This always does it for me.
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/147547939/#147581302
>https://uslibertywire.com/cnns-chris-cuomos-destroys-pelosis-argument-for-blocking-trumps-wall-in-stunning-rebuke/
“Let’s just get something straight for the audience right now because this is one of those things that’s literally been bothering me — almost ruined my vacation,” Cuomo asserted. “There is a barrier system all along the southern border. They need more.”
“Anybody who does the reporting, anybody who talks to the people down there doing the work — the men and women — they need more of what the president is increasingly describing as his own idea for a bollard fence,” Cuomo said.
A bollard fence also refers to steel slats, which Trump has increasingly embraced at the request of Border Patrol agents and as a compromise to Democrats. Cuomo also noted that Democrats agreed to finance something similar in the past.
CNN analyst Gloria Borger chimed in with a Democratic talking point, arguing that Democrats believe a wall is “not necessary because there are other ways to attack the problem that are better.”
“But is that true?” Cuomo shot back. “Who says that a barrier isn’t helpful?”
“Wanting barriers along the border is not propaganda. It’s not immoral. It’s not wrong,” Cuomo said Monday.
Could be something notable, but strikes me as something mundane (relatively speaking).
The policy period is one year from June 1, 2001 to June 1, 2002.
That strikes me as being a routine insurance policy that renews every year, just like any anon would have on their car or house.
For it to be notable, would need to be proof that they changed the policy or coverage substantially when they renewed in June 2001 (like doubling the coverage or something).
Would spousal privilege be grandfathered or apply retroactively when it comes to testifying about events that occurred while they were married?
Did me hear someone say googly eye?