₦airaland Forum

Former Vice President Joe Biden is soliciting donations from supporters to cover the expenses of the transition process as Republicans continue to dispute the 2020 White House contest.


Biden, who has been declared president-elect by multiple media outlets, has begun running targeted fundraising ads on social media, soliciting contributions to help pay for the transition.




“Because President Trump refuses to concede and is delaying the transition, we have to fund it ourselves and need your help,” one ad reads. “If you’re able, chip in to help fund the Biden-Harris transition.”



The ads come as the results of the presidential election continue to be disputed. President Donald Trump and his allies claim that Biden’s media-declared victory is improper given that the former vice president only has marginal leads in several prime swing states. For instance in Arizona, which was called for the Democrat ticket on Election Night, Biden’s lead has diminished to less than 11,000 votes.





Similarly, Biden holds narrow leads over Trump in Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. In all of those states, which are central to the former vice president’s pathway to hit the required 270 Electoral College votes needed for victory, allegations of electoral irregularities have emerged. As such, the Trump campaign has filed legal challenges to the preliminary results from each state.




Given the electoral irregularities and ongoing litigation, the General Services Administration has not yet officially recognized Biden as the winner of the 2020 contests. The agency acknowledgment is required for the formal transition process to commence.



https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/11/20/biden-crowdsourcing-money-for-transition-as-standoff-with-trump-continues/

Watching

Isn't it supposed to be a government expense?

theFilmtricsay

Florists

Georgia and Arizona have certified Biden as the winner of the Presidential election in their respective states. Try to keep up with the news

emae009:
Georgia and Arizona have certified Biden as the winner of the Presidential election in their respective states. Try to keep up with the news

You mean to be more updated than someone living before the news??

When was this out kids, without inner news, only depending on mainstream media report. We dig.


There are still legal battles to be heard in the United states supreme Court.

Please spare me your lazy phone

Mercisharelove:
You mean to be more updated than someone living before the news??

When was this out kids, without inner news, only depending on mainstream media report. We dig.


There are still legal battles to be heard in the United states supreme Court.

Please spare me your lazy phone

there's no legal battle is in the Supreme Court?
Except you're referring to Pennsylvania

You dig what exactly? Are you in Georgia city council or Arizona or any of the states. Funny how you use media for your source then turn around and lament that people are listening to the media.
Please digger name the case that's presently in the Supreme Court. What is Trump seeking

emae009:
there's no legal battle is in the Supreme Court?
Except you're referring to Pennsylvania

You dig what exactly? Are you in Georgia city council or Arizona or any of the states. Funny how you use media for your source then turn around and lament that people are listening to the media.
Please digger name the case that's presently in the Supreme Court. What is Trump seeking

If I don't give you media sources would you believe me??

Here's another top classified info from top constitutional lawyers



BARTIROMO: President Trump’s legal team has just three weeks left to gather enough evidence of fraud to contest the 2020 election results in court, something Sidney Powell, one of the lead attorneys on the case, says she can do.
Here is what she told me this week on “Mornings With Maria” on Friday.

BARTIROMO: Will you be able to present, are you planning to present actual evidence of all that you have said, Dominion voting machines swapping votes from Trump to Biden, as well as an effort to actually change the results of an election? You will be able to prove that in court in the next two weeks?


SIDNEY POWELL, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, I fully expect we will be able to prove all of it in court within the next two weeks, although the fraud case itself doesn’t have to be done within the two weeks.
But we have more than enough evidence now. We have more evidence now than half the prison population is imprisoned on.

BARTIROMO: Joining me right now, outside legal analysis from constitutional legal scholar Alan Dershowitz. He was also part of President Trump’s impeachment defense team.
Alan, it is good to see you this morning. Thank you so much for being here.


DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Alan, we want to get your independent opinions here, because we know what Rudy Giuliani and what Sidney Powell has been charging.
Can you tell us if you believe there is a path for victory for President Trump, amidst these charges?



DERSHOWITZ: Well, let me give you my completely objective, not wishful thinking, constitutional analysis.
They have two or three legal constitutional paths. For example, in Pennsylvania, they have two very strong legal arguments, one, that the courts changed what the legislature did about counting ballots after the end of Election Day.
That’s a winning issue in the Supreme Court. I don’t necessarily support it, but it’s a winning issue in the Supreme Court. And Justice Alito has already hinted that’s a winning issue.


They also have a winning issue on the Supreme Court on equal protection, that some counties allowed flawed ballots to be cured, while others didn’t. Bush vs. Gore suggests that an equal protection argument can prevail.



The problem with that argument is, they don’t have the numbers necessarily to support it. If it’s right that Biden is ahead by some 70,000 or 80,000 votes, they have to show enough contested votes, under those two legal theories, to change the outcome.


The other legal theory they had, which is a potentially strong one, is that the computers, either fraudulently or by glitches, changed hundreds of thousands of votes.

There are enough votes to make a difference, but I haven’t seen the evidence to support that.
So, in one case, they don’t have the numbers. In another case, they don’t seem yet to have the evidence. Maybe they do.

I haven’t seen it. But the legal theory is there to support them if they have the numbers and they have the evidence.


BARTIROMO: OK.
And, of course, the media wants to see the evidence now, Alan.



DERSHOWITZ: Right.

BARTIROMO: But Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis continue to say that they aren’t going to litigate this in the public square, in the media space. They are going to drop lawsuits.


Now, I — one of my sources tells me that one of the first suits that they are going to bring is this week in Georgia. Let me show you a list of some of the things that the legal team of President Trump is charging and get your thoughts on this.


DERSHOWITZ: Sure.
BARTIROMO: You just mentioned the computers.
This is — has to do with Smartmatic election software. They say, number one, observers prevented them from seeing the ballots.

Number two, there’s inconsistent laws of curing ballots. Number three, the in-person voters told that they voted already and officials told not to look for defects and to backdate ballots before

November 3.
Also, in terms of the computers and the software, Smartmatic election software was developed, Sidney Powell says, in Venezuela, with porous security and built-in functionality allowing the administrators to override security features.


We haven’t seen this, so we don’t know. But this is the kind of evidence that they say they have. Your reaction?


DERSHOWITZ: Well, evidence is very difficult to bring within two weeks or the three-week period.

You need to have witnesses, experts subject to cross-examination, and findings by a court.


I don’t know what Powell means when she says they have more than two weeks or three weeks to prove fraud. Once the electors are certified, and once they cast their vote, I can’t see any legal route to undoing that, even if they were to find fraud later on.


There’s certainly nothing in the Constitution about that. And so I think they do have to get their evidence in. The public has the right to see it. They don’t have the right to see it before the lawsuits are filed.


But she said that she thinks the lawsuits will be filed by this Friday. We have to see the evidence.


BARTIROMO: That’s right.
DERSHOWITZ: If the evidence is there, then there will be a trial.


Remember also, these have to go to state court first. There’s no such thing as a presidential election. There are 50 state elections.

The Pennsylvania case is already in the Supreme Court. But these other cases have to go first through either the state or the federal trial courts before they get to the Supreme Court.


It doesn’t look like there will be enough time to bring the case to the Supreme Court before the safe harbor provision kicks in, before the Electoral College meets.


BARTIROMO: OK.
DERSHOWITZ: So, if you’re asking me what I think the outcome is going to be, notwithstanding the fact that there are legal paths to potential victory, I don’t think that the election is going to be reversed, based on the numbers that I see at the moment and based on the fact that I haven’t seen the evidence.
Their strongest case, if they have the evidence…



BARTIROMO: Yes.
DERSHOWITZ: … is that computers may have turned hundreds of thousands of votes. That’s a wholesale argument, rather than a retail argument.
BARTIROMO: OK.


DERSHOWITZ: They can’t turn the election around on retail arguments, one observer here, a few votes here.
BARTIROMO: Right.



DERSHOWITZ: They need to make wholesale constitutional arguments.
And for that, they’re going to need overwhelming evidence, and I haven’t seen it.

Mercisharelove:
If I don't give you media sources would you believe me??

Here's another top classified info from top constitutional lawyers



BARTIROMO: President Trump’s legal team has just three weeks left to gather enough evidence of fraud to contest the 2020 election results in court, something Sidney Powell, one of the lead attorneys on the case, says she can do.
Here is what she told me this week on “Mornings With Maria” on Friday.

BARTIROMO: Will you be able to present, are you planning to present actual evidence of all that you have said, Dominion voting machines swapping votes from Trump to Biden, as well as an effort to actually change the results of an election? You will be able to prove that in court in the next two weeks?


SIDNEY POWELL, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, I fully expect we will be able to prove all of it in court within the next two weeks, although the fraud case itself doesn’t have to be done within the two weeks.
But we have more than enough evidence now. We have more evidence now than half the prison population is imprisoned on.

BARTIROMO: Joining me right now, outside legal analysis from constitutional legal scholar Alan Dershowitz. He was also part of President Trump’s impeachment defense team.
Alan, it is good to see you this morning. Thank you so much for being here.


DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Alan, we want to get your independent opinions here, because we know what Rudy Giuliani and what Sidney Powell has been charging.
Can you tell us if you believe there is a path for victory for President Trump, amidst these charges?



DERSHOWITZ: Well, let me give you my completely objective, not wishful thinking, constitutional analysis.
They have two or three legal constitutional paths. For example, in Pennsylvania, they have two very strong legal arguments, one, that the courts changed what the legislature did about counting ballots after the end of Election Day.
That’s a winning issue in the Supreme Court. I don’t necessarily support it, but it’s a winning issue in the Supreme Court. And Justice Alito has already hinted that’s a winning issue.


They also have a winning issue on the Supreme Court on equal protection, that some counties allowed flawed ballots to be cured, while others didn’t. Bush vs. Gore suggests that an equal protection argument can prevail.



The problem with that argument is, they don’t have the numbers necessarily to support it. If it’s right that Biden is ahead by some 70,000 or 80,000 votes, they have to show enough contested votes, under those two legal theories, to change the outcome.


The other legal theory they had, which is a potentially strong one, is that the computers, either fraudulently or by glitches, changed hundreds of thousands of votes.

There are enough votes to make a difference, but I haven’t seen the evidence to support that.
So, in one case, they don’t have the numbers. In another case, they don’t seem yet to have the evidence. Maybe they do.

I haven’t seen it. But the legal theory is there to support them if they have the numbers and they have the evidence.


BARTIROMO: OK.
And, of course, the media wants to see the evidence now, Alan.



DERSHOWITZ: Right.

BARTIROMO: But Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis continue to say that they aren’t going to litigate this in the public square, in the media space. They are going to drop lawsuits.


Now, I — one of my sources tells me that one of the first suits that they are going to bring is this week in Georgia. Let me show you a list of some of the things that the legal team of President Trump is charging and get your thoughts on this.


DERSHOWITZ: Sure.
BARTIROMO: You just mentioned the computers.
This is — has to do with Smartmatic election software. They say, number one, observers prevented them from seeing the ballots.

Number two, there’s inconsistent laws of curing ballots. Number three, the in-person voters told that they voted already and officials told not to look for defects and to backdate ballots before

November 3.
Also, in terms of the computers and the software, Smartmatic election software was developed, Sidney Powell says, in Venezuela, with porous security and built-in functionality allowing the administrators to override security features.


We haven’t seen this, so we don’t know. But this is the kind of evidence that they say they have. Your reaction?


DERSHOWITZ: Well, evidence is very difficult to bring within two weeks or the three-week period.

You need to have witnesses, experts subject to cross-examination, and findings by a court.


I don’t know what Powell means when she says they have more than two weeks or three weeks to prove fraud. Once the electors are certified, and once they cast their vote, I can’t see any legal route to undoing that, even if they were to find fraud later on.


There’s certainly nothing in the Constitution about that. And so I think they do have to get their evidence in. The public has the right to see it. They don’t have the right to see it before the lawsuits are filed.


But she said that she thinks the lawsuits will be filed by this Friday. We have to see the evidence.


BARTIROMO: That’s right.
DERSHOWITZ: If the evidence is there, then there will be a trial.


Remember also, these have to go to state court first. There’s no such thing as a presidential election. There are 50 state elections.

The Pennsylvania case is already in the Supreme Court. But these other cases have to go first through either the state or the federal trial courts before they get to the Supreme Court.


It doesn’t look like there will be enough time to bring the case to the Supreme Court before the safe harbor provision kicks in, before the Electoral College meets.


BARTIROMO: OK.
DERSHOWITZ: So, if you’re asking me what I think the outcome is going to be, notwithstanding the fact that there are legal paths to potential victory, I don’t think that the election is going to be reversed, based on the numbers that I see at the moment and based on the fact that I haven’t seen the evidence.
Their strongest case, if they have the evidence…



BARTIROMO: Yes.
DERSHOWITZ: … is that computers may have turned hundreds of thousands of votes. That’s a wholesale argument, rather than a retail argument.
BARTIROMO: OK.


DERSHOWITZ: They can’t turn the election around on retail arguments, one observer here, a few votes here.
BARTIROMO: Right.



DERSHOWITZ: They need to make wholesale constitutional arguments.
And for that, they’re going to need overwhelming evidence, and I haven’t seen it.

If you read what you just posted then I sure you'd have noticed where your "top constitutional lawyer" alleged that the outcome of the election is not reversible as things are right because of lack of evidence... you said there are legal battles in the Supreme Court. I just ask you to name them, you can't. Trump has lost more than half of the lawsuits he and his campaign team had filed. His own attorney couldn't even win a case in court.
I'm not quoting any media but I can show the number of cases and their verdict.
Every State in the USA has a State Supreme Court. The over all Supreme Court isn't entertaining any election matter at the moment.
you have evidence of fraud but it's taking you more than 3 weeks to prove it. Next week is the deadline of all elections matter and certification for states..... You have a case where someone asked the Judge to nullify 1.4 millions plus votes because about 250 votes shouldn't be counted, like who in their right mind would even file such a case?
My one cent advice, instead of sitting down and only consuming Pro Trump media and conspiracy theories try to be objective. Listen to both sides and draw reasonable conclusion.

emae009:
If you read what you just posted then I sure you'd have noticed where your "top constitutional lawyer" alleged that the outcome of the election is not reversible as things are right because of lack of evidence... you said there are legal battles in the Supreme Court. I just ask you to name them, you can't. Trump has lost more than half of the lawsuits he and his campaign team had filed. His own attorney couldn't even win a case in court.
I'm not quoting any media but I can show the number of cases and their verdict.
Every State in the USA has a State Supreme Court. The over all Supreme Court isn't entertaining any election matter at the moment.
you have evidence of fraud but it's taking you more than 3 weeks to prove it. Next week is the deadline of all elections matter and certification for states..... You have a case where someone asked the Judge to nullify 1.4 millions plus votes because about 250 votes shouldn't be counted, like who in their right mind would even file such a case?
My one cent advice, instead of sitting down and only consuming Pro Trump media and conspiracy theories try to be objective. Listen to both sides and draw reasonable conclusion.

Listen to both sides you advised

Which of you are listening to Donald Trump version, all of you are yawning concede defeat, is it not part of what you are pressurizing us to do?


You don't want to allow the process run out its full course. You all will die hypocrites. One day some some of you will experience cheating and no one will ever care to back you up to fight.


What's wrong in Donald Trump fighting for his right But you all are so quickly to condemned him because Biden is your elder brother.

Bias � ants

Mercisharelove:
Listen to both sides you advised

Which of you are listening to Donald Trump version, all of you are yawning concede defeat, is it not part of what you are pressurizing us to do?


You don't want to allow the process run out its full course. You all will die hypocrites. One day some some of you will experience cheating and no one will ever care to back you up to fight.


What's wrong in Donald Trump fighting for his right But you all are so quickly to condemned him because Biden is your elder brother.

Bias � ants

Where did I say Trump should concede? or he shouldn't go to court?
All I said was that you should be updated with the news as Georgia had certified Biden as your original post said otherwise.
Then you proceeded to talk about court cases.
Read all my replies again, I Said Trump has lost majority of the lawsuits his team as filed and that's a fact.
I listen to both sides of them media and draw my own reasonable conclusion.
The whole election fraud thing is a theory that exist only in Trump's world. You claim there's fraud but you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt evidence of it for 3 weeks? You file cases base on hearsay and then complain when the judgement doesn't go your way.
The hypocrisy is you thinking that anybody that disagree with you is against you or Trump.

Since you're good at doing independent investigation, look into the court cases you said are pending, read and follow their verdicts. It will help you in the long run to make independent conclusion and not assume that anything the media says is fake or anti-Trump because of one big conspiracy theory out there

emae009:
Where did I say Trump should concede? or he shouldn't go to court?
All I said was that you should be updated with the news as Georgia had certified Biden as your original post said otherwise.
Then you proceeded to talk about court cases.
Read all my replies again, I Said Trump has lost majority of the lawsuits his team as filed and that's a fact.
I listen to both sides of them media and draw my own reasonable conclusion.
The whole election fraud thing is a theory that exist only in Trump's world. You claim there's fraud but you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt evidence of it for 3 weeks? You file cases base on hearsay and then complain when the judgement doesn't go your way.
The hypocrisy is you thinking that anybody that disagree with you is against you or Trump.

Since you're good at doing independent investigation, look into the court cases you said are pending, read and follow their verdicts. It will help you in the long run to make independent conclusion and not assume that anything the media says is fake or anti-Trump because of one big conspiracy theory out there

Verdict from new world order or from pure justice himself.


You are in support of the corruption going on in the USA 2020 election, the truth is, when there's a political gang up against a candidate, you hardly could survive the onslaught.


Look at the folks lining behind Biden, Wall Street executives, directors of top US bank's, world leaders and the corruption institutions which couldn't siphon money from the system and throw up wars , folks like NATO ASI que.


I don't need to say much, you know the truth.

Mercisharelove:
Verdict from new world order or from pure justice himself.


You are in support of the corruption going on in the USA 2020 election, the truth is, when there's a political gang up against a candidate, you hardly could survive the onslaught.


Look at the folks lining behind Biden, Wall Street executives, directors of top US bank's, world leaders and the corruption institutions which couldn't siphon money from the system and throw up wars , folks like NATO ASI que.


I don't need to say much, you know the truth.

I'm guessing your precious "Newsmax" has joined the NWO since they are also running the news of Georgia and Pennsylvania certifying Biden as the winner of their state Presidential election
Seriously you're beyond help and reasoning, which one is new world order verdict again in a courtroom case where you present your case and give your own argument and the Judge declares a verdict?
The judge FYI is a Republican like Trump.
Let me help you out,
Trump campaign filed a motion of injunction to stop the state of Pennsylvania from certifying their election results base on the allegation of wide spread fraud and massive rigging. Then they proceeded to the "Court of Public Opinion" a.k.a the media to boast and shout of how the cases they have filed will overturn the results.
Time to present their case in the actual courtroom, they started saying something else, that they heard that observers were not allow to watch the counting, that they want to change the notion of their previous filing, that around 8000 votes didn't have proper identification. Counter argument, the 8000 votes was set aside from the initial count were Biden was leading by 80000+ votes.
Trump campaign then asked the Judge to nullify 8.3million votes because of hearsay and not proper evidence. The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court gave their verdict that because someone is missing an address or some sort of identification on the mail-in-ballot doesn't mean that the vote shouldn't count. It ordered the state for include the votes that was set aside in their final counting thus increasing Biden leads and dismissing Trump campaign case.
This is just one of the many cases that went this way. Lack of substantial evidence is what is dismissing Trump cases not some New World Order verdict that exist in your mind only.

Mercisharelove:
Verdict from new world order or from pure justice himself.


You are in support of the corruption going on in the USA 2020 election, the truth is, when there's a political gang up against a candidate, you hardly could survive the onslaught.


Look at the folks lining behind Biden, Wall Street executives, directors of top US bank's, world leaders and the corruption institutions which couldn't siphon money from the system and throw up wars , folks like NATO ASI que.


I don't need to say much, you know the truth.

your second to last paragraph clearly shows you don't even know what you're talking about. Wall Street executives are mostly conservatives. It is a fairly acceptable notion that the working class don't like the Left because of welfare where they are taxed to feed and take care of the homeless and what they "term" Lazy Americans.
NATO is not an American organization, it stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is the coming together of different countries mostly in western Europe for security and economic reasons. It was formed after WWII when Russia was expanding its influence and communist ideology in Eastern Europe. The countries in western Europe then sign a treaty with America to come to their aid both in terms of economy and security to checkmate the Soviet Union and prevent another world War.
So how will countries like Germany and France, England, Spain and then rest be siphoning money from the US system?

Like I earlier said, make insight research, read up and enlighten yourself

emae009:
your second to last paragraph clearly shows you don't even know what you're talking about. Wall Street executives are mostly conservatives. It is a fairly acceptable notion that the working class don't like the Left because of welfare where they are taxed to feed and take care of the homeless and what they "term" Lazy Americans.
NATO is not an American organization, it stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is the coming together of different countries mostly in western Europe for security and economic reasons. It was formed after WWII when Russia was expanding its influence and communist ideology in Eastern Europe. The countries in western Europe then sign a treaty with America to come to their aid both in terms of economy and security to checkmate the Soviet Union and prevent another world War.
So how will countries like Germany and France, England, Spain and then rest be siphoning money from the US system?

Like I earlier said, make insight research, read up and enlighten yourself

I thought you are schooled. Awash.

America's cooperation provides security for g, f, e, s.why do you think these leaders wanted Donald Trump out by all means possible and impossible.

Trump stop financing those cooperation because he saw it as a way of siphoning monies from USA co-op without justifications, ridden with dark deals, fronting other countries without justifiable reasons.


Wall Street and the biggest U.S. banks, after spending a fortune to unseat President Trump, are getting key spots in Democrat Joe Biden’s transition team that he has devised before the presidential election is certified.



Detailed by the New York Times, Biden’s list of transition team members includes former Wall Street employees and those with close ties to Wall Street. Many of the big banks with links to Biden transition team members were major donors to the former vice president.



Commerce Department: The review team is led by Geovette Washington of the University of Pittsburgh, who previously served as general counsel and senior policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget. Other members include Anna Gomez, a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein; Arun Venkataraman, who works in government relations at Visa (and was director of policy at the Commerce Department under Mr. Obama); and Ellen Hughes-Cromwick of the think tank Third Way, who served as chief economist at Mr. Obama’s Commerce Department and held a similar role at Ford. [Emphasis added]



Treasury Department: The team is led by Don Graves, who heads corporate responsibility at KeyBank and previously worked as director of domestic and economic policy for Mr. Biden. Others include Nicole Isaac of LinkedIn and Marisa Lago, who works at the New York City Department of City Planning and previously oversaw global compliance at Citigroup. [Emphasis added]
Federal Reserve, Banking and Securities Regulators: The team is led by Gary Gensler, a top Wall Street regulator in the Obama administration who is now a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. The team also includes Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets, long a proponent of tougher rules for banks. [Emphasis added]



Gensler previously worked at Goldman Sachs and for failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. As Breitbart News reported, giant tech conglomerates are also getting representation on Biden’s transition team.



Likewise, the Wall Street Journal noted a number of Wall Street-types who are seriously being considered for cabinet positions in a potential Biden administration:



Roger Ferguson, chief executive of retirement manager TIAA-CREF, is in the mix for a cabinet post, according to people familiar with the matter. And financial executives like Morgan Stanley executive Tom Nides and former hedge-fund manager and presidential candidate Tom Steyer publicly backed Mr. Biden and could emerge with influence, or jobs, in his administration. [Emphasis added]


Some who are active in the party or who held positions in past Democratic administrations— such as finance veteran Jeffrey Zients, co-chairman of Mr. Biden’s transition team, and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Jake Siewert, who served as press secretary in the Clinton White House and in the Treasury Department under President Obama — could join the new administration, Democratic fundraisers say. [Emphasis added]


Another Goldman executive who could head to Washington is Margaret Anadu, the 39-year-old head of Goldman Sachs’s urban-investment initiatives, whose name is said to have been floated for an economic policy position.
[Emphasis added]





On the campaign trail, President Trump warned that Biden was “the one that takes all the money from Wall Street” while his donors tended to be police officers, business owners, homemakers, truckers, construction workers, and drivers.



The progressive wing of the Democrat Party has attempted to push back against Biden’s potential for stacking an administration with Wall Street executives and those with deep ties to multinational corporations.


Read and learn. You are not updated

I said that