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
November 20, 2025
Mike Luckovich -Lame Duck/Quiet Piggy
— Mike Luckovich (@mluckovich.bsky.social) 2025-11-20T19:06:28.661Z
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/judge-dissent-texas-ruling-congressional-map-redistricting-rcna244875
Deadline Legal Blog-Judge issues berserk dissent from ruling blocking Texas congressional maps
Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, spent much of his 104-page dissent attacking Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee in the majority.
Judge issues berserk dissent from ruling blocking Texas congressional maps/ Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, spent much of his 104-page dissent attacking Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee in the majority. www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
— (@jwwcan.bsky.social) 2025-11-20T15:50:34.357Z
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/judge-dissent-texas-ruling-congressional-map-redistricting-rcna244875
When the majority of a three-judge panel led by a Trump appointee blocked Texas’ congressional maps on Tuesday, a footnote to Judge Jeffrey Brown’s 160-page opinion said that the judge who disagreed with the majority, Jerry Smith, “will file a dissenting opinion.” That 104-page dissent came Wednesday, and it began with Smith warning readers with a movie quote: “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night!”
Perhaps that was a sign that what would follow would be unusual. In retrospect, it managed to undersell things......
But the judge kicks off the next 100 pages by proclaiming that the “main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom,” referring to the progressive philanthropist who has long been a bogeyman of the right and California’s Democratic governor, respectively. “The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law,” Smith wrote.
In his admittedly “disjointed” opinion, Soros’ name would appear more than a dozen times in ways that would look more familiar in dark corners of the internet — or, at best, on right-wing television or podcasts — than in the pages of a judicial opinion, such as the judge’s reference to an expert in the case as a “paid Soros operative” who “expects to receive $2.5 million in his Soros piggybank.”
Perhaps mindful that his words will be taken as he writes them, Smith drops a footnote to offer that he supposes “someone will say that in making these comments about the Soros connections, I’m expressing a political view, not the proper role of a federal judge.” But to a reader who would rush to that judgment, Smith explains that it’s “not ‘political’ for me to point that out by describing the political dynamics that are inherent in the litigation of redistricting cases.”.....
Once the smoke clears from the recriminations and the bluster and whatever else one might say about the style of Smith’s dissent, the legal disagreement might be boiled down to the following. The gist of Brown’s majority opinion is that the Texas map in question didn’t merely seek partisan advantage (which the Supreme Court has basically said is fine) but more likely represents an unlawful racial gerrymander. As Smith sees it: “This is about partisan politics, plain and simple.”
Perhaps that was a sign that what would follow would be unusual. In retrospect, it managed to undersell things......
But the judge kicks off the next 100 pages by proclaiming that the “main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom,” referring to the progressive philanthropist who has long been a bogeyman of the right and California’s Democratic governor, respectively. “The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law,” Smith wrote.
In his admittedly “disjointed” opinion, Soros’ name would appear more than a dozen times in ways that would look more familiar in dark corners of the internet — or, at best, on right-wing television or podcasts — than in the pages of a judicial opinion, such as the judge’s reference to an expert in the case as a “paid Soros operative” who “expects to receive $2.5 million in his Soros piggybank.”
Perhaps mindful that his words will be taken as he writes them, Smith drops a footnote to offer that he supposes “someone will say that in making these comments about the Soros connections, I’m expressing a political view, not the proper role of a federal judge.” But to a reader who would rush to that judgment, Smith explains that it’s “not ‘political’ for me to point that out by describing the political dynamics that are inherent in the litigation of redistricting cases.”.....
Once the smoke clears from the recriminations and the bluster and whatever else one might say about the style of Smith’s dissent, the legal disagreement might be boiled down to the following. The gist of Brown’s majority opinion is that the Texas map in question didn’t merely seek partisan advantage (which the Supreme Court has basically said is fine) but more likely represents an unlawful racial gerrymander. As Smith sees it: “This is about partisan politics, plain and simple.”
November 20, 2025
Anthony Fauci, Rachel Maddow and James Carville seen sitting together at Dick Cheney's funeral in DC.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1991539447633178744
November 20, 2025
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-boasts-that-his-funeral-will
The Borowitz Report-Trump Boasts That His Funeral Will Have Much Bigger Turnout Than Cheney's
Trump Boasts That His Funeral Will Have Much Bigger Turnout Than Cheney’s
— (@ernie3.bsky.social) 2025-11-20T16:23:43.291Z
open.substack.com/pub/borowitz...
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-boasts-that-his-funeral-will
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump boasted on Thursday that his funeral will draw a “much bigger crowd” than former Vice President Dick Cheney’s.
“Dick Cheney, who was a loser and a terrible person, will be lucky to get a thousand people at his funeral,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “My funeral will draw MILLIONS!”
Remarking that “nobody cares” about Cheney’s funeral, Trump said he expects the turnout at his funeral to set records, noting, “Every day, people say to me, ‘Sir, I can’t wait for that day to come.’”
“Dick Cheney, who was a loser and a terrible person, will be lucky to get a thousand people at his funeral,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “My funeral will draw MILLIONS!”
Remarking that “nobody cares” about Cheney’s funeral, Trump said he expects the turnout at his funeral to set records, noting, “Every day, people say to me, ‘Sir, I can’t wait for that day to come.’”
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/white-house-targets-democratic-veterans-told-troops-refuse-illegal-ord-rcna244954
MaddowBlog-White House targets Democratic veterans who told troops to refuse illegal orders
In theory, the Democratic video shouldn’t have been especially controversial. In practice, Team Trump’s pushback has been over the top.
Dem veterans reminded servicemembers to refuse illegal orders.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-11-20T16:04:49.330Z
Trump responded by accusing them of “sedition,†labeling them “traitors†and suggesting that they’re subject to arrest — all before raising the possibility *of capital punishment*. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/white-house-targets-democratic-veterans-told-troops-refuse-illegal-ord-rcna244954
Acting on those concerns, six Democratic members of Congress, who served in the military, the intelligence community or both, appeared in a video this week to remind current service members that they are obligated to refuse illegal orders. The New York Times reported:
...In theory, the video shouldn’t have been especially controversial. After all, the Democratic veterans are correct: Service members aren’t supposed to follow illegal orders.
In practice, the partisan pushback has been ferocious.....
On Thursday morning, the president published an item to his social media platform responding to the message from the Democratic veterans, saying, “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”
This dovetailed with a similar message, also posted on Thursday morning, which read, “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.”
Soon after, the Republican added, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Trump similarly amplified an online message written by someone else, who wrote, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!.....
In the recent past, many leading GOP voices warned that rhetoric like this was corrosive to society and heightened the risk of political violence. Evidently, the incumbent president, outraged by calls in support of the rule of law, doesn’t care.
The stark message, posted on Tuesday, was organized by Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former C.I.A. analyst who served multiple tours in Iraq. … ‘Our laws are clear,’ said Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a Navy veteran and former astronaut. ‘You can refuse illegal orders.’ ‘You must refuse illegal orders,’ added Representative Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, who also served in the Navy.
...In theory, the video shouldn’t have been especially controversial. After all, the Democratic veterans are correct: Service members aren’t supposed to follow illegal orders.
In practice, the partisan pushback has been ferocious.....
On Thursday morning, the president published an item to his social media platform responding to the message from the Democratic veterans, saying, “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”
This dovetailed with a similar message, also posted on Thursday morning, which read, “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.”
Soon after, the Republican added, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Trump similarly amplified an online message written by someone else, who wrote, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!.....
In the recent past, many leading GOP voices warned that rhetoric like this was corrosive to society and heightened the risk of political violence. Evidently, the incumbent president, outraged by calls in support of the rule of law, doesn’t care.
November 20, 2025
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/lindsey-halligan-reveals-her-dream
The Borowitz Report-Lindsey Halligan Reveals Her Dream is to Someday Go to Law School
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/lindsey-halligan-reveals-her-dream
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan revealed on Wednesday that her lifelong dream is to someday go to law school.
“Some people grow up dreaming of being a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter,” she told reporters. “Ever since I was a little kid I’ve always dreamed of being a lawyer.”
Imagining what life would be like if she went to law school, Halligan said, “I wouldn’t make so many mistakes in court and judges wouldn’t always be yelling at me.”
Halligan indicated she had her “fingers crossed” that she would get into law school someday, but added, “I hope screwing up the Comey case won’t hurt my chances.”
“Some people grow up dreaming of being a doctor or a teacher or a firefighter,” she told reporters. “Ever since I was a little kid I’ve always dreamed of being a lawyer.”
Imagining what life would be like if she went to law school, Halligan said, “I wouldn’t make so many mistakes in court and judges wouldn’t always be yelling at me.”
Halligan indicated she had her “fingers crossed” that she would get into law school someday, but added, “I hope screwing up the Comey case won’t hurt my chances.”
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-piggy-comment-extends-lengthy-record-routine-misogyny-rcna244852
MaddowBlog-Trump's 'piggy' comment extends his lengthy record of routine misogyny
When it comes to mistreating women, the president is who he appears to be.
Trump’s ‘piggy’ comment extends his lengthy record of routine misogyny
— (@enuffsaysv.bsky.social) 2025-11-20T02:18:32.830Z
When it comes to mistreating women, the president is who he appears to be.
Read in MS NOW: apple.news/AD0z5-YmbQke...
👉this is who he is and has always been, a pig
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-piggy-comment-extends-lengthy-record-routine-misogyny-rcna244852
A year later, the carnival continues. My MS NOW colleague Clarissa-Jan Lim reported on what happened when a female reporter pressed the president on his Jeffrey Epstein ties. From the report:
The White House made no effort to deny the accuracy of the quote, which was captured on video, telling MS NOW in a statement that the president’s target deserved the rebuke after engaging in “inappropriate and unprofessional” conduct......
Complicating matters, however, is the familiarity of the circumstances. Meidas News’ Ron Filipkowski put together a video montage that highlights examples of Trump insulting, berating, demeaning and attacking female reporters — just over the past few months.
There were so many examples that Filipkowski soon after released a sequel.
Trump is, in other words, exactly who he appears to be. He’s the man in the E. Jean Carroll case. He’s the one on the “Access Hollywood” recording. He’s the Republican who suggested some of the women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct weren’t attractive enough to attack. He’s the politician who vowed to “protect” women from the White House “whether the women like it or not.”
He’s also the one who didn’t hesitate to shut down a reporter asking a reasonable question by calling her “piggy.”
During a press gaggle on Air Force One on Friday, the reporter asked the president about one of the emails Epstein wrote about him that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released last week. When she tried to follow up with a question about potentially incriminating details in the Epstein files, Trump pointed and said, “Quiet. Quiet, Piggy.”
The White House made no effort to deny the accuracy of the quote, which was captured on video, telling MS NOW in a statement that the president’s target deserved the rebuke after engaging in “inappropriate and unprofessional” conduct......
Complicating matters, however, is the familiarity of the circumstances. Meidas News’ Ron Filipkowski put together a video montage that highlights examples of Trump insulting, berating, demeaning and attacking female reporters — just over the past few months.
Montage of 19 clips of Trump insulting, berating, demeaning and attacking female reporters over the past few months. Part 1.
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T13:13:48.210Z
There were so many examples that Filipkowski soon after released a sequel.
Part 2
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T13:15:47.452Z
Trump is, in other words, exactly who he appears to be. He’s the man in the E. Jean Carroll case. He’s the one on the “Access Hollywood” recording. He’s the Republican who suggested some of the women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct weren’t attractive enough to attack. He’s the politician who vowed to “protect” women from the White House “whether the women like it or not.”
He’s also the one who didn’t hesitate to shut down a reporter asking a reasonable question by calling her “piggy.”
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pardoned-jan-6-rioter-arrested-child-molestation-charges-adding-patter-rcna244802
Maddowblog-Pardoned Jan. 6 rioter arrested on child molestation charges, adding to pattern
Donald Trump has tried to downplay the number of accused Jan. 6 criminals who’ve ended up in legal trouble again, but the list is long and growing.
The list of Jan. 6 criminals who ended up getting arrested again after receiving Trump pardons is long and growing.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-11-19T16:44:26.468Z
The Andrew Johnson case out of Florida, however, is especially galling. www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pardoned-jan-6-rioter-arrested-child-molestation-charges-adding-patter-rcna244802
At a White House event last month, a reporter asked Donald Trump for his reaction to the arrest of a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter after he allegedly threatened to assassinate a congressional leader. “You have thousands of people that we’re dealing with and, you know, if one goes haywire,” the president said, before changing the subject midsentence.
If he were right, and just one of the Jan. 6 criminals he pardoned had ended up in legal trouble again, Trump’s reaction might have been defensible. But the growing list has many more than one name on it. NBC News reported:
....A recent New York Times report noted a variety of other examples, including Brent Holdridge, a pardoned Jan. 6 criminal who was arrested again in May in connection with a string of alleged thefts of industrial copper, and Matthew W. Huttle, who was fatally shot by a sheriff’s deputy in January after he resisted arrest during a traffic stop, shortly after receiving a presidential pardon.
What’s more, this growing list doesn’t include John Banuelos, a Jan. 6 rioter who was arrested last month on kidnapping and sexual assault charges. Banuelos wasn’t pardoned, but he saw his Jan. 6 criminal case dropped by Trump’s Justice Department the day after the Republican’s second inauguration.
The president has also begun repardoning some Jan. 6 rioters, shielding them from accountability for other crimes, unrelated to their insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol; but in most of the aforementioned cases, the accused are facing state and local charges, not federal charges.
In other words, if they’re waiting for another presidential rescue, they’re going to be disappointed.
If he were right, and just one of the Jan. 6 criminals he pardoned had ended up in legal trouble again, Trump’s reaction might have been defensible. But the growing list has many more than one name on it. NBC News reported:
A man pardoned by President Donald Trump for storming the Capitol was arrested on child molestation charges, according to Florida officials, who said he tried to use an anticipated Jan. 6 payout to silence the victim. Andrew Paul Johnson, 44, was arrested in Tennessee in August and extradited to Florida on charges of lewd/lascivious molestation, lewd/lascivious exhibition and transmission of material harmful to a minor.
....A recent New York Times report noted a variety of other examples, including Brent Holdridge, a pardoned Jan. 6 criminal who was arrested again in May in connection with a string of alleged thefts of industrial copper, and Matthew W. Huttle, who was fatally shot by a sheriff’s deputy in January after he resisted arrest during a traffic stop, shortly after receiving a presidential pardon.
What’s more, this growing list doesn’t include John Banuelos, a Jan. 6 rioter who was arrested last month on kidnapping and sexual assault charges. Banuelos wasn’t pardoned, but he saw his Jan. 6 criminal case dropped by Trump’s Justice Department the day after the Republican’s second inauguration.
The president has also begun repardoning some Jan. 6 rioters, shielding them from accountability for other crimes, unrelated to their insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol; but in most of the aforementioned cases, the accused are facing state and local charges, not federal charges.
In other words, if they’re waiting for another presidential rescue, they’re going to be disappointed.
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/failure-trumps-case-cnn-offers-lessons-media-outlets-rcna244847
MaddowBlog-The failure of Trump's case against CNN offers lessons for other media outlets
The demise of the president’s case is a demonstration of the benefits of fighting back — and of the folly of appeasement.
The failure of Trump’s case against CNN offers lessons for other media outlets
— Redeem the soul America (@rneagle.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T22:50:46.208Z
The demise of the president’s case is a demonstration of the benefits of fighting back — and of the folly of appeasement.
apple.news/AkNg-guVwTpe...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/failure-trumps-case-cnn-offers-lessons-media-outlets-rcna244847
In 2022, roughly two years after Donald Trump lost his reelection bid, the Republican apparently thought it’d be a good idea to sue CNN for $475 million, alleging that the news network had defamed him and taken actions aimed at “defeating him politically.” My MS NOW colleague Hayes Brown took a closer look at the specific claims raised by Trump’s lawyers and concluded, “All told, this is less a case of defamation and more a case of crying ‘they were mean to me.’”
A lower court agreed and rejected the case in 2023. As my MS NOW colleague Jordan Rubin reported, an appellate court came to the same conclusion this week.
......In the weeks and months that followed, Trump has repeatedly pointed to these controversial settlement agreements as evidence of his targets’ guilt, even as those networks denied any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, news organizations that stood up for themselves and pushed back against the ridiculous attempts at intimidation have prevailed.
Let this be a lesson to the larger political world: The only way to lose in a fight against Trump is to pursue a course rooted in appeasement. It’s true when it comes to law firms; it’s true when it comes to higher education; and it’s true in his court fights against news organizations.
A lower court agreed and rejected the case in 2023. As my MS NOW colleague Jordan Rubin reported, an appellate court came to the same conclusion this week.
President Donald Trump lost his bid to revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN for the network’s use of the phrase ‘Big Lie,’ regarding his claims about the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden. The unanimous ruling came from a three-judge appellate panel on Tuesday, with two of the judges being Trump appointees.
......In the weeks and months that followed, Trump has repeatedly pointed to these controversial settlement agreements as evidence of his targets’ guilt, even as those networks denied any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, news organizations that stood up for themselves and pushed back against the ridiculous attempts at intimidation have prevailed.
Let this be a lesson to the larger political world: The only way to lose in a fight against Trump is to pursue a course rooted in appeasement. It’s true when it comes to law firms; it’s true when it comes to higher education; and it’s true in his court fights against news organizations.
November 20, 2025
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-epstein-files-release-bill-pam-bondi-exceptions-rcna244810
Deadline Legal Blog-How the Trump administration can keep some Epstein files secret under the new bill
The Justice Department could cling to exceptions for withholding or redacting information related to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.
How the Trump administration can keep some Epstein files secret under the new bill - MS NOW
— (@oc88.bsky.social) 2025-11-19T19:41:25.783Z
apple.news/AfSITt9A9S2u...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-epstein-files-release-bill-pam-bondi-exceptions-rcna244810
But a closer look at the bill reveals that “all” doesn’t really mean “all.”
In fact, the administration has much to work with in the bill’s exceptions to the rule requiring disclosure.
Even as Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested at a press conference on Wednesday that the government had “new information, additional information” and promised to “investigate any leads” and “provide maximum transparency under the law,” the bill says that the attorney general “may withhold or redact” records across several categories listed in the bill. That includes material that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution,” which is notable in light of Trump’s recent command to investigate Democrats tied to Epstein. The bill says that any withholding of information on grounds of active investigations or ongoing cases must be “narrowly tailored and temporary,” but the bill seems to leave that determination to the attorney general herself. A broad investigation by the Justice Department could have far-reaching implications for keeping records secret.
Another potential exception to what can be released is information related to “national defense or foreign policy.” The bill says that such information would need to be classified pursuant to executive order.
The bill also says that records can’t be withheld or redacted for reasons of “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.” But that section could conflict with exceptions for disclosure, depending on what exactly is in the files.,,,,,,
The bill says all redactions “must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.” And it adds that all decisions “to classify any covered information after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress, including the date of classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and an unclassified summary of the justification.”
So if Trump signs the bill, we will be looking at what information is released within a month. But we’ll also want to keep a close eye on the explanations the administration gives for what it has deemed fit to keep secret.
In fact, the administration has much to work with in the bill’s exceptions to the rule requiring disclosure.
Even as Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested at a press conference on Wednesday that the government had “new information, additional information” and promised to “investigate any leads” and “provide maximum transparency under the law,” the bill says that the attorney general “may withhold or redact” records across several categories listed in the bill. That includes material that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution,” which is notable in light of Trump’s recent command to investigate Democrats tied to Epstein. The bill says that any withholding of information on grounds of active investigations or ongoing cases must be “narrowly tailored and temporary,” but the bill seems to leave that determination to the attorney general herself. A broad investigation by the Justice Department could have far-reaching implications for keeping records secret.
Another potential exception to what can be released is information related to “national defense or foreign policy.” The bill says that such information would need to be classified pursuant to executive order.
The bill also says that records can’t be withheld or redacted for reasons of “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.” But that section could conflict with exceptions for disclosure, depending on what exactly is in the files.,,,,,,
The bill says all redactions “must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.” And it adds that all decisions “to classify any covered information after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress, including the date of classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and an unclassified summary of the justification.”
So if Trump signs the bill, we will be looking at what information is released within a month. But we’ll also want to keep a close eye on the explanations the administration gives for what it has deemed fit to keep secret.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 172,952