Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
March 12, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/pete-hegseth-pentagon-2676083316
Pentagon bans photographers for 'unflattering' photos of Pete Hegseth: report
Pete is a vain idiot
The Pentagon apparently shut out photographers from attending press briefings on the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war in Iran after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's staff decided recent photos of him were "unflattering," The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-03-11T21:40:10Z
https://www.rawstory.com/pete-hegseth-pentagon-2676083316
The Pentagon apparently shut out photographers from attending press briefings on the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war in Iran after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's staff decided recent photos of him were "unflattering," The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The images from the March 2 briefing came after Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed during a joint military strike on Feb. 28. It was the first time Hegseth had appeared in the briefing room and spoken to press since June 26.
The Associated Press, Reuters and Getty Images were among the media groups that sent photographers to the briefing with Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"But after they published photos — which have broad reach because they are licensed by publications globally — members of Hegseth’s staff told colleagues that they did not like the way that the secretary looked," two people who were familiar with the decision told The Post. They asked to speak under the condition of anonymity, citing concerns over potential retaliation.
Hegseth's aides then barred photographers from joining two other briefings at the Pentagon on March 4 and March 10.
“In order to use space in the Pentagon Briefing Room effectively, we are allowing one representative per news outlet if uncredentialed, excluding pool," Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in a written statement. "Photographs from the briefings are immediately released online for the public and press to use. If that hurts the business model for certain news outlets, then they should consider applying for a Pentagon press credential.”
The images from the March 2 briefing came after Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed during a joint military strike on Feb. 28. It was the first time Hegseth had appeared in the briefing room and spoken to press since June 26.
The Associated Press, Reuters and Getty Images were among the media groups that sent photographers to the briefing with Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"But after they published photos — which have broad reach because they are licensed by publications globally — members of Hegseth’s staff told colleagues that they did not like the way that the secretary looked," two people who were familiar with the decision told The Post. They asked to speak under the condition of anonymity, citing concerns over potential retaliation.
Hegseth's aides then barred photographers from joining two other briefings at the Pentagon on March 4 and March 10.
“In order to use space in the Pentagon Briefing Room effectively, we are allowing one representative per news outlet if uncredentialed, excluding pool," Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in a written statement. "Photographs from the briefings are immediately released online for the public and press to use. If that hurts the business model for certain news outlets, then they should consider applying for a Pentagon press credential.”
March 11, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2676085546/
Judge refuses to rescue disqualified Trump prosecutor's revenge case
trump does not want to get his US Attorneys approved and confirmed by the Senate and so is violating the law. There are consequences to ignoring the law including the voiding of indictments obtained by these trump stooges pretending to be US Attorneys.
​Judge refuses to rescue disqualified Trump prosecutor's revenge case
— br00t4c (@br00t4c.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T21:44:56.749Z
#LeteciaJames
www.rawstory.com/trump-267608...
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2676085546/
A disqualified federal prosecutor working in Donald Trump's Justice Department got bad news on Wednesday, as a federal judge refused to block a ruling that stops him from pursuing an investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James.
"Another defeat for another unconstitutionally appointed Trump DOJ prosecutor: Ex-Trump campaign lawyer John Sarcone will remain disqualified as U.S. Attorney for Albany, and his subpoenas to Letitia James' office will stay quashed," reported All Rise News' Adam Klasfeld on X. "He's not likely to succeed on appeal, a judge finds."
In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield concluded, "The Federal Government has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits or 'serious legal questions' coupled with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor. Any harm from the investigation-specific disqualification is abstract at best, whereas granting a stay would reinstate an official who acted without lawful authority — a clear injury to the State Government. The public interest likewise favors ensuring that governmental power is exercised only by officials with lawful authority. Each factor, and all four taken together, weigh against granting a stay."
Sarcone, who was heading up a U.S. attorney's office that covers most of Upstate New York, had been investigating the legitimacy of James' lawsuits against President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association.
However, his appointment was ruled unlawful because he was not seated in that role using the proper procedure — an issue that has also gotten several other Trump-backed prosecutors disqualified, including Bill Essayli in California, Sigal Chattah in Nevada, Alina Habba in New Jersey, and Lindsey Halligan in Virginia.
"Another defeat for another unconstitutionally appointed Trump DOJ prosecutor: Ex-Trump campaign lawyer John Sarcone will remain disqualified as U.S. Attorney for Albany, and his subpoenas to Letitia James' office will stay quashed," reported All Rise News' Adam Klasfeld on X. "He's not likely to succeed on appeal, a judge finds."
In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield concluded, "The Federal Government has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits or 'serious legal questions' coupled with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor. Any harm from the investigation-specific disqualification is abstract at best, whereas granting a stay would reinstate an official who acted without lawful authority — a clear injury to the State Government. The public interest likewise favors ensuring that governmental power is exercised only by officials with lawful authority. Each factor, and all four taken together, weigh against granting a stay."
Sarcone, who was heading up a U.S. attorney's office that covers most of Upstate New York, had been investigating the legitimacy of James' lawsuits against President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association.
However, his appointment was ruled unlawful because he was not seated in that role using the proper procedure — an issue that has also gotten several other Trump-backed prosecutors disqualified, including Bill Essayli in California, Sigal Chattah in Nevada, Alina Habba in New Jersey, and Lindsey Halligan in Virginia.
March 11, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/accused-of-being-a-white-nationalist-trump-state-department-nominee-withdraws
MaddowBlog-Accused of being a white nationalist, Trump State Department nominee withdraws
As Jeremy Carl’s nomination collapses, a larger question hangs overhead: Why in the world did the president nominate this guy?
As Jeremy Carl’s indefensible State Department nomination collapses, questions hang overhead:
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-11T13:42:45.884Z
Why did Trump nominate this guy, and why did Trump continue to support Carl’s doomed nomination after his white-supremacist worldview was exposed?
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/accused-of-being-a-white-nationalist-trump-state-department-nominee-withdraws
And then there’s Jeremy Carl, Trump’s nominee for assistant secretary of state for international organizations, who has a similarly offensive background, and whose nomination just collapsed. Reuters reported:
The demise of Carl’s nomination was all but inevitable after senators learned about his highly provocative record, which included publishing online commentary suggesting the Capitol rioters of Jan. 6, 2021, were treated worse than Black people in the South during the Jim Crow era. He’s similarly championed the “great replacement” conspiracy theory and condemned white people who celebrate Juneteenth.
“We are essentially moving,” Carl told Tucker Carlson in April 2024, “to what is effectively a post-white America.”.....
In a normal and healthy political environment, these revelations would have led the White House to pull the nomination. But Carl held onto Trump’s backing and subjected himself to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee grilling last month, where Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut asked him about his stated concerns regarding “the erasure of white culture.” To put it mildly, Carl struggled to defend his right-wing worldview.
In a separate exchange with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Carl also said, “One of my weaknesses … is sometimes I take an idea too far. I made some comments … about minimizing the effects of the Holocaust that were absolutely wrong.”.....
But as the dust settles on this avoidable fiasco, three broader questions hang overhead: Why in the world did the president nominate this guy in the first place; who did the vetting on Carl; and why did Trump continue to support Carl’s doomed nomination in light of everything we’ve learned about his indefensible worldview?
President Donald Trump’s nominee for a senior State Department position withdrew from consideration on Tuesday after his controversial comments about Jewish people and diminishing white power stirred rare Republican opposition to the president’s choice.
In a statement on X, Jeremy Carl, Trump’s nominee for assistant secretary of state for international organizations, thanked Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for their support, but said their backing was not sufficient.
The demise of Carl’s nomination was all but inevitable after senators learned about his highly provocative record, which included publishing online commentary suggesting the Capitol rioters of Jan. 6, 2021, were treated worse than Black people in the South during the Jim Crow era. He’s similarly championed the “great replacement” conspiracy theory and condemned white people who celebrate Juneteenth.
“We are essentially moving,” Carl told Tucker Carlson in April 2024, “to what is effectively a post-white America.”.....
In a normal and healthy political environment, these revelations would have led the White House to pull the nomination. But Carl held onto Trump’s backing and subjected himself to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee grilling last month, where Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut asked him about his stated concerns regarding “the erasure of white culture.” To put it mildly, Carl struggled to defend his right-wing worldview.
Trump nominated a legit white nationalist to a top post at the State Department. I asked him some basic questions about his belief in the “erasure of white cultureâ€. Watch this embarrassing, fumbling answer. Like he has never before been asked to explain his views.
— Chris Murphy (@chrismurphyct.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T21:15:09.155Z
In a separate exchange with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Carl also said, “One of my weaknesses … is sometimes I take an idea too far. I made some comments … about minimizing the effects of the Holocaust that were absolutely wrong.”.....
But as the dust settles on this avoidable fiasco, three broader questions hang overhead: Why in the world did the president nominate this guy in the first place; who did the vetting on Carl; and why did Trump continue to support Carl’s doomed nomination in light of everything we’ve learned about his indefensible worldview?
March 11, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/dems-score-upset-win-in-new-hampshire-special-election-giving-gop-fresh-reason-to-worry
MaddowBlog-Dems score upset win in New Hampshire special election, giving GOP fresh reason to worry
The more Democrats win closely watched races, the more Republicans should be concerned about the 2026 midterms.
The broader pattern is brutal:
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-11T20:36:27.786Z
Republicans are tied to an unpopular president; a growing number of GOP members are retiring; key elements of the the party's agenda are facing an intensifying public backlash; *and* they keep losing special elections, including in contests they expected to win.
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/dems-score-upset-win-in-new-hampshire-special-election-giving-gop-fresh-reason-to-worry
Heading into Tuesday’s state legislative special election in New Hampshire, Republicans had reason to be cautiously optimistic. The race was in a district that Donald Trump won by 9 points in 2024, and the Democratic candidate had already run and lost twice before by wide margins.
And yet, the contest turned into the latest in a series of red-to-blue flips. NH Journal reported:
The New Hampshire Union Leader called the outcome “stunning” and a “big upset” given the Republican advantage in the local district......
What’s more, The Downballot noted that the results out of New Hampshire marked the 10th time Democrats have flipped a district from red to blue in a special election since Trump returned to the White House. Over that same period, the number of seats flipped from blue to red remains zero.
Some will no doubt argue that it’s best not to read too much into a special election held in the winter, several months before November’s races. It’s a fair point, to be sure. But what matters is the degree to which the results fit into the broader political landscape. Republicans are tied to an unpopular president; a growing number of their congressional members are retiring; key elements of the GOP agenda are facing an intensifying public backlash; and they keep losing special elections, including in contests they expected to win.
If party insiders aren’t concerned about their standing ahead of this year’s midterm elections, they’re not paying close enough attention.
And yet, the contest turned into the latest in a series of red-to-blue flips. NH Journal reported:
In what Granite State Republicans hope is not a preview of November, Democrat Bobbi Boudman won Tuesday’s special election for Carroll County District 7, defeating Republican Dale Fincher 51 percent to 47 percent in a district that voted Republican by more than 13 points just 16 months ago.
The New Hampshire Union Leader called the outcome “stunning” and a “big upset” given the Republican advantage in the local district......
What’s more, The Downballot noted that the results out of New Hampshire marked the 10th time Democrats have flipped a district from red to blue in a special election since Trump returned to the White House. Over that same period, the number of seats flipped from blue to red remains zero.
Some will no doubt argue that it’s best not to read too much into a special election held in the winter, several months before November’s races. It’s a fair point, to be sure. But what matters is the degree to which the results fit into the broader political landscape. Republicans are tied to an unpopular president; a growing number of their congressional members are retiring; key elements of the GOP agenda are facing an intensifying public backlash; and they keep losing special elections, including in contests they expected to win.
If party insiders aren’t concerned about their standing ahead of this year’s midterm elections, they’re not paying close enough attention.
March 11, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-issues-weird-ultimatum-as-part-of-his-demand-for-new-voting-restrictions
MaddowBlog-Trump issues weird ultimatum as part of his demand for new voting restrictions
The president claims he’ll refuse to sign every bill that clears the Congress, indefinitely, until his anti-voting, anti-trans package reaches his desk.
“Trump issues weird ultimatum as part of his demand for new voting restrictions
— Redeem the soul America (@rneagle.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T20:38:17.394Z
The president claims he’ll refuse to sign every bill that clears the Congress, indefinitely, until his anti-voting, anti-trans package reaches his desk.â€
MS NOW
apple.news/AVWbCLOSJTgq...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-issues-weird-ultimatum-as-part-of-his-demand-for-new-voting-restrictions
The far-right package doesn’t have any realistic chance of success in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to advance, though Trump apparently has a new plan in mind. After spending part of the weekend insisting that there’s a great public clamor in support of a proposal that most Americans have never heard of, the president pitched a weird new ultimatum. NPR reported:
If the president follows through on his threat, then he’ll refuse to sign into law every piece of legislation that clears the Republican-led Congress indefinitely, until his anti-voting, anti-trans package reaches his desk.
Time will tell whether Trump does intend to follow through on this threat, but if the goal is to intimidate Democratic opponents of the far-right package, the president probably ought to lower his expectations.
“The SAVE Act is Jim Crow 2.0,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in an online statement responding to Trump’s ultimatum. “It would disenfranchise tens of millions of people. If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: There will be total gridlock in the Senate.”
President Trump threatened to withhold his signature on all bills until Congress passes stricter federal voting requirements — a move that escalates his efforts to change election rules ahead of the 2026 midterms.
In a social media post Sunday, Trump said he won’t sign any bills into law until Congress passes the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act. ‘I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed,’ Trump wrote.
If the president follows through on his threat, then he’ll refuse to sign into law every piece of legislation that clears the Republican-led Congress indefinitely, until his anti-voting, anti-trans package reaches his desk.
Time will tell whether Trump does intend to follow through on this threat, but if the goal is to intimidate Democratic opponents of the far-right package, the president probably ought to lower his expectations.
“The SAVE Act is Jim Crow 2.0,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in an online statement responding to Trump’s ultimatum. “It would disenfranchise tens of millions of people. If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: There will be total gridlock in the Senate.”
March 11, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/ohio-election-2676008335/
'Egregious': GOP official under fire for handing voter data for millions to Trump DOJ
trump and DOJ is trying to gather voter data from all 50 states to build a database for voter suppression purposes. See https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016418961 Ohio just volutarily turned over voter data to trump's DOJ
'Egregious': GOP official under fire for handing voter data for millions to Trump DOJ
— Morgan Fairchild (@morgfair.bsky.social) 2026-03-10T20:28:11.371Z
www.rawstory.com/ohio-electio...
https://www.rawstory.com/ohio-election-2676008335/
Ohio Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Clyde has condemned Secretary of State Frank LaRose's decision to transfer the sensitive voter registration data of nearly 8 million Ohioans to the U.S. Department of Justice, according to Democracy Docket.
The Republican official complied with a DOJ request seeking complete statewide voter rolls, including personally identifying information such as birthdates, addresses, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers. The agency claims the data is necessary to investigate how states maintain their voter rolls.
Clyde called the move "unacceptable," accusing LaRose of putting politics over voters' privacy rights.
“Frank LaRose’s failure to protect Ohio voters’ privacy by turning over our voter registration info to the DOJ is unacceptable,” she wrote on social media. “The Ohio Democratic Party is exploring all options to fight back against this egregious abuse of power.”
LaRose justified the transfer in a letter to the DOJ, framing it as necessary for election integrity and accurate voter roll maintenance. He acknowledged the data represents merely a "static snapshot" that cannot perfectly reflect Ohio's constantly changing voter database.
The Republican official complied with a DOJ request seeking complete statewide voter rolls, including personally identifying information such as birthdates, addresses, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers. The agency claims the data is necessary to investigate how states maintain their voter rolls.
Clyde called the move "unacceptable," accusing LaRose of putting politics over voters' privacy rights.
“Frank LaRose’s failure to protect Ohio voters’ privacy by turning over our voter registration info to the DOJ is unacceptable,” she wrote on social media. “The Ohio Democratic Party is exploring all options to fight back against this egregious abuse of power.”
LaRose justified the transfer in a letter to the DOJ, framing it as necessary for election integrity and accurate voter roll maintenance. He acknowledged the data represents merely a "static snapshot" that cannot perfectly reflect Ohio's constantly changing voter database.
March 11, 2026
Mike Luckovich-Everything's Fine! Thumbs Up!
— Mike Luckovich (@mluckovich.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T19:07:41.966Z
March 11, 2026
Dozens of countries agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil. But it didn't bring down prices.
Petroleum prices rose in spite of the announcement, signaling real concerns about a more protracted conflict.
https://x.com/NBCNews/status/2031739954435424561
The International Energy Agency said Wednesday that member countries had unanimously agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil from their reserves in a bid to ease prices that are soaring due to the Iran war.
Following the IEA announcement, U.S. crude oil prices briefly fell to lows of the day, on news of the potential for fresh supply. But they quickly climbed higher, passing $88 per barrel around midday.
The market moves Wednesday are a sign of real concerns about a more protracted conflict, despite President Donald Trump‘s assurances this week that the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran would be over soon.
The agency did not set out a definitive timeline for when the release — the largest ever by IEA nations — would begin. "The IEA Secretariat will provide further details of how this collective action will be implemented in due course," a statement said.....
Overall, "policy measures may have limited impact on oil prices unless safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is assured," the analysts said, given how much oil is currently blocked from the global market in the region.
Historically, they said, "emergency releases have peaked around 1.4 million barrels per day." They added that it could be helpful but "that pace would not materially ease a 16 million barrels per day shortfall and would likely provide only initial relief."
IEA countries have executed emergency releases before, notably an estimated 180 million barrels in 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Following the IEA announcement, U.S. crude oil prices briefly fell to lows of the day, on news of the potential for fresh supply. But they quickly climbed higher, passing $88 per barrel around midday.
The market moves Wednesday are a sign of real concerns about a more protracted conflict, despite President Donald Trump‘s assurances this week that the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran would be over soon.
The agency did not set out a definitive timeline for when the release — the largest ever by IEA nations — would begin. "The IEA Secretariat will provide further details of how this collective action will be implemented in due course," a statement said.....
Overall, "policy measures may have limited impact on oil prices unless safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is assured," the analysts said, given how much oil is currently blocked from the global market in the region.
Historically, they said, "emergency releases have peaked around 1.4 million barrels per day." They added that it could be helpful but "that pace would not materially ease a 16 million barrels per day shortfall and would likely provide only initial relief."
IEA countries have executed emergency releases before, notably an estimated 180 million barrels in 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine.
March 10, 2026
Why No Canal Exists Around the Strait of Hormuz 🚢
I was wondering the same thing.
https://x.com/Worldwar_3_/status/2030229470653591687
March 10, 2026
The law is clear. US Attorneys need to be confirmed by the Senate. trump, Bondi, Habba and company do not want to comply with the law. I am glad that the courts are standing up to these assholes
Trio named to replace Alina Habba as U.S. attorney is also serving illegally, judge says
The decision, which is on hold pending a possible appeal, upended the leadership in New Jersey’s U.S. attorney’s office for the second time in months.
https://x.com/washingtonpost/status/2031165658868629725
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/09/new-jersey-us-attorney
A federal judge upended the leadership of New Jersey’s U.S. attorney’s office again Monday, ruling for the second time in less than a year that the Trump administration had illegally sought to bypass Congress and install its own picks to head the prominent prosecutorial outpost.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann said that a trio of Justice Department lawyers who have been leading the office since late last year had been unlawfully serving in their positions. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed them after Brann disqualified Alina Habba, President Donald Trump’s previous choice for U.S. attorney in the state, in August amid similar questions over the legality of her appointment.
“One year into this administration, it is plain that President Trump and his top aides have chafed at the limits of their power set forth by the law and the Constitution,” Brann wrote, though he immediately stayed his ruling, allowing the administration a chance to appeal.
Still, his sternly worded 130-page opinion ended with a warning to the government that if it chose to leave that triumvirate in place, “it does so at its own risk.” He added that any further attempts to illegally appoint new leadership to the office would “result in dismissals of pending cases.”.....
Across the country, courts have disqualified a half-dozen of Trump’s picks to lead U.S. attorney’s offices on an interim or acting basis, finding that each had served well beyond the statutorily defined limits of their temporary appointments or were never legally appointed in the first place.
In New Jersey, Virginia and New York, federal judges have named their own replacements only for the Justice Department to swiftly fire those picks — in some cases via social media posts, which Brann described as unnecessarily “combative.”
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann said that a trio of Justice Department lawyers who have been leading the office since late last year had been unlawfully serving in their positions. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed them after Brann disqualified Alina Habba, President Donald Trump’s previous choice for U.S. attorney in the state, in August amid similar questions over the legality of her appointment.
“One year into this administration, it is plain that President Trump and his top aides have chafed at the limits of their power set forth by the law and the Constitution,” Brann wrote, though he immediately stayed his ruling, allowing the administration a chance to appeal.
Still, his sternly worded 130-page opinion ended with a warning to the government that if it chose to leave that triumvirate in place, “it does so at its own risk.” He added that any further attempts to illegally appoint new leadership to the office would “result in dismissals of pending cases.”.....
Across the country, courts have disqualified a half-dozen of Trump’s picks to lead U.S. attorney’s offices on an interim or acting basis, finding that each had served well beyond the statutorily defined limits of their temporary appointments or were never legally appointed in the first place.
In New Jersey, Virginia and New York, federal judges have named their own replacements only for the Justice Department to swiftly fire those picks — in some cases via social media posts, which Brann described as unnecessarily “combative.”
The law is clear. US Attorneys need to be confirmed by the Senate. trump, Bondi, Habba and company do not want to comply with the law. I am glad that the courts are standing up to these assholes
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 178,710