RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN: Sentencing Reform Isn't Dead, It's Encumbered by Idiots Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 25 August 2018 13:02

Kiriakou writes: "Just when you thought there would actually be sentencing reform, the whole thing goes up in a puff of smoke. Well, I thought there would be sentencing reform. And apparently so did a lot of members of Congress from both parties. And apparently so did Donald Trump. So what happened? Politics happened."

John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)
John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)


Sentencing Reform Isn't Dead, It's Encumbered by Idiots

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

25 August 18

 

ust when you thought there would actually be sentencing reform, the whole thing goes up in a puff of smoke. Well, I thought there would be sentencing reform. And apparently so did a lot of members of Congress from both parties. And apparently so did Donald Trump. So what happened? Politics happened.

Here’s the background, as crazily bipartisan and progressive as it may sound. Elements of the last three Congresses have passed a version of sentencing reform, in general calling for more money to be spent on job training and addiction counseling in federal prisons. The legislation has passed the House three times, but it has been bottled up in the Senate each time. First, Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who was Senate Majority Leader at the time, just didn’t like some of the language. In the next two Congresses, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who became Majority Leader, didn’t want to give Barack Obama a legislative victory.

When Donald Trump was elected President in 2016, he asked his son-in-law and “advisor,” Jared Kushner, to take a look at the issue. Sentencing reform is personally important to Kushner because his father Charles was found guilty of 18 felony counts of campaign finance fraud, income tax evasion, and witness tampering in 2005. He was sentenced to two years in a minimum security prison camp, and he served 14 months.

Kushner partnered with sentencing hawk Jeff Sessions and, to everybody’s surprise, Sessions endorsed a Senate bill called the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. The bill was written by Kushner and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) with the support of Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and it called for a complete overhaul of sentencing guidelines, shorter sentences, an end to mandatory minimum sentences, and money for rehabilitation.

To get the Republican-controlled House on board, Kushner convinced Speaker Paul Ryan to allow the Senate to merge its bill with the House-passed First Step Act, which would do essentially the same thing the original Senate bill would have done. Ryan agreed, and the whole thing moved back to the Senate.

In order to placate Senators Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) two voices on the left who complained that the compromise bill didn’t go far enough, Durbin promised that their concerns would be addressed in conference committee. Durbin told The Hill newspaper, “If we have a bill that has such overwhelming bipartisan support, deals not only with criminal sentencing, but prison reform, and the support of the White House, there’s no reason we shouldn’t consider it this year. The last time we had a sentencing reform bill ... was almost ten years ago. That’s how often you get these opportunities. So if we have a bipartisan bill supported by the White House, I hope we can seize on the opportunity.” So the compromise was made. We thought.

What nobody had thought about was Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the aggressive, arrogant, and quietly racist junior senator who sees himself as the Republican Party’s next great hope. Cotton, according to Politico, “is going all-out to defeat a last ditch effort to pass sentencing reform before this year’s midterm elections.” Cotton called the reform bill a “jailbreak” that would “let serious felons back on the streets.” He added, “The president went to Singapore and agreed with the Singaporeans that we should give the death penalty to drug dealers. I can’t imagine the president wants to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers.” It went unstated that most “drug dealers” in US prisons are African-American. And African-Americans have been disproportionately hit by mandatory minimum sentences.

Cotton is taking a big risk here, and the risk is about much more than just sentencing reform. It’s about Cotton’s influence with the president and his future in the Republican Party. We know that Trump relies on Cotton for advice. And we know that Cotton has successfully – and singlehandedly – blocked other important legislation, including comprehensive immigration reform, the border adjustment tax, and a slimmed-down immigration proposal earlier this year. In the short term, Cotton has won. McConnell has taken a vote on the measure off the legislative calendar. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said that a vote on sentencing reform this year was “impossible.”

It is possible, though, that Cotton has bitten off more than he can chew this time. This time Trump wants a bill. This time Trump’s son-in-law is involved. And this time the Koch brothers want a bill passed, too. In a detailed fact-checking rebuttal to a Cotton op-ed in The New York Times attacking the legislation as “soft on crime,” a top official at Koch Industries said, “I’d like to see Sen. Cotton have a change of heart. But if not, I hope he loses. Because he’s on the wrong side of history.” Indeed he is.



John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Casting 'Michael Cohen,' the Movie Print
Saturday, 25 August 2018 11:01

Taibbi writes: "Two years ago, there was a fierce online debate over the cast of a future movie about the 2016 Republican presidential race, which would probably be called Clown Car! (although Every Which Way But Left and A Kochwork Orange were also strong suggestions)."

Should Henry Winkler play Cohen? How would one cast the rest of the film? (photo: Rolling Stone)
Should Henry Winkler play Cohen? How would one cast the rest of the film? (photo: Rolling Stone)


Casting 'Michael Cohen,' the Movie

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

25 August 18


In the inevitable film treatment, who plays the paymaster? Who plays Giuliani? Trump? And does it have to be directed by Michael Mann?

wo years ago, there was a fierce online debate over the cast of a future movie about the 2016 Republican presidential race, which would probably be called Clown Car! (although Every Which Way But Left and A Kochwork Orange were also strong suggestions).

Twitter users attacked difficult questions like, “Could veteran character actor Daniel Von Bargen of Seinfeld fame play George Pataki despite being dead?” and “Was Justin Timberlake training for the role of Rand Paul in his portrayal of dry-humping weenie Scott Delacorte in Bad Teacher?

This week, there’s been similar debate online about the cast of a Michael Cohen-themed movie. It probably started when people noticed the eerie Separated at Birth-style resemblance between Donald Trump’s disgraced personal lawyer and the aging version of the Fonz, Henry Winkler.

But should Winkler play Cohen? How would one cast the rest of the film? Should Trump be played by a human being or by a giant slime-covered animatronic puppet, a la Dr. Pretorius of From Beyond fame? Who should direct? And what would the film be called?

Re that last point: When asked, readers suggested a number of titles for a Cohen-themed film. Among the most popular were a pair of Scorsese homages, Dumbfellas and Taxi Briber, as well as Cohen Down, One Flew Over the Covfefe’s Nest, Stormy Weather and @nate510’s verbose but workable The Unbearable Lightness of Being a Co-Conspirator With the Most Corrupt President In History. Pay it Whoreward is excluded by the trifecta of being an obscure reference that’s in bad taste and reminds people of Kevin Spacey. 

I like @metalli_mom’s simple but ominous Interview With a Mueller, but in the end I’m convinced by @vin34dmb’s suggestion: “Just Michael Cohen instead of Michael Clayton — last scene is looking out the barred back window of a van on his way to the country club prison at Ft Devens, or wherever he’s headed.”

Readers had other suggestions with regard to cast:

MICHAEL COHEN

Henry Winkler
Ben Stiller
David Schwimmer
Bobby Cannavale
Michael Imperioli
A lesser Baldwin brother
John Turturro
Welker White (!)

I got involved with this discussion when I saw a tweet by @fintonotoolbox showing Trump’s lawyer paired with a still from John Turturro in The Night Of. There’s no denying the resemblance of Cohen with the stink-footed John Stone character, and there’s also no question that Turturro could play the part. But I worry he’d bring too much depth to the role.

Cohen should naturally be played by one of the lesser Baldwins, but if one is not available, many suggested Ben Stiller, who has already played Cohen on Saturday Night Live. There was also sentiment for Schwimmer, after his vigorous portrayal of famed legal power-wanker and demon reality-spawner Robert Kardashian. @BenZelevansky made a great catch, noting an amazing resemblance between Cohen and Welker White, the little-known character actress who played “Lois the hat-loving drug mule” in Goodfellas. She should at least audition.

However, in the end, I think the role goes to one of the hardest-working actors in Hollywood, someone who deserves a shot at a truly grotesque lead role: Bobby Cannavale. If you like movies, you’ve probably seen about twenty good ones featuring Cannavale (my favorites are The Station Agent and Win Win), but he deserves an iconic Oscar-worthy antihero.

Cohen would be a real challenge to play. I doubt there is an I, Tonya script out there that will reveal him to be secretly sympathetic. Still, the plot structure could be similar to I,Tonya: Cohen caught between the sub-brainless criminals who rope him into an infamous conspiracy, and the upper-class Democratic Party snobs bent on making him into an international pariah.

But Cohen surely hasn’t been repeatedly beaten, shot and stabbed by loved ones over the years, and moreover he isn’t an awesome skater. If Cohen skated as well as he practiced law, he’d still be sliding along the edge of the rink with both hands along the walls.

Moreover I don’t think he’s self-aware enough to help a Nick Pileggi type turn him into the Henry Hill of the Trump crime family. There’s just not a lot to his personality except proximity to the accidental importance of Donald Trump. His story says something about the almost supernatural shallowness of modern America, but it would take a gifted actor to bring it out. Cannavale could do it.

RUDY GIULIANI

Robert Duvall
James Woods
Gene Hackman
Christopher Lloyd
Kurtwood Smith
Richard Jenkins
Werner Klemperer
Max Schreck
Willem Dafoe
John Cusack

Every time anyone suggests a Trump-themed movie, someone always wants to put James Woods in the cast, for the obvious reason that he’s an impressively insane Trump fan in addition to being an excellent, iconic, high-octane actor (which of course is not a comment on what kind of human being he is or is not). Also, he has experience in legal roles, including already once playing Rudy himself in the way-too-heartfelt The Rudy Giuliani Story (even a fictional Rudy-Penelope Ann Miller love scene should violate Google’s terms of service).

The Woods version of Giuliani was significantly more alert than the pre-embalmed version we currently see on TV. Woods tried to capture Rudy through nauseating dialogue (“Democrats always talked about things getting better — Republicans did what they could to make them better”) and through a hilariously insulting rubber comb-over that looked like a radial tire with hair on it.

That was only the second-funniest lawyer costume Woods ever wore, after the amazing 1989 film True Believer. Woods’ interpretation of washout liberal lawyer Eddie Dore mostly rested on the most appalling false ponytail in the history of cinema — it looked like an alien species from the original Star Trek.

The current-Giuliani is a molasses-brained plodder who’d need to be played by an actor capable of conveying the essence of a decaying one- or two-note mind. That probably rules out fast talkers like Woods and Hackman, and maybe also Robert Duvall, who of course has great experience playing a mob lawyer.

There were multiple calls for Christopher Lloyd of Judge Doom fame, but the lovability factor of the Back to the Future star (plus the unspoken background confusion with Taxi and Cohen’s taxi past) probably excludes him too.

Props to @marinmaven for suggesting Kurtwood Smith, best known as campy Robocop villain Clarence Boddicker. Respect also for @gonzomingle’s suggestion of Werner Klemperer (better known as Colonel Klink), but I’m not sure the Cologne native would have been able to pull off Giuliani’s uniquely American brand of lunacy. Also, he’s dead.

I suggested Max Schreck of Nosferatu fame, and wasn’t at all afraid of the fact that Schreck has been dead since 1936 (in fact, that might even help). But Tweeters suggested a compromise: Willem Dafoe, who of course played Schreck in Shadow of the Vampire and moreover seems to have a natural aptitude for unpleasant insane people. Tough call, but I’d go for Dafoe.

STORMY DANIELS

Stormy Daniels
Loni Anderson
Scarlett Johansson
Ivanka Trump
Joelle Carter
Jennifer Coolidge
Pamela Anderson
Blake Lively
Virginia Madsen

The three most popular choices were Johansson (she “just needs the right wig”), Ivanka Trump (she “apparently bears some resemblance”), and Stormy Daniels, herself. A suggestion by @graftonstringer of Senator Lindsey Graham is interesting, but I’m waiting for Graham to play the murdering ventriloquist’s doll in the long-overdue remake of the 1978 horror classic Magic.

If Daniels doesn’t want the part herself, I don’t think this role can really go to anyone other than longtime comic actress Jennifer Coolidge, better known as “Stiffler’s mom.” If there is a recreation of the sex scene (and hopefully no animals will be harmed in the filming of this movie) I do hope Coolidge or whoever gets the opportunity to sit it out and let Industrial Light and Magic do a digitized version.

We didn’t get into too many of the other roles, but briefly:

ANDERSON COOPER

An informal poll of friends suggests Cooper pretty much has to do the role himself, although there was an interesting minority vote for Tilda Swinton.

DONALD TRUMP

We covered Trump in the piece two years ago, but since then there seems to be more and more popular support for Gerard Depardieu to take the role. Chris Farley would have supporters if he were alive. I also like the idea of a crude two-person Trump suit — like a cow suit, only with one person playing the gesticulating/Tweeting top, the other playing the cheeseburger-collecting seat.

STEVE BANNON

It’s not clear what role Bannon would have in the film, but if he’s in it, I think the part has to go to either Ray Winstone of Vincent and The Departed fame (he is the only actor with the correct neck), Russell Crowe (increasingly uncanny likeness) or Brendan Gleeson (who could easily play multiple characters in this story, Peter Sellers-in-Strangelove style).

Deceased actor Kenneth McMillan, best known as floating pustule-covered villain Vladimir Harkonnen in Dune, would have been a fine Bannon. But he’s been dead since 1989 and we just can’t have too many corpses on set. No comment on suggestions of Rosie O’Donnell or Kathy Bates for the role.

Obviously it’s an incomplete list. There has to be a Robert Mueller, and the late Edward Hermann would have been perfect (imagine Rex Rexroth with a badge), but I somehow think it’s going to end up being a wildly overacting Kenneth Branagh. Finally, Hollywood should show the decency Trump did not and leave Melania out of the movie.

P.S. Cusack was also a popular suggestion for the Cohen role, and I like the idea of making him play Giuliani as part of some weird circle-of-life thing tied to his long-ago role in City Hall. But I feel like John is better saved for the inevitable third Martin Blank movie in which the emotionally absent hit man gets elected president in 2020, even though the whole country knows he’s a murdering psychopath.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
In Syria, an Ugly Peace Is Better Than More War Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6500"><span class="small">Jimmy Carter, The New York Times</span></a>   
Saturday, 25 August 2018 08:35

Carter writes: "At their summit in Helsinki, Finland, in July, President Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia reportedly agreed to end the Syrian war and to move Iranian forces away from the Syria-Israel border."

Jimmy Carter. (photo: Action Press/Rex)
Jimmy Carter. (photo: Action Press/Rex)


In Syria, an Ugly Peace Is Better Than More War

By Jimmy Carter, The New York Times

25 August 18

 

t their summit in Helsinki, Finland, in July, President Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia reportedly agreed to end the Syrian war and to move Iranian forces away from the Syria-Israel border. President Trump has also indicated that he is willing to accept President Bashar al-Assad’s remaining in office and is prepared to withdraw American forces from Syria. This is a start. But more is needed to end the violence in Syria.

Beginning in 2011, Western and Middle Eastern powers rallied around the slogan “Assad must go.” This singular focus on the fate of Syria’s president hardened positions on all sides and made it much more difficult to explore other options.

The calls for regime change have diminished since then, but there are still some voices in Western policy circles that demand a full transition of power from the Assad government. A better approach at this point would be to test the Syrian government’s ability to embark on a new course that has the potential to bring the war to a close.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Trump White House Doesn't Want Untainted Elections Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Friday, 24 August 2018 12:54

Pierce writes: "For a while, it looked like the Secure Elections Act was the safest vote in the Congress."

Sam Nobbs votes at the Dundee Presbyterian Church Tuesday, November 8, 2016, in Omaha, Nebraska. (photo: Megan Farmer/AP)
Sam Nobbs votes at the Dundee Presbyterian Church Tuesday, November 8, 2016, in Omaha, Nebraska. (photo: Megan Farmer/AP)


The Trump White House Doesn't Want Untainted Elections

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

24 August 18


It opposes the Secure Elections Act because it's not interested in secure elections.

or a while, it looked like the Secure Elections Act was the safest vote in the Congress. It was introduced by Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, nobody's idea of a liberal, and co-sponsored by Democrats Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who are practically everybody's idea of liberals.

As it currently stands, the legislation would grant every state’s top election official security clearance to receive threat information. It would also formalize the practice of information-sharing between the federal government—in particular, the Department of Homeland Security—and states regarding threats to electoral infrastructure. A technical advisory board would establish best practices related to election cybersecurity. Perhaps most significantly, the law would mandate that every state conduct a statistically significant audit following a federal election. It would also incentivize the purchase of voting machines that leave a paper record of votes cast, as opposed to some all-electronic models that do not. This would signify a marked shift away from all-electronic voting, which was encouraged with the passage of the Help Americans Vote Act in 2002.

It was priced to move. Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, and chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, was scheduled to mark up the bill on Wednesday. Except that he didn't. From Yahoo! News:

In a statement to Yahoo News, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters says that while the administration “appreciates Congress’s interest in election security, [the Department of Homeland Security] has all the statutory authority it needs to assist state and local officials to improve the security of existing election infrastructure.” Under current law, DHS is already able to work with state and local authorities to protect elections, Walters wrote. If Congress pursues the Secure Elections Act, it should avoid duplicating “existing DHS efforts or the imposition of unnecessary requirements” and “not violate the principles of Federalism.” “We cannot support legislation with inappropriate mandates or that moves power or funding from the states to Washington for the planning and operation of elections,” she added. However, the White House gave no specifics on what parts of the bill it objected to.

The "principles of federalism." As though the president* has the faintest clue what they are.

Tell me again about how the Republicans in the Senate are standing up to the band of brigands in this administration*. Blunt's gone to ground, and he's yet to explain why he bailed on the mark-up. Mitch McConnell's dark hand is probably involved in this somewhere. As for the president*, well, we know where he stands, even if he doesn't, because he doesn't know anything about anything and lies about it anyway.

The Trump administration has been unable to settle on how elections should be secured, and whom they should be secured against. Despite consensus from the nation’s intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in 2016, President Trump has dismissed the threat, even as others in his administration have issued unambiguous warnings. Trump has instead asserted that millions voted fraudulently in New York and California for Hillary Clinton, thus giving her an edge of some 3 million votes in the 2016 presidential race. No evidence of statistically significant voter fraud has been uncovered.

Even prior to Blunt's taking a dive, the SEA was being criticized by election security experts as being a watered down version of what it should have been, and what it originally was. But that's no explanation for why it wasn't even sent to the floor for a vote. To the credit of his sponsors, particularly Lankford, who has been a rock on this issue, and whose voice in his party is a lonely one, they're going to keep pushing. But this White House doesn't want untainted elections, and it never has, and, in that, it is a very Republican administration* indeed.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Democrats Can No Longer Avoid the Impeachment Conversation Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48731"><span class="small">Jamil Smith, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Friday, 24 August 2018 11:59

Smith writes: "President Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator: enough is enough."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)


Democrats Can No Longer Avoid the Impeachment Conversation

By Jamil Smith, Rolling Stone

24 August 18


President Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator: enough is enough

ne week before President Trump’s inauguration, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA.) became the first Democrat to call Trump’s election victory “illegitimate.” Though many Congressional Democrats joined Lewis in boycotting the inaugural ceremonies, none echoed his rhetoric.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is among the Democrats still decrying any serious discussion of impeaching President Trump. In a July interview with Rolling Stone, Pelosi called such talk “a gift for Republicans,” adding that “we don’t really know what Mueller has.” After Tuesday’s twin courthouse bombshells, we now have a much clearer picture not only of what Robert Mueller has, but how it reflects on the entire Trump presidency.

Democrats are out of excuses.

Pleading guilty to eight counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and — most significantly for President Trump — campaign finance violations, Cohen admitted that he made payments “at the direction of candidate” to silence Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford, women with whom Trump allegedly had affairs. Whether or not you believe the revelation of Trump’s trysts with a Playboy model and an adult film actress, respectively, would have changed anything in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape, the president is now an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case.

Pelosi and her fellow Democrats believe that focusing on impeachment will animate Republican voters, but dodging the issue entirely may hurt their base. According to a CNN/SSRS poll conducted in June, 42 percent of Americans said they support impeaching Trump; that nearly equals the 43 percent who wanted the same at the height of Watergate fervor, five months before Richard Nixon resigned. It is sensible, then, the Democrats should seek to invigorate their base by being unafraid to use the only constitutional tool available to them for holding the president accountable.

Thursday morning on MSNBC, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Il.) was adamant that the severity of impeachment means Democrats should not campaign on it. Durbin said he would “absolutely not” advise candidates to bring it up, and that he “can’t think of a more serious power in the Constitution than the power of Congress to remove a president. We should take it as seriously as written.” I wonder, though, why Durbin assumes that voters aren’t taking this as seriously as he deems necessary. Voters are the ones in the streets protesting white supremacy, raising hell about family separation and demanding that the Democrats whom they elected stand with them. Durbin’s response betrays the Democratic allegiance to a political system so flawed that it can be manipulated and abused by a man like Trump.

Trump, himself, addressed the prospect of impeachment in a Fox News interview that aired Thursday. “If I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor,” Trump said, resorting to narcissistic hyperbole. “You would see numbers that you wouldn’t believe.” He also said that he would give himself an “A+” for his efforts thus far as president. “I don’t know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job,” he reasoned. Trump speaks as if his wrongdoing is known, and expected to be forgiven.

A competent Democratic party could not only combat such inanity in its sleep, but simultaneously make the affirmative case for impeachment. Even if Democrats don’t mention Trump colluding/conspiring with Russia, his abhorrent family separation policy and the various other ways in which Trump has been in dereliction of his duties, they could focus solely on the Cohen revelations and have enough to work with. Pelosi and her peers should use the remaining 11 weeks before the midterm elections to lay out their plan to voters for how they will impeach Trump in the House, and should they win enough Senate seats, ensure his removal from office. They certainly should talk about blocking not just Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, but any other judge whom this president nominates.

Republicans still feel obligated to defend Trump, who is in the worst political shape of his presidency. Democrats, known for folding and rolling over for said Republicans, have to demonstrate that they’ll actually abandon their abundant caution. Going into November telling Americans that you plan to impeach the president lets voters know that the party isn’t still a chain of fools, unable to grasp the urgency of this moment. Democrats need to stop being scared of what Trump supporters will do, and be a little more scared of how their own voters will react to them, for once, actually going soft on crime if they stand by and do nothing.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 Next > End >>

Page 1158 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN