Patterico's Pontifications

12/3/2018

Two Elected Politicians on the Cost of the Military

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:05 am



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom JVW memorably calls everyone’s favorite daffy socialist niece, has an eye-opening figure to tell you about: $21 trillion dollars of wasted money in the military budget:

Wowie. Except, of course, she’s full of it.

Wouldn’t it have been better for her to have actually read the article (or better yet, the report on which it’s based) before making this “wild misrepresentation”? Because that article says this, among other things:

To be clear, Skidmore, in a report coauthored with Catherine Austin Fitts, a former assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development who complained about similar plugs in HUD financial statements, does not contend that all of this $21 trillion was secret or misused funding. And indeed, the plugs are found on both the positive and the negative sides of the ledger, thus potentially netting each other out.

Who here thinks she read it? Bueller? Bueller?

Even this lefty is annoyed:

I’ll tell you who knows the cost of our military: our President, Donald J. Trump. And he’s pretty happy about it. From a rally at Chattanooga, Tennessee, on November 4, 2018:

We are rebuilding America’s military might like it’s never been rebuilt before. (APPLAUSE) And hopefully we’ll never have to use it, but I can tell you, the stronger we become, the less likely it is that we will have to use it, OK? (APPLAUSE) And we are building it at a level that has never been done before, $700 billion and $716 billion the following year. Under Republican leadership, America is respected again. (APPLAUSE)

From a rally in Tampa on July 31, 2018:

Really important for those who love our military, we have secured a record $700 billion for our military with another $716 billion next year all approved. And this is great news for the incredible patriots at MacDill Air Force Base, the proud home of the Sixth Air Mobility Wing U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command. Come on!

(APPLAUSE)

From a rally in Springfield, Missouri

And we secured a record $700 billion for our military this year and $716 billion next year. That will do things…

(APPLAUSE)

No country is even close. And again, very unimportantly by comparison, jobs to me are the most important, but there’s nothing more important than our military. There’s nothing more important than protection, especially in the world in which we live.

(APPLAUSE)

But — but jobs are very important, and I love to say it’s built right here in our country. Because we understand that there is no substitute in this world for American power and American strength.

Donald Trump at the U.N. General Assembly on September 25, 2018:

We have secured record funding for our military, $700 billion this year and $716 billion next year. Our military will soon be more powerful than it has ever been before. In other words, the United States is stronger, safer, and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago. We are standing up for America and the American people.

Yup, he knows that $716 billion number. And he’s proud of that $716 billion number. Wait, what?

Crazy!

I mean, “brilliant”! He tells people what they want to hear! Not like those other swampy guys.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

85 Responses to “Two Elected Politicians on the Cost of the Military”

  1. the US military, it is very wasteful and corrupt

    it’s a sad organization that lacks integrity and purpose anymore

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Remember the Pentagon that was the largest part of the sequester.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  3. they can’t even stop doing their feckless joke war on afghanistan

    they don’t think *strategically* anymore (idiot military)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. The Brits spent 100 years there pikachu, Watson got a jezail round for his trouble (ak of the time) Kipling had some choice words.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  5. S’okay, querida. No tengas miedo. 100 billion of your brain cells cannot be accounted for, either, and you’re doing all right.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. Private contractors can rock this world with less b.s. than our corrupt military.

    mg (ebf6c2)

  7. In the “basic math failure” department, the estimated $32T cost of “Medicaid for All” is for 10 years ($3.2T per year).

    The quoted excerpt of the article says the $21T in the Pentagon accounting study is for 17 years ($1.2T per year).

    So that is only 39% of the cost of “Medicaid for All”, not 66%.

    Further (and I have not read the article), if $700B/year is a record for Pentagon funding (assuming Spanky is telling the truth – always a dubious proposition), how did they manage to lose track of almost twice that much every year for the last 17 years?

    Dave (1bb933)

  8. She reminds me of the hijacker at the opening of escape from New York, ay dios mio.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  9. BTW, I love the thumbnail of Cadet Bonespurs trying to look tough (ooh, clenched fist!) in the second YouTube embed. I’ll bet he learned that move in the WWE…

    Dave (1bb933)

  10. 24x7x365…

    Colonel Haiku (5b7649)

  11. And yet she still hasn’t been savaged on snl or any of the reputable venues of satire, thsy would have to struggle to find someone that stupid even among their intern pool.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  12. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez could fall back on President Ford’s comment during the ’76 debate.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  13. Allahpundit looks at the same story (with a link back to right here…).

    But the best part of the HotAir piece is the delightful picture of our niece that it leads with.

    Dave (1bb933)

  14. Occasional-Cortex, She’ Guevara, Bolshevik Barbie…..

    She’s the future of the Left folks!

    harkin (a53154)

  15. Wait. That’s $21 trillion over 17 years, with an annual budget of half that? Someone is bad at accounting. I guess there was “emergency” war funding, but still.

    And I’m gonna guess that AOC’s $32 trillion is over a shorter period, so she’s comparing apples with orange trees.

    There’s a LOT of stupid here, even before we get to Trump.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  16. Oh, I see Dave has the same problem.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  17. Further (and I have not read the article), if $700B/year is a record for Pentagon funding (assuming Spanky is telling the truth – always a dubious proposition), how did they manage to lose track of almost twice that much every year for the last 17 years?

    Sounds like the accounting is really that bad. Imagine a person who makes $10,000 per month and has a mortgage payment of $2,000. To engage in Pentagon (and, it would appear, HUD) accounting practices would be to enter into the ledger that you spent $3,500 on your mortgage, and then later show additional unexplained income of $1,500 on a different line. If you did that on several different expenditures you could end up suggesting an income of $15,000 per month, and thus $5,000 in unaccountable spending, but in the end the books would be balanced around your actual $10,000 income.

    Of course, you would go to jail for these sorts of accounting practices, whereas the government just shrugs their shoulders and demands even more funding.

    JVW (42615e)

  18. “And yet she still hasn’t been savaged on snl or any of the reputable venues of satire, thsy would have to struggle to find someone that stupid even among their intern pool.”

    Pretty sure that any criticism of her is a hate crime.

    harkin (a53154)

  19. Allahpundit (and the Twitter comments he quotes) kind of explain this: the $21T figure involves money moving between accounts inside the DoD, so “the same $1 can be counted 1000’s of times”.

    Dave (1bb933)

  20. I’m also going to bet that a Medicare audit would look pretty bad, too, and that Medicaid Medicare For All would cost a damn sight more than $3.2T a year (which is roughly the entire US income tax revenue from all sources).

    The current Medicare payroll tax of 2.9% brings in about $250 billion a year. So, funding this as a payroll tax would require 13 times that, or about a 38% rate. Even if “split” (it really isn’t) between employer and employee, it would be a 19% tax instead of a 1.45% one.

    An employee making $100,000 a year would pay $19,000 of that in taxable income, and $19,000 in additional tax-free income through his employer. This is assuming that they don’t decide to stick it to this “rich” person.

    Or, maybe China will pay for it (the Democrat version of Trump’s Wall financing).

    Kevin M (a57144)

  21. Very shortly they are going to have to put an asterisk on money, where it says “Good for all debts public and private” so it reads like on of those store discount coupons.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  22. I think of her as the
    Socialist niece I never had.

    Not even my Lesbian cousin
    Is this socialist. She is about
    As liberal as you get in my
    Family. But she is no
    Occasional_Cortex.

    I should give her a call

    Steve57 (fe692e)

  23. It takes work to be this clueless, actually look at the children at the corn, among the democratic cohort in iowa

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. An employee making $100,000 a year would pay $19,000 of that in taxable income, and $19,000 in additional tax-free income through his employer. This is assuming that they don’t decide to stick it to this “rich” person.

    You may not be interested in Medicare for All, but Medicare for All is interested in you!

    Or, maybe China will pay for it (the Democrat version of Trump’s Wall financing).

    I’ve said all along that the Medicare for All advocates should mock Trump by promising that Canada will pay for it.

    Dave (1bb933)

  25. Here’s her older brother:
    https://spectator.org/calling-orourke/

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. A couple of years ago, the talk of free-healthcare in California disappeared after the forecasted cost of $400B surfaced. The discussion was dropped, but began anew when Democrats realized that their supporters had forgotten all about the projected cost.

    Colonel Haiku (5b7649)

  27. Speaking of costs…..

    A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

    In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

    harkin (a53154)

  28. but began anew when Democrats realized that their supporters had forgotten all about the projected cost.

    The problem with that is, once passed and implemented, those votes will see the cost every pay period. They will think things like

    “I used to pay $300 a month for really good medical insurance, now I pay $1500 a month for a bureaucratic nightmare.”

    Which, even in California, will get a voter upset. If only there was an opposition party.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  29. 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program

    this is unacceptable

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  30. Somewhat off-topic, for my friends who still live in the Golden State:

    There is an incredible opportunity in the next few years to start a second major party there. Something along the lines of the Federalist Society, strong on liberty, federalism, state’s rights and economic freedom. But ignoring the non-starter social issues that killed the state GOP.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  31. 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program

    But they assure me that this cannot happen. Hopefully similar assurances about then not voting are accurate.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  32. A couple of years ago, the talk of free-healthcare in California disappeared after the forecasted cost of $400B surfaced. The discussion was dropped, but began anew when Democrats realized that their supporters had forgotten all about the projected cost.

    That should give us a pretty good idea that Bernard Sanders’ claim that we can do Medicaid for All on only $1.2 trillion per year is complete garbage. If even California, with about 1/8 of the total U.S. population, says it’s going to cost our state $400 billion (and they are almost certainly low-balling the cost as well), then it should be clear that we’re looking at a minimum of $3 trillion annually, and it’s probably closer to $3.5 trillion.

    JVW (42615e)

  33. SECDEF MATTIS: Cutting defense will not help deficit.

    oh nice the idiot boy-girl pansy-ass are have an opinion

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  34. Of course its garbage wasn’t meg Whitman pro choice, how about Kashkari, how about fong, you used to live in the land of the triffids

    Narciso (2fac7d)

  35. medicare for all will be here soon. the conservative libertarian alternative of don’t get sick if you can’t afford insurance because medicare is socialism doesn’t seem to be working. if it was put up to a vote get rid of medicare or get rid of those who advocate getting rid of medicare. which do you think the american people would vote to get rid of?

    lany (fccb52)

  36. I love how French high schoolers want to riot over the idea that French universities might actually impose admission standards. Perish the thought!

    And French teenage girls certainly look chic and trendy as they flee from tear gas.

    JVW (42615e)

  37. But they assure me that this cannot happen.

    I dunno who assured you of that. Many of these are legal immigrants, in some cases green-card holders or even citizens. Their incomes are (unsurprisingly) lower than the average native-born American, so it is hardly a scandal that there are more welfare recipients. Nearly all of those households, according to the study, have at least one worker in the house.

    One should keep the numbers in perspective. The study says there are 4.7 million non-citizen headed households using welfare. If you drill down into the numbers, there are over 37 million *citizen* headed households using welfare. So non-citizen headed households make up 11% of all households using welfare, while they are 6.5% of all households. The idea that immigrants are the main drivers of welfare expenses is nonsense.

    That study also counts the Earned Income Tax Credit as “welfare”.

    According to Donald Trump, not paying income taxes “makes me smart”. Collecting available welfare and tax credits presumably makes these immigrants smart, too…

    Dave (1bb933)

  38. Poetry – French and flee in the same sentence.

    mg (ebf6c2)

  39. The military’s current budget is around $650B (~$60B for overseas contingency operations). For the base budget there is $223B in operations and maintenance, $142B in salaries, $115B in procurements, and $83B in RDT&E. So a lot of money paying for a lot of people, fuel, and new weapon systems. One can question accounting practices…but it really comes down to how big of military do you want, how much do you want it training and deploying, and what weapon systems are needed to meet the tactical challenges of the next 30 years. You can cut the $650B….fine….but understand what impact it will have on foreign policy, readiness, and tactical advantage. There is a cost.

    The congresswoman’s numbers are crazy…it’s amazing that she has an economics degree….I guess we see what it’s actually worth. It’s impossible to have more waste than the total military budget. You may question cost over-runs with defense contractors….and who gets deployed and how long….and the value of oversea bases and training….but that may not exactly be waste. Socialists and their creative accounting to get at other people’s money….certainly give them an “A” for effort…

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  40. Is it prudent to brag about spending when you’re drowning in debt? The people you owe money to might be listening.

    JRH (f51cae)

  41. 30. Kevin M (a57144) — 12/3/2018 @ 10:56 am

    There is an incredible opportunity in the next few years to start a second major party there.

    Especially with the primary system there. The major problem may be financing and the fact that really the forst people running would ahve to wun as mostly indepdents.

    Something along the lines of the Federalist Society, strong on liberty, federalism, state’s rights and economic freedom. But ignoring the non-starter social issues that killed the state GOP.

    It’s being anti-immigration that killed the California GOP, and that may not really be a racial issue. Interestingly, it’s now a state’s rights issue.

    The new party should be in faor of school vouchers.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  42. This scene is pretty bad.

    (Warning: Disturbing, even if the victim is French…)

    Dave (1bb933)

  43. I was all set to feel unsafe and triggered but EPIC FAIL at n the attempted link

    Colonel Haiku (5b7649)

  44. That’s weird, I even tested it in the Preview window…

    We can try it the old-fashioned way:

    https://www.facebook.com/LePiloteDavid/videos/319661905294226/

    Dave (1bb933)

  45. the french may seem brutal how they’re beating their own citizens bloody and senseless but you have to remember it’s cause these people are actively opposing Official Climate Policy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  46. Speaking of triggered…..

    Following more than a year of hard-fought litigation in the hostile Ninth Circuit, Young America’s Foundation secured victory for free speech against the University of California, Berkeley. Through YAF’s lawsuit and subsequent settlement agreement executed over the weekend, UC Berkeley agreed to the following terms set by Young America’s Foundation:

    1) Pay Young America’s Foundation $70,000.

    2) Rescind the unconstitutional “high-profile speaker policy.”

    3) Rescind the viewpoint-discriminatory security fee policy.

    4) Abolish its heckler’s veto—protestors will no longer be able to shut down conservative expression.

    This landmark victory for free expression means UC Berkeley can no longer wantonly treat conservative students as second-class members of its community while ignoring the guaranteed protections of the First Amendment.

    No longer can UC Berkeley place a 3:00 p.m. curfew on conservative speech. No longer can UC Berkeley ban advertisements for Young America’s Foundation-sponsored campus lectures. And no longer can UC Berkeley relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving leftist speakers access to preferred locations.

    Further, the policy that allowed Berkeley administrators to charge conservative students $20,000 for security to host Ben Shapiro—an amount three times greater than the fee charged to leftist students to host liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—is gone. YAF and UC Berkeley agreed to a fee schedule that treats all students equally. Unless students are handling money or serving alcohol at an event, the security fee will be zero.”

    https://www.yaf.org/news/yaf-wins-landmark-free-speech-lawsuit-uc-berkeley-to-pay-70000-and-rescind-unconstitutional-policies/

    Coulda saved a lot of trouble and $$$ if they’d only realized Berkeley was in the United States.

    harkin (fbc353)

  47. the anarchists are not furthering their cause, but if this idiot enarque didn’t impose this stupid law, there would be no need to protest, on this point, he’s very much like young George 3rd and the lord north cabinet, his predecessor had been deposed by janus, the bete noire to warren hastings a decade later,

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. lany: “medicare for all will be here soon”

    First, show me a state single-payer system that works. Please go break California before you make the rest of us suffer under this accounting delusion. Whether you are going to slash reimbursement payments to doctors and nurses by 40%….or sustain new 10% payroll taxes….the effects will be dramatic and real for people.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  49. this is why Obamacare was designed to fail, it was unsustainable from the get go, he told various audience you couldn’t get to single payer in one fell swoop,

    narciso (d1f714)

  50. 51 – pretty much

    You can’t do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that,” Gruber said. “In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.” Jonathon Gruber, architect of Obamacare.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHPSQI5ODM

    harkin (fbc353)

  51. In 52 the YouTube link talks about passing Obamacare to get to single payer. Left out quote from that one.

    harkin (fbc353)

  52. “Future events like these will affect you in teh future…”

    —- lany/perrydamus

    Colonel Haiku (5b7649)

  53. The proposed level of military spending always brings Eisenhower’s remarks on the military-industrial complex to mind.

    One might want to consider a “simple inquiry.”:
    a) What has the USA spent on military actions and support in Afghanistan over the past sixteen years? It appears to be about $780 Million.
    b) What has the Taliban spent on military actions and support over the past sixteen years? I haven’t been able to find any authoritative data on this, but I’d guess that it’s substantially less than $780 million.

    What’s the dollars-to-security ratio of the proposed new spending?

    John B Boddie (87cc45)

  54. a truly superlative example of self-awareness:

    Behar Flips Out on Meghan McCain For Saying that Tributes to G.W.H. Bush Ought to be Genuine Tributes to Him, and Not Barely-Disguised Attacks on Trump.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  55. That’s like hold my 40.

    urbanleftbehind (380f76)

  56. More like chablis, this is deep delusion

    Narciso (d1f714)

  57. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez,

    You can pick one of these but only one:

    1) Socialism;
    2) Open borders.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  58. Not very hard to explain, in some people’s pocket.

    hotmail.com login (de6475)

  59. 61 you left out 3) cut military spending. 4) tax the rich to 1950’s level. national sales tax on goods& services.5) value added tax. 6) be like the rest of the world and stop drug company from price gouging americans so foreign countries have cheep drug prices.

    lany (8c1da2)

  60. Without the us security umbrella, no country in Europe which is 1/5 our size, even attempts national health care,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  61. I get it that progressives and an uncomfortable number of Trumpalistas don’t like fact checkers (and for similar reasons), but this fact-checker fact-checked Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, and the result: Four Pinocchios.
    Not only could the same dollar be accounted for many times, the unsupported voucher adjustments were on both the revenue and expense sides of the ledger.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  62. Some backstory: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2018/01/price-to-complete-dods-first-annual-audit-918-million-1200-personnel/

    The results of this [first time ever] audit were fully anticipated.

    Oh, and I have to add in response to this: “Makes her look like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”

    Mr. Solimini, there is no “makes her look like” about it. She is an ignorant yet pompous individual, raised far beyond her [minimal] level of competence, who opens her mouth only to prove herself an utter fool.

    ColoComment (943515)

  63. “I get it that progressives and an uncomfortable number of Trumpalistas don’t like fact checkers”
    Paul Montagu (8afb2a) — 12/4/2018 @ 7:44 am

    Your comment is rated as Mostly False.

    Munroe (e041c4)

  64. Your comment is rated as Mostly False.

    Ironic, because you just expressed your dislike for fact checkers, which makes my comment true.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  65. because fact checkers are left propagandists, when did they point out the lie in Obamacare or the iran deal or the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ fraud,

    narciso (d1f714)

  66. at the end of the day our incompetent sleazy trash military can’t be audited cause they’re a bunch of snotty hyper-entitled criminals

    it’s that simple

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  67. 66… “I get it that progressives and an uncomfortable number of Trumpalistas don’t like fact checkers (and for similar reasons), but this fact-checker fact-checked Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, and the result: Four Pinocchios.”

    What you don’t get is that sites like Snopes, Politifact, and Hell, the Washington Post are all Leftwing sites and what you’ve cited is the exception, not the rule. In addition, the case could be made that they pursue Occasional-Cortex because they know she has little chance of winning major elective office, but a much better chance of ruining “the Brand”.

    Colonel Haiku (5b7649)

  68. Further displays of boganism will only strengthen that divide…

    Colonel Haiku (5b7649)

  69. @63
    because fact checkers are left propagandists, when did they point out the lie in Obamacare or the iran deal or the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ fraud
    Come on – The Obama thing was denoted as Lie of the Year” by the leftist fact checkers. Don’t pick something obviously…fact checkable.

    TomM (954e56)

  70. What you don’t get is that sites like Snopes, Politifact, and Hell, the Washington Post are all Leftwing sites

    That may be, but just because a Lefist says A is a lie does not mean A is true. And when the pot calls the kettle black, the kettle does not stop being black.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  71. What you don’t get is that sites like Snopes, Politifact, and Hell, the Washington Post are all Leftwing sites and what you’ve cited is the exception, not the rule.

    I think you’ve got it backwards. Their mistakes are the exception. Folks like Kessler aren’t perfect, and there is some lefting-leaning bias creeping out from time to time, but they’re credible, which is why I link to them.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  72. Colonel, if you want to persuade people that the liberal fact checkers can’t be trusted, it is better to use something that is not part of the Breitbartian Echo Chamber.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  73. If they aren’t convinced by visiting the undeniably left-leaning sites and reading what is either supported by the site as true or graded as false, it’s of no use. The evidence is there, kishnevi.

    Colonel Haiku (5b7649)

  74. No they are a fraud they apprenticed in the Graham posts middle east bureau,

    Narciso (060ad6)

  75. “Ironic, because you just expressed your dislike for fact checkers, which makes my comment true.”
    Paul Montagu (8afb2a) — 12/4/2018 @ 9:46 am

    Another comment fact checked as False. Two for two, Paul.

    Munroe (3c6490)

  76. Well then I stand corrected. You like fact-checkers, link notwithstanding.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  77. “I’m a Tariff Man,” eh? How silly.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 800 points

    Smooth move, Mr. genius businessman.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  78. I just looked up exactly when I made the prediction, here on this site, that Dodgy Donnie would be out of office within a year.

    Well, that was November 28th of last year. So time’s up – my prediction was wrong.

    So that’s that. The arm of the law may be long, but it can be excruciatingly slow too.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  79. in so far as they are short on petroleum, they can’t really be part of opec,

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2018/12/04/qatar-to-saudi-arabia-we-would-rather-quit-opec-than-cut-relations-with-iran-or-shutter-al-jazeera/#517be5c8222b

    they do seem long on jihadism

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. in other news, trump seems to be leaning toward bill barr, bush sr’s last attorney

    narciso (d1f714)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3522 secs.