HomeUncategorized2/13 News Roundup & Open Thread – Sanders Is Only As Radical As Roosevelt On Taxes, A Green New Deal Vote & More
avatar
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
89 Comment threads
85 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
OzoneTomwi60Rachelmagsviewpolarbear4 Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jcitybone

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-16/bank-earnings-jpm-wfc-bac-c-gains-are-due-to-tax-cut

Here’s the latest sign of who’s benefiting in President Donald Trump’s economy: Without the tax cut, bank earnings growth in the second quarter would have been pretty close to zilch. Instead, the nation’s six biggest banks are set to report a 14 percent improvement in earnings in the April-to-June period. Nine of every 10 dollars of that increase is thanks to the tax cut. Just one dollar came from an actual improvement in operations.

That small gain, just $413 million out of an estimated $3.5 billion increase, is odd given how strong the economy appears to be. Just last year, investors seemed certain that a mixture of Trump’s deregulation and then proposed tax cuts would boost corporate America and banks in particular. And yet those tax gains haven’t translated into much more business for the banks.

jcitybone

Would Dem nominee Bernie or Liz get this Bloomberg $500 million shadow fund? Would they even want it? I guess it might be ok if he concentrated on issues he cares about like gun control and the environment. He won’t be spending money to promote their tax plans. 🤣🤣🤣

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/429750-bloomberg-preps-500-million-anti-trump-fund-for-2020

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is reportedly prepared to spend at least $500 million of his own funds to block President Trump from a potential second term in the White House.

Democratic operatives briefed on the billionaire’s plans told Politico that Bloomberg plans to either use the money to fund his own campaign against Trump in 2020 or fuel an unprecedented shadow political party for whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee.

orlbucfan

Wonder how much he can write off? YUCK!

jcitybone

jcitybone

There does seem to be more positive stuff in the Post and Times about Bernie than three or four years ago (of course not all positive). Might be another indication on how the Dem ground has shifted his way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/13/bernie-sanders-would-like-talk-about-social-security/?utm_term=.51439ffc71cc

The conversation around Social Security sometimes seems to take place in two separate worlds. On one side, there are people who believe the program is unsustainable in its current form, and that as the share of the population that is older than 65 continues to grow, Social Security will need to be adjusted to reflect that reality. On the other side are people who point out that not only is Social Security not particularly generous (it only replaces about 40 percent of pre-retirement income), but also we need to both alter its funding and what it pays out to account for the age of inequality, which is simultaneously increasing people’s dependence on the program even as it further undermines the program’s finances.

One man firmly in the latter camp is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.), who is bringing back his Social Security Expansion Act on Wednesday. The day selected is no accident: Wednesday also marks something Social Security activists call Scrap the Cap Day, an annual event designed to highlight how little millionaires pay into the system.

Sanders tells me that he believes momentum on the issue has shifted in recent years. As recently as a decade ago, even many Democrats agreed with Republicans that Social Security needed to be trimmed back. Now among his bill’s co-sponsors are several declared and potential presidential candidates, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). “I think most elected officials would be terribly, terribly unpopular if after giving a trillion-dollar tax cut to corporations and wealthy Americans,” they voted to take benefits away from those living on a Social Security stipend, Sanders said. (Note that Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), have stepped forward to argue just that.) Sanders’s office says an analysis by the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary says his bill would solidify the system for about 50 years. Larson’s bill would take us to the end of the century. So why not take the opportunity to simultaneously improve lives and bulk up Social Security? I can think of a lot of worse ideas.

humphrey

LOL. Just wait as they are being semi kind because he hasn’t announced his candidacy as of yet. They are saving their ammo.

jcitybone

https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-progressive-estate-tax-teddy-roosevelt/

The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long practiced reverse Robin Hood politics—take from the poor and give to the rich—that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations.

What is notable about the Sanders plan is that, with his proposal to establish a 77 percent tax on the value of an estate above $1 billion, the senator is merely seeking “a return to the top rate from 1941 through 1976.”

Sanders is proposing an approach that renews American values, as notes University of California–Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez. “The estate tax was a key pillar of the progressive tax revolution that the United States ushered one century ago. It prevented self-made wealth from turning into inherited wealth and helped make America more equal,” explains Saez. “However, the estate tax is dying of neglect, as tax avoidance schemes are multiplying and left unchallenged. As wealth concentration is surging in the United States, it is high time to revive the estate tax, plug the loopholes, and make it more progressive. Senator Sanders’ bill is a bold and welcome leap forward in this direction.”

Teddy Roosevelt understood this economic calculus, and this democratic imperative.

“In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next,” the Republican president explained in 1910. “One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now.”

jcitybone

https://www.salon.com/2019/02/13/after-parkland-everything-is-different-nras-in-decline-and-gun-control-is-possible/

The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee is expected to pass a gun control bill on Wednesday. Some of the most vulnerable House Democrats, including those elected in previously red districts, have said they would support gun control bills as expansive as a ban on assault-style weapons. Many of them ran on an unabashed push for increased gun control in the midterm elections and beat GOP incumbents backed by the National Rifle Association. This sweeping shift in the gun debate comes on the one-year anniversary of the Feb. 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. That’s no accident.

Gun control measures failed to gain traction in Congress in the immediate aftermath the Parkland shooting. But that was with Republicans in complete control on Capitol Hill. The activist movement driven by Parkland survivors has clearly of shifted the political climate around gun-safety legislation, and was a major factor in flipping the House to the Democrats last November.

jcitybone

Go away billionaire Schultz!

jcitybone

jcitybone

https://www.salon.com/2019/02/12/ilhan-omar-aipac-and-the-democrats-party-rushes-to-defend-israel-lobby-against-one-woman/

False accusations of anti-Semitism often act as a thin cover for Islamophobia on the right. Omar is one of two Muslim women elected to Congress last fall, along with Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and is the first member in history to wear a hijab. Both Omar and Tlaib have expressed sympathy for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) aimed at protest Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Last month, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., accused freshman Tlaib of anti-Semitism after she suggested that a bill prohibiting American citizens who do business with the federal government from supporting any anti-Israel boycott was unconstitutional.

“I think she should be ashamed of herself,” President Trump said of Omar on Monday. ” I don’t think her apology was adequate.” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who once reportedly referred to himself as “David Duke without the baggage,” called on Democrats to strip her of her committee assignments. McCarthy, in a statement, said the GOP would “take action this week to ensure the House speaks out against this hatred.”

Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., who previously blamed Omar for inspiring anti-Semites to target his office, has sponsored a resolution rejecting “anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred in the United States and around the world.” It equates Omar and Tlaib with the 2017 neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville and last year’s mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

“I see this as an Islamophobic attack against two outspoken women of color who are shaking things up by boldly standing for crucial issues,” Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, told The New York Times last month.

Omar’s detractors point to her 2012 tweet that “Israel has hypnotized the world” to suggest deep-rooted anti-Semitism. She has apologized for that one as well, claiming she inadvertently invoked the anti-Semitic trope that Jews secretly control the world. Sunday’s tweet was read by some observers as playing on another harmful trope, that money is at the center of that control. None of this is helpful Palestinian liberation and self-determination. The lesson, however, should be the evergreen message to “never tweet,” not the expulsion of a minority voice from one of the most one-sided debates in Congress. Claiming that criticism of AIPAC is an attack on all Jews is a bad-faith effort to chill growing policy criticism of Israel on the left.

jcitybone

humphrey

polarbear4

Tweeting is a way to connect with people. Please keep tweeting. Just don’t hit send right away on certain subjects.

jcitybone

Definitely. Pols should run it by an advisor when tweeting on important stuff. You can’t let people take advantage of inartful phrases to hijack a valid message. In Omar”s case though it did get a lot more publicity than it would have otherwise.

polarbear4

True. Would def not want her to have not said the same thing in diff words.

jcitybone

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/politics/elizabeth-warren-campaign-manager/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has chosen Roger Lau, a jack-of-all trades political operative who helped steer her to victory in two US Senate elections, to manage her 2020 campaign for the White House, CNN has learned.

Lau, 41, has held several senior roles with the Massachusetts Democrat, including campaign manager for her re-election race in 2018, as well as state director and political director. Dan Geldon, Warren’s longtime aide and former Senate chief of staff, will serve as chief of staff on the presidential campaign.

Warren’s decision to put Lau and Geldon in two such prominent roles reflect her reliance on a fiercely loyal and small circle of aides she has come to trust over the years. The appointment is also a historic one: Lau appears to be the first Asian-American campaign manager for a major American presidential candidate — particularly notable in an election that already features an unprecedentedly diverse field of candidates.

jcitybone

Let’s start this column off with a bold assertion. Paying lawmakers good salaries is one of our country’s most important progressive reforms because it means that they don’t have to be wealthy to serve. High congressional pay is a safeguard against corruption, not a sign of it.

Bear this assertion in mind as you consider this proposal.

Scott’s net worth was $232.6 million at the end of 2017 — not bad for a man who led a company that paid $1.7 billion in fines for widespread Medicare and Medicaid fraud. His co-sponsor, Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN), is worth between $35 million and $96 million, according to his campaign disclosure forms. So Scott and Braun can afford to forego their pensions — or their entire salary, if they choose.

Yet, if elected officials do not receive what Scott dismisses as “generous salaries and pensions,” that will discourage people who do not have Scott or Braun’s vast wealth from running for office. As future President John Adams once warned, if “you make it law that no man should hold an office who had not a private income sufficient for the subsistence and prospects of himself and family,” then “all offices would be monopolized by the rich, the poor and the middling ranks would be excluded, and an aristocratic despotism would immediately follow.”

orlbucfan

At least $175M of Sick Rott’s net worth was stolen from guess who-we taxpayers. When is garbage like this going to be put in jail?!? It was indicted for Medicare fraud before it bought/lucked out in the governor’s seat. Same thing with the Senate. Guess I’ll be dead before indictment means anything again. 🙁

jcitybone

If it does pass it will be the Trump’s first veto

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/13/yemen-saudi-arabia-congress-1166635

In 2004, a little-known 27-year-old lawyer ran one of the first campaigns centered on opposition to military intervention at the height of the Iraq war. He lost by 54 points.

Fifteen years later, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is preparing to claim success on a historic legislative effort to cut off U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war.

“No one was willing to do it because they don’t want to be Dennis Kucinich, introducing these things that are not going anywhere,” Khanna quipped in an interview with POLITICO in his Capitol Hill office, referring to the former Ohio congressman known for his anti-war views.

The Democrat-led House is voting Wednesday on Khanna’s bill to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. And it’s expected to pass overwhelmingly with near-unanimous support from Democrats, plus a handful of conservative, non-interventionist Republicans.

Proponents expect it to clear both chambers with bipartisan support. And even though President Donald Trump is expected to veto the measure, it will mark the first time in history that the House and Senate adopted a War Powers resolution, and it will represent a major rebuke of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, particularly its posture toward Saudi Arabia.

humphrey

Benny

Turns out it was a bad rumor?

humphrey

Maybe this is one of the reasons that she is getting a town hall on CNN.

Benny

So did Joe Manchin.

polarbear4

Benny

My blood temperature rose a little when I saw that tweeter earlier today. Sad commentary too on how many people needed the money. Why hasn’t any Indie media outlet reported these lobbyists’ predatory practices?

polarbear4

polarbear4

polarbear4

Go Ilhan.

polarbear4

Ilhan is def rivaling AOC In progressivity 😜

orlbucfan

She’s very photogenic like AOC, too.

magsview

Benny

Unbowed. Excellent staff work too.

Bravo!

jcitybone

Although Pelosi was wrong to demand an apology for Omar’s AIPAC tweets, she was right to allow her to get onto Foreign Affairs where she can shine

https://www.axios.com/ilhan-omar-elliot-abrams-venezuela-2d5b53aa-cc72-4589-a6dd-32b76fb41040.html

Highlights

On Iran-Contra:
Omar: “Mr. Abrams, in 1991 you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair for which you were later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush. I fail to understand why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful.”
Abrams: “If I could respond to that …”
Omar: “It wasn’t a question.”
Abrams: “It was an attack.”

On the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador:
Omar: “You dismissed as ‘communist propaganda’ reports about the massacre of El Mozote in which more than 800 civilians, including children as young as 2 years old, were brutally murdered by U.S.-trained troops. … You later said the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a ‘fabulous achievement.’ … Do you think that massacre was a ‘fabulous achievement?'”
Abrams: “That is a ridiculous question.”
Omar: “Yes or no?”
Abrams: “No.”
Omar: “I will take that as a yes.”
Abrams: “I’m not going to respond to that kind of personal attack.”

On U.S. Venezuela policy under Trump:
Omar: “Would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide if you believe they were serving U.S. interests, as you did in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua?’
Abrams: “I am not going to respond to that question. I’m sorry. I don’t think this entire line of questioning is meant to be real questions, and so I will not reply.”

jcitybone

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26328370/ilhan-omar-elliot-abrams-el-mozote-massacre-el-salvador/

I just had a moment that I’ve been waiting for since the early 1980s, because I am an old guy who remembers things. Of all the bloodthirsty think-tank Rambos that were wandering around the Reagan Administration, none of them were so bone-deep inhumanely repulsive as Elliot Abrams, whose main job was to enable death squads and cover up massacres committed by our plucky cutthroats-for-hire in Central America, most notably in Guatemala. His portfolio also included lying to Congress and Trolling Around For A Pardon. (Thanks, Poppy!)

Anyway, Abrams came before the House Foreign Relations Committee. It came time for Rep. Ilhan Omar to ask him questions. Congresswoman Omar, you may have noted, has had a rough couple of weeks. Nevertheless, she soldiered on and asked Abrams if they could discuss his resume for a bit. Abrams didn’t seem to enjoy having his bona fides as a war criminal discussed by this…person.

I think I speak for thousands of dead people in Central America when I thank Rep. Omar for allowing us to say, together, once again, and to the skull-like face of Elliott Abrams, “Man, fck that guy.”

orlbucfan

He looks like an It outta ‘It Crawled Outta My Hands, Honest’ h/t–The Fugs.

humphrey

jcitybone

I think Biden is only a 50/50 shot at best to run

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/campaigns/article226007090.html#storylink=cpy

Joe Biden is everything a Democratic political consultant should love: He’s experienced, well-liked, and his poll numbers look great against Donald Trump.

And yet many party strategists have a bleak assessment of his potential 2020 campaign: It’s a bad, bad idea.

“McClatchy interviewed 31 Democratic strategists — pollsters, opposition research experts, media consultants, ex-party officials, and communications specialists — from across the country about a potential Biden campaign. Nine agreed to speak on the record; all others quoted anonymously do not plan to be affiliated with any candidate running in the presidential primary.

Strikingly, these conversations yielded a similar view: The Democratic political community is more broadly and deeply pessimistic about Biden’s potential candidacy than is commonly known. While these strategists said they respect Biden, they cited significant disadvantages for his campaign — from the increasingly liberal and non-white Democratic electorate to policy baggage from his years in the Senate and a field of rivals that includes new, fresh-faced candidates.

“Among political professionals, there are deep concerns because we know the history,” said a Pennsylvania-based Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about a party elder. “We have reason to be skeptical of the hype.”

“We heard it with Hillary, and we saw it happened,” the source added. “And there’s a lot of reason to think he would wind up a significantly weaker candidate than Hillary.”

humphrey

But he does have a 99% chance of losing if he decides to run.😁

jcitybone

Subir’s latest fantastic post on Omar currently tops the charts at DK. This shows her support is quite wide among Dems

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/13/1834330/-I-will-not-be-aiding-the-Saudis-Trump-and-Pence-in-a-pre-planned-character-assassination?utm_campaign=trending

magsview

Ooops! Too honest and too late-that’s what screenshots are for.

Rachel Leip
Rachel Leip

Wow. Wow. Words fail me.

Rachel Leip
Rachel Leip

Sorry for the duplicate comment. Computer is responding weirdly.

humphrey

No problem. It is good to see that you are participating.

polarbear4

Welcome!

polarbear4

Is theMSM telling America, as is their job?

jcitybone

jcitybone

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/13/if-you-hate-campaign-season-blame-money-politics?cd-origin=rss

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that it was unconstitutional to place overall limits on federal campaign contributions. But we’re seeing a rise in candidates who voluntarily rebuff deep-pocketed donors.

“We need to end the unwritten rule of politics that says that anyone who wants to run for office has to start by sucking up to a bunch of rich donors on Wall Street and powerful insiders,” Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren told the crowd at her own frigid campaign launch. She won’t be taking a dime from political action committees (PACs).

Senator Bernie Sanders showed in 2016 that it’s possible to raise large sums from individual donors. His total haul: $228 million.

A proposal by House Democrats would go a long way towards boosting small contributions as a counter to the mega-donors.

As part of a sweeping anti-corruption initiative, H.R. 1 would grant tax credits for contributions of no more than $50. Candidates could also volunteer for a public financing option through which the federal government would put $6 into their coffers for every $1 raised in small donations (of no more than $200).

The Democratic proposal would also force Super PACs, which can raise unlimited sums to advocate for or against candidates, to make their donors public. This might discourage some of the shadiest forces from attempting to buy elections.

The bill includes a number of other important pro-democracy proposals. It would crack down on partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts and corrupt lobbying practices. It would also make Election Day a holiday for federal employees, hoping private sector businesses would also give their workers the day off.

None of these changes, I’m afraid, would have an immediate impact on the duration of U.S. election campaigns. But by making the process more equitable, these reforms might make the 600-plus days at least seem shorter.

jcitybone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/13/how-us-politicians-use-charges-anti-semitism-political-weapon/?utm_source=reddit.com

Politicians claim to be speaking on behalf of Israelis because they get support from the Israeli right, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its proxies in the United States. Netanyahu helped turn Israel into a wedge issue during the Obama administration, when he all but endorsed Mitt Romney for president and addressed Congress in direct opposition to Obama’s Iran deal. AIPAC, whose ostensible mission is to “strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security” of both nations, by definition makes Israel exceptional. Its lobbying has ensured that Israel receives more foreign aid than any other country and that it remains the strongest military power in the Middle East. But it does so by bolstering the lawmakers that toe that line and ruining the careers of those that don’t.

And by now, many in Washington have come to embrace a consensus that being a good American means supporting Israel — regardless of its human rights violations or democratic record.

Pretending that Israel is the major concern for all Jews — and that anyone who criticizes its policies is engaging in anti-Semitism — is itself a form of scapegoating, a classic anti-Semitic trope. By toeing the nationalist policies set by the Israeli right, American politicians indicate that your position on Israel defines who you are and, especially, what you think of Jews.

That logic is now pitting support for Israel directly against free speech and the right to boycott in the United States. That is a very dangerous position for Israelis, and for American Jews.

I am an Israeli Jew. Yet I oppose all anti-BDS legislation, and I support nonviolent boycotts, pressure to divest and sanctions to push Israel to cease its regime of state violence and inequality against the Palestinian people. That does not make me anti-Israel, nor an anti-Semite. In fact, I believe that equality and human rights for Palestinians would safeguard the interests of actual real Israelis on the ground much better than current U.S. policy toward Israel’s occupation does. American lawmakers who try to punish other Americans for supporting a Palestinian-led resistance to Israeli oppression manage to scapegoat both Jews and Palestinians, who should not be told how to resist their own oppression. And the frequency with which Israel is coming up in domestic American politics in recent years — in large part thanks to the no-daylight alliance between the Trump and Netanyahu administrations — has made this border on fetishization of Israel.

jcitybone

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/13/house-foreign-policy-yemen-vote-1168760

The House on Wednesday passed a bill to halt U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war — yet another bipartisan rebuke of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where proponents expect it to narrowly pass in the coming weeks before arriving on Trump’s desk, setting up the first veto of his presidency.

The War Powers resolution cuts off U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, which is bombing Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. The civil war has sparked a humanitarian crisis in the country, including widespread famine and cholera outbreaks.

“This is a bipartisan effort to not only stop a very horrible conflict that’s having devastating consequences and creating a serious humanitarian crisis, but also an important moment for Congress to accept its responsibilities and reassert its role in declarations of war and the use of military force on behalf of the United States,” Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, a member of House Democratic leadership and the Foreign Affairs Committee, said.

Khanna (D-Calif.), a progressive who was first elected in 2016, spearheaded the effort. If it clears the Senate, it would be the first time in history that both chambers of Congress used the 1973 War Powers Act to scale back a president’s authority on the use of military force.

Senior administration officials had lobbied against the effort, arguing that U.S. involvement in the conflict is crucial to stave off Iranian aggression in the region.

But the Yemen issue is unique because it unites the far left and the far right on Capitol Hill. Every Democrat voted for the legislation; so did 18 Republicans — including many members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus. It cleared the chamber with 248 lawmakers in favor and 177 opposed. Some of the president’s key GOP allies broke with him, including Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Matt Gaetz of Florida, and Jim Jordan of Ohio.

humphrey

Benny

jcitybone

No doubt Pelosi is better than Schumer. Omar apologized and Pelosi has no time for the Republican hypocrites. Omar is now free to blast assholes like Abrams from her seat on Foreign Affairs

humphrey

humphrey

Just laying the groundwork for Paygo.

It has become a vicious circle. The Republicans run up the deficit then the Dems try to get it under control then the Regs run it up again.

Meanwhile social programs pay the price.

humphrey
humphrey

Not sure how the interview turned out.

Skip to toolbar