just as I cannot fathom how over 71 million Americans actually voted for the man, they cannot conceive that 80 million Americans did not.

    Alas, innuendo, suspicions and conspiracy theories are not evidence. They do not constitute facts. There is no truth there to seek.

    In short, there has not been a shred of evidence of any election fraud. That people who are unhappy with the outcome are concerned about election integrity and the Constitution is laughable. We did not hear a peep out of them when the election results supported their candidate in 2016.

    After that long-winded response, Ray, I will say that of course I look forward to joining your next on-line class. If there is in fact an ascertainable truth, it is this one: I am sure I enjoyed the class far more any of your students.

  10. That was a well-thought-out blog post all by itself! A couple of minor typos, but good job of laying it all out.

    I, too, was puzzled by this “97.5%” number. I’m guessing it was pulled out of…somewhere. (Thin air, maybe? Hehe.)

    The majority of people on “all” sides of the debate are interested in their version of the truth. But there is a difference between “their” truth and veridicality.

    I’m going to stick with veridicality, and, recognizing that Trump lost — while making history as the first Republican in three decades to lose Georgia in the Presidential Election — and look forward to hopefully better times, when adults take over from the Petulant Child-in-Chief.

    Anyway, that response is just one reason I started reading your blog again. As I said, great job!

  11. Rick:

    Thank you. Don’t you miss the good old days of the CDL blogosphere during which we are all writing furiously, reading each other, and engaging in spirited back-and-forth in the comment sections?

    I still read Greenfield. And you, now that I realize you are writing again. Gamso no longer writes (though he occasionally comments here). Bennett moved on to a different medium. Seddiq went out with a parting shot at all the rest of us (mostly directed at Greenfield, I think). And so on.

    Greenfield was absolutely right when he predicted twitter would replace the blogosphere.

    I am still in touch with Pattis. I helped him with a case here in D.C., and it was fun to sit in court with him a couple of times. Seddiq and I are no longer in touch. That is too bad considering how often I used to see her.

  12. Jamie, I am sorry to keep this back and forth and forth going but I just had to respond one last time.

    Rick, I agree that Jamie’s response to me was worthy of being a blog post all in itself despite the typos. I also liked your light-hearted response, if I duplicated the tone correctly. But mostly I just wanted to say that anyone who comes up with a Latin-based word like “veridicality” is all right by me. You made my night!

    That doesn’t mean I am willing to divulge the sources of my percentages without a subpoena. Until then I am happy letting everyone believe they came from thin air.

  13. Great post, Jamison — and such an interesting follow-up discussion. I can’t resist chiming in.

    Raymond, you quoted President Trump from his phone call to Georgia’s Secretary of State Raffensperger:

    “And, Brad, we just want the truth. It’s simple.”

    Let’s focus on “truth” for a moment. Truth based on facts and evidence.

    Here’s the evidence Trump produces:

    Reports of alleged irregularities that have all been looked into exhaustively and produced no actual evidence of anything amiss.

    His crowd size during a pandemic when he was holding live, in-person rallies against the advice of the medical community while Biden was responsibly hosting virtual events.

    Declarations of things he believes are true like “So there were many infractions” when actually, not a single one held up in court when actual evidence needed to be produced, not just false claims stated during press conferences to create a frenzy of misinformation.

    His insistence he didn’t lose because “People have been saying that it was the highest vote ever.” So clearly “There’s no way” he lost because, “A lot of the political people said that there’s no way they beat me.” He went on to insist: “We won every state.”

    Here’s one “fact” he stated: “But in Detroit, we had, I think it was, 139 percent of the people voted. That’s not good.”

    It’s also not true.

    “We have a lot of people complaining they weren’t able to vote,” he said. Hmmm. A lot of people. That must mean he won after all.

    Raffensperger politely explained to the president that his office already addressed all of these issues one by one to the state Senate, the state House and the government affairs committee. They also met with U.S. congressmen.

    To which Trump retorted: “You know, we won the state.”

    Then he went on to say that “we only lost the state by that number, 11,000 votes, and 779.” So all he was asking — a simple request! — was for Raffensberger to find that number of votes — no more, no less! — and we can all just move on.

    Because, as he so logically explained, “What’s the difference between winning the election by two votes and winning it by half a million votes? I think I probably did win it by half a million.”

    And he goes on to claim — without evidence — that people “came from Alabama and from South Carolina and from other states, and they’re saying it’s impossible for you to have lost Georgia.”

    To which Raffensperger responded: “Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.”

    But this is the part of the conversation that gets me the most. The name was removed from the transcript because Trump’s claims were so egregious, so defamatory, so libelous, news media didn’t even want to dignify it by revealing who he is talking about. But here it is:

    “But we’re so far ahead. We’re so far ahead of these numbers, even the phony ballots of [name], known scammer. You know the Internet? You know what was trending on the Internet? ‘Where’s [name]?’ Because they thought she’d be in jail. ‘Where’s [name]?’ It’s crazy, it’s crazy. That was. The minimum number is 18,000 for [name], but they think it’s probably about 56,000, but the minimum number is 18,000 on the [name] night where she ran back in there when everybody was gone and stuffed, she stuffed the ballot boxes. Let’s face it, Brad, I mean. They did it in slow motion replay magnified, right? She stuffed the ballot boxes. They were stuffed like nobody has ever seen them stuffed before.

    “So there’s a term for it when it’s a machine instead of a ballot box, but she stuffed the machine. She stuffed the ballot. Each ballot went three times, they were showing: Here’s ballot No 1. Here it is a second time, third time, next ballot.”

    He is talking about Stacey Abrams. And there is not one shred of truth to it. Not even one iota.

    So you go ahead and defend this man on his self-serving path of destruction in your ardent belief that he and his enablers are the true protectors of the Constitution and our democracy and I will throw my support around people like Stacey Abrams who truly exemplify what it means to work selflessly and tirelessly for the greater good. Mark my words: Stacey Abrams will go down in history as a true hero. She will be remembered and revered and celebrated for generations to come. Trump? Not so much.

    I will close with Abrams’ tweet congratulating Raphael Warnock on beating the odds by defeating a Republican incumbent to win a seat on the U.S. Senate and make history as Georgia’s first Black senator.

    “Congratulations to our next U.S. Senator, @ReverendWarnock. Last January, I endorsed my dear friend in his quest to serve. Soon, he will walk those august halls and cast votes as a leader with courage, justice and integrity. God bless you and keep you in your service to us all.”

  14. Mary Anne:

    Thank you for your comment. It is always good to hear argument grounded in fact. No surprise coming from a journalist.

    I too have been stewing over the argument that Trump’s “simple” request for the “truth” at the tail-end of an hour-long discussion suggests that he was seeking to do anything other than to have the Georgia’s election officials tamper with the results.

    First, this suggestion ignores everything else that Trump said in the conversation.

    Second, this suggestion ignores the fact that even the clumsiest mob boss knows how to cover his tracks.

    Third, the suggestion completely ignores who Trump is and how he thinks of things. This is the issue with Trump: Because he has no filter, we have special insight into his thinking.

    Trump is a narcissist. He equates the United States with himself. When he was attacked personally for his handling of the pandemic, he took umbrage that anyone could be criticizing the United States. Either he does not know the difference between his Adminstration and the country writ large or he is incredibly disingenuous.

    Also look at Trump’s words before the election. In his mind, an election in which he won would be fair. An election in which he lost would be rigged. I am not speculating here. This is what he said.

    In this context, there is no difference between “Brad, I am looking for the truth” and “Brad, you need to change the results of the election so that we arrive at the true outcome.” Because what did he say again and again? He said: We need to find 11,000 votes plus 700.

    In short, to suggest Trump’s intentions in making the call was to assure election integrity is both disingenuous and naïve. It would be laughable if the consequences were not so serious.

  15. Ray:

    You need never apologize for continuing a debate here. That is the purpose of the comment section. And you are doing me the favor of sharing your views here whether or not I agree with them.

    Along those lines, let me say this: I think you need to be careful who you find yourself associating with.

    There are thousands of people assembling in Freedom Plaza in downtown D.C. as I write this. I used to look out over Freedom Plaza from the window of my office at the Ronald Reagan building. So I know the area very well.

    From the phone calls I have received over the last couple of days from people seeking legal advice in advance of their trip here, I know that many of these people will be heavily armed and looking for conflict. For example, I have had all sorts of questions about brass knuckles, tasers, collapsible batons, etc.

    These are now your people.

    Can you say the same about me? Can you associate me with the equally radical/violent members of antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement?


    But here is the difference: I support the principles of BLM. Do you support the White Supremacist principles of the Proud Boys? Because your arguments sound an awful lot like theirs. Or those of QAnon.

    It is like the scene at the end of Orwell’s Animal Farm. The pigs are sitting around the dinner table with humans. After a while it becomes nearly impossible to tell the difference.

  16. Mary Anne, I read what you wrote and agree with what Jamie said – at least for the most part.

    Jamison, I can say I support the same principles of BLM that you do, following a cursory review of what I saw just now on a google search. What I would object to, if anything, is the more limited political agenda that the leaders of this group may be pushing under the umbrella of these wonderful principles. One can’t just look at words, they most look at products.

    I will take your rhetorical question about the principles of the Proud Boys as just that – a question asked for effect. You do not really have any question about my principles or values and if you do then I have no words to express what I think or feel.

    If my arguments sound a lot like theirs the problem is in your unwillingness to look or see. The future of any civilization depends on the ability of its citizens to differentiate, because the thinking equation of A=A=A is insanity and will definitely result in the sort of Orwellian Animal Farm to which you refer.

    I suggest that you go to the Washington mall right now, before the curfew, and talk to the crowds there. You will find that they aren’t a “they” or a “crowd.” They aren’t what the press or anyone else says they are. They are individuals and except for a very few, want the same things that we do for themselves, their families and their country. I would have gone if I could have arranged it. I have several friends who are there. I am basing my huge generalization here on myself and those I know.

  17. Goody.

    I am watching the news coverage now.

    Maybe we will see your friends whooping it up on the floor of the Senate.

    You must be so proud.

  18. My friends are peaceful, sensible Trump supporters, not paid agitators. You really think Soros would have allowed a peaceful Trump rally without busing in the same “troops” he used to create havoc in other cities this summer? As Cicero cried, “O tempora, O mores!” After listening to so many of the lofty speeches that followed about the assault on the citadel of democracy all I can say is O the irony! Won’t those mighty orators feel foolish when they wake up in the morning to find out it was their own supporters in Trump clothing they were so elegantly scolding and warning us about. But then again, what chance do they have of waking up since the media will not print it and Big Tech will censure it.

  19. Ray:

    Although none of my friends are Trump supporters, I have represented many Trump supporters in criminal cases. I have gotten to know them. I have gotten to know their families. I have found many of them to be warm, charming, funny, and loving people who want the same things for their families as I want for mine.

    That is true.

    Also true: Some of them are white supremacists.

    Also true: All of them support a man who has entirely different words for lawbreakers depending on the color of their skin.

    For black and brown people who steal items from a CVS store: You will be criminally prosecuted to the maximum extent allowed by law. You will be shot.

    For white Trump supporters who break into the U.S. Capitol building: We love you. Go home in peace.

    This is the first I have heard of George Soros’ involvement in breaking into the Capitol. Although there has been absolutely no evidence of that, I guess that shouldn’t matter in this evidence- and sanity-free zone.

    I suppose it also shouldn’t surprise me that you attempt to justify all of this by suggesting that the invaders were really Democrats impersonating Trump supporters. After all, this is what OANN, Newsmaxx and Fox have been insinuating. Again, absolutely no evidence of that.

    In the meantime, the images from the occupation have been seared into my brain. I think of the “protester” with his feet up on Nancy Pelosi’s desk. I think of the invaders chasing one lone officer up multiple flights of stairs. I think of the look of fear on the face of one overweight officer who is surrounded by angry invaders. Although the officer is wearing a mask, you can see the fear in his eyes.

    Again, you must be so proud.

  20. I feel the same as you do about those invading the Capitol; disgust for the 2.5 % who instigated it and a sort of pity for those good-intentioned others who may have gotten swept up by it and in one case paid the ultimate price for it.

  21. I’m hoping that Soros comment was a joke. Another one of those ideas that was pulled from the air, but this time more likely flatulent than thin.

    And to Jamison, yes. I do miss those days. For all kinds of reasons. Life for me was, in many ways, simpler. I had more fun as a lawyer, too, than I seem to have these days. (Truth is, these days I often wish I could find another way to make money; either writing, or photography, or both. The world just seems to have become too prosecutor-and-cop-friendly. At least in my neck of the woods.)

    I occasionally read Scott. Not as much, nor in the same mood, as I used to. Maybe that’s because I buy into CLS a little more than he does. (Not completely, but definitely more than he does, since he is antagonistic towards it, and I’m not.)

    Miriam and I had an exchange on Instagram the other day. I’m not sure if it was positive, or not. For my part, I hope it was positive. But I don’t think she cares for me much these days. (But that’s okay. If that’s true, she’s not alone!)

    I get Bennett’s free articles. His last one was fantastic. I hope his new venture is paying off. I started to try out that platform, but felt like I was stealing juice from my website, so I shut it down, and moved the articles to my website. It helped that I got in early with Newsletter Glue. I get the same benefit of having a newsletter capability that Substack gave, although I don’t have a paywall.

    Hopefully, I have a new article up within the next hour or two. (One thing I envy about Scott is his ability to crank out posts in under 60 seconds. I sometimes take days to write mine. Today’s post was started a couple days ago.)

  22. Raymond, no one is going to wake up to the world you are describing, not because the media won’t print it, not because Big Tech will censure it, but because it doesn’t exist. What you are parroting is drivel propagated by junk news sites. For example, George Soros is not the demon you think he is. Do me a favor and google Reuters and “Fact check: False claims about George Soros.” Reuters is about as neutral and reliable a news source as you will ever find.

    Who was it who said it is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *