Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't say the crowd at all, yet you lied and claimed I did. Typical commie.
Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.
Write a book. Maybe you can sell it.Take it up with the several states. The court (including the trump appointed judge courts) rule against you.He had been talking them up with fake "stolen election" lies for months before the stop the steal rally he invited them to on the day both houses of congress were meeting to receive the electoral count. He is responsible.No arguing with what they did that day. No arguing trump encouraged them to go their after firing them up at the "stop the steal" rally. Effect usually follows cause.He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.(link to the memo is embedded)
READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.www.npr.org
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
Yeah, telling folks to "peacefully and patriotically make their VOICED HEARD", just makes folks want to break something. You're a fucking idiot.
.
Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.
.
Lies? So you're saying States like WI, MI, PA, AZ and GA didn't violate their own election laws. Damn you really are delusional. Hell I'll even give you one example. WI has no early in person voting, so some creative county officials invented early in person absentee voting. That's a fucking oxymoron. How the hell does that work or make sense?
.
No they didn't, they have to hear the evidence, they refused to do so. That equates to a NO DECISION.
.
www.merriam-webster.com
Hummmm.... Do you think Trump meant he would follow them to the capitol?
A simple yes/no.
No. When I say we're all in this together, does that mean we are going to be in the same place at the same time?
See, that's the problem with you foreigners, you take things literally, when they are meant figuratively.
You're not reading Trumps words
After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you.
We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women.
Explain how "i'll be there with you" doesn't mean Trump would be there with them. I seem to have a problem with my ESL.
Maybe "i'll be there with you" and "we're going to walk down" is some sort of American idiom, for 'you're on your own suckers"
Laugh clown laugh, but he is tarred with it and will be further tarred and the ones in the Senate that support the insurrection and his right to incite it will be tarred with him, making us all safer from them ever being elected president for fear they would try it again after showing their support for mob violence to take over the government and negate the lawful results of free election, by the people of the United States.Scratch the word "that" and read it again. Enjoy the trial.Not that the same. Your cheap Jedi mind tricks don't work on me, boy.To do nothing and let politics run it's course and let trump off the hook for what he brought about over the two months after the election, violence or no violence is the same as the hands off approach as the mayor and governor in Portland. It will not cool down until you just say NO and mean it. This was beyond the pale. Post election violence whipped up by an elected politician can become pre-election violence whipped up by the same politician or another. A message must be sent. The message to those politicians that would use their rhetoric and false unprovable accusations to stampede a herd, must be NO.interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.(link to the memo is embedded)READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.
But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.
Yet you're not demanding accountability for the politicians that egged on the riots, looting, arson and murders over the summer. In fact kneepads harriss helped raise bail money to get her soldiers back on the streets ASAP. STFU hypocrite.
.
Yeah, I know facts confuse the shit out of you commies. What the hell does, "Not that the same.", even mean? Me thinks your ESL is showing. Are you posting from some commie country?
.
LMAO Perhaps you should have read it again.
.
Where does the Wisconsin absentee ballot law specify where the ballot has to be filled out?No they didn't, they have to hear the evidence, they refused to do so. That equates to a NO DECISION.
Oh, it doesn't. And all Wisconsin did was accommodate people with a place they could fill out their absentee ballots. And provide a signature witness.
Now show me that procedure in the WI election law. Just because you might like it, doesn't make it legal.
You don't understand law. This procedure includes the steps that must be followed for a legitimate absentee ballot to be cast. Making what they did perfectly legal.
Unless any of the things they provided are by statute expressly "prohibited", it remains legal.
As I said, they provided a place and the machinery to assist them in filling out their ballots in order to minimize ballots being thrown out because of errors filling it out. And verifying their signatures using their photo on their voter ID.
I didn't say the crowd at all, yet you lied and claimed I did. Typical commie.
I took from context that you were referring to the crowd, which Trump was charged with inciting, when you said his defense to that charge of inciting the crowd was:
Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.
Hummmmm Who had those plans in place. The people who stormed the capitol? Aka "the crowd"?
Or did you mean some other people? Like members of congress perhaps?
Write a book. Maybe you can sell it.Take it up with the several states. The court (including the trump appointed judge courts) rule against you.He had been talking them up with fake "stolen election" lies for months before the stop the steal rally he invited them to on the day both houses of congress were meeting to receive the electoral count. He is responsible.No arguing with what they did that day. No arguing trump encouraged them to go their after firing them up at the "stop the steal" rally. Effect usually follows cause.He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.(link to the memo is embedded)READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
Yeah, telling folks to "peacefully and patriotically make their VOICED HEARD", just makes folks want to break something. You're a fucking idiot.
.
Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.
.
Lies? So you're saying States like WI, MI, PA, AZ and GA didn't violate their own election laws. Damn you really are delusional. Hell I'll even give you one example. WI has no early in person voting, so some creative county officials invented early in person absentee voting. That's a fucking oxymoron. How the hell does that work or make sense?
.
No they didn't, they have to hear the evidence, they refused to do so. That equates to a NO DECISION.
.
OP. what Mr. Trump did more than meets the definition of incitement...
No flimsy excuse can wiggle him out of that.Definition of INCITE
to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on… See the full definition
He doesn't need any other testimonies. He's met the definition ail by himself.
Don't bother yourself read what I post and I won't miss your responses.Don't then. I won't miss you.In what way?Perhaps if you simply read instead of attempting to respond, people would not think of as a trumpist cult follower/supporter.There you go again. Have not lived with parents since age of 18. Now 66. My own kids are grown and do not live with us, either. If that is common in you family, you should have had better role models.lol.He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.(link to the memo is embedded)READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
Do you actually read what you write?
Its like...."I know what he was thinking, I know what he wanted. I know what his intentions were"...
Yet, you don't even know what you had for breakfast this morning....other than some Vaseline, tissue paper and mummy's basement.
Perhaps if you stopped acting like a child, people wouldn't get that impression of you.
.
Now you're acting like a childish snowflake again. LMAO
.
You can't even write a coherent sentence. And exactly what am I suppose to be reading, your commie propaganda?
.
Don't what? You won't miss me, when?
.
I really believe the democrats shot themselves in the foot with this one. They didn't even let the dust settle, give themselves time to think things through or consider everything, and it will ultimately backfire on them.(link to the memo is embedded)READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
And that's what the democrats are counting on, their trained seals to line up clapping their flippers and honking their horns, all insisting that any verdict short of tar and feathers is corrupt. Just like the first one, they'll likely not have enough to convict him of anything more than wearing white after Labor Day, yet the usual suspects will be leaping around the fire, gibbering and waving spears at the moon, convinced they got him this time.You guys wouldn't see a connection if trump would have broken into the capital himself. trump incited an insurrection and republicans will let him off the hook.
Explain how I'm wrong.Yet he'll be acquitted, again. So I guess you're wrong.
.
Don't bother yourself read what I post and I won't miss your responses.Don't then. I won't miss you.In what way?Perhaps if you simply read instead of attempting to respond, people would not think of as a trumpist cult follower/supporter.There you go again. Have not lived with parents since age of 18. Now 66. My own kids are grown and do not live with us, either. If that is common in you family, you should have had better role models.lol.He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.(link to the memo is embedded)READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
Do you actually read what you write?
Its like...."I know what he was thinking, I know what he wanted. I know what his intentions were"...
Yet, you don't even know what you had for breakfast this morning....other than some Vaseline, tissue paper and mummy's basement.
Perhaps if you stopped acting like a child, people wouldn't get that impression of you.
.
Now you're acting like a childish snowflake again. LMAO
.
You can't even write a coherent sentence. And exactly what am I suppose to be reading, your commie propaganda?
.
Don't what? You won't miss me, when?
.
We will expect you to demand Kamala's impeachment and removal from office the first time someone tries to tell a Republican they're not welcome anywhere and someone gets hurt. You will do that, right?He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.(link to the memo is embedded)READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
Explain how I'm wrong.Yet he'll be acquitted, again. So I guess you're wrong.
.
No dummy, I posted the definition, it wasn't my guess.Simple, if what you claimed were true, he would be convicted. That ain't gonna happen, so you're obviously wrong.
.
How do you figure? It was disputed in court in all states trumpers have complained about, including state supreme courts. The trump lawyers either lost, straight up on the facts, or if attempting to slip in accusations in argument, were asked by judges (including republican judges) if they would like to formally make their charges instead of by inference, but they refused. I think they were afraid to make their charges in a court of law, in front of a judge, in fear of losing their license to practice by openly making false accusation or leveling frivolous charges in an attempt to over the election. They could have had dead serious belief in their charge, but it only went to trump when he hired them, and the public at the courthouse steps, but not in front of the judge. So, what are you saying? Trumpers only hire cowards? Trumpers only hire shitty lawyers? Several big name firms dropped out quick when judges started asking direct questions. If it wasn't important to your lawyers to get flaky accusations and flaky evidence on the record for their client and you, why is it important to you now, 61+ court cases later. Did you write them a berate them to sacrifice themselves for what you think is the common good? If not, why give me a hard time. I didn't drop the ball on your court cases. I just act and speak in reliance that the courts (democrat and republic) and the legislatures of the various state did their jobs and only passed the truth, in accordance with the laws of their states and this country.Laugh clown laugh, but he is tarred with it and will be further tarred and the ones in the Senate that support the insurrection and his right to incite it will be tarred with him, making us all safer from them ever being elected president for fear they would try it again after showing their support for mob violence to take over the government and negate the lawful results of free election, by the people of the United States.Scratch the word "that" and read it again. Enjoy the trial.Not that the same. Your cheap Jedi mind tricks don't work on me, boy.To do nothing and let politics run it's course and let trump off the hook for what he brought about over the two months after the election, violence or no violence is the same as the hands off approach as the mayor and governor in Portland. It will not cool down until you just say NO and mean it. This was beyond the pale. Post election violence whipped up by an elected politician can become pre-election violence whipped up by the same politician or another. A message must be sent. The message to those politicians that would use their rhetoric and false unprovable accusations to stampede a herd, must be NO.interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.(link to the memo is embedded)READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.
But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.
Yet you're not demanding accountability for the politicians that egged on the riots, looting, arson and murders over the summer. In fact kneepads harriss helped raise bail money to get her soldiers back on the streets ASAP. STFU hypocrite.
.
Yeah, I know facts confuse the shit out of you commies. What the hell does, "Not that the same.", even mean? Me thinks your ESL is showing. Are you posting from some commie country?
.
LMAO Perhaps you should have read it again.
.
It's been proven the election was neither lawful or free in some States. And after the public see how the commies fuck up the country, Trump could probably win in a landslide. Millions are already regretting their votes, and the commies haven't been in charge for two weeks yet.
.
I hope you write better songs than posts on here or it will be taken as a comedy song. I look forward to hearing it.Write a book. Maybe you can sell it.Take it up with the several states. The court (including the trump appointed judge courts) rule against you.He had been talking them up with fake "stolen election" lies for months before the stop the steal rally he invited them to on the day both houses of congress were meeting to receive the electoral count. He is responsible.No arguing with what they did that day. No arguing trump encouraged them to go their after firing them up at the "stop the steal" rally. Effect usually follows cause.He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.(link to the memo is embedded)READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump
The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.
And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.
If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.
But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL
Yeah, telling folks to "peacefully and patriotically make their VOICED HEARD", just makes folks want to break something. You're a fucking idiot.
.
Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.
.
Lies? So you're saying States like WI, MI, PA, AZ and GA didn't violate their own election laws. Damn you really are delusional. Hell I'll even give you one example. WI has no early in person voting, so some creative county officials invented early in person absentee voting. That's a fucking oxymoron. How the hell does that work or make sense?
.
No they didn't, they have to hear the evidence, they refused to do so. That equates to a NO DECISION.
.
I'm busy on a song at the moment. I'll let ya know who records it.
.
