jerryskids

A typical weepaws thread with no link to actually read the details of the subject. As a Catholic, my opinion is: if this group sings songs celebrating gayness, or does anything in their program to promote the lifestyle, then I'm fine with the Church disallowing it. If not, and instead they are just a collection of people who sing who happen to be gay, then it doesn't feel very Christian to me.

Interesting... you are using an analogy between Trump and a murderous mob boss. Do you believe that Bragg thinks that incorrectly filing a bribe to a porn star 8 years ago is on par with the actions of Gotti? Or, do you think that Trump's crime was more like tax evasion, a way to get the evil mob bosses because they couldn't get them on the really bad stuff? We keep dancing around this; I doubt you'll ever admit that this trial was a proxy for all of the evil by the OMB. There is a great quote flowing through the interwebs now, I presume you'll see it often in the days ahead: "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." -- Lavrentiy Beria, head of Stalin's secret police.

I was scrolling thru the rest of the thread thinking please please please let me be the first to comment on it$#!

Too late, she deleted them.

He lost me at "no answer for inflation." Has nobody said they should stop spending like drunken sailors? And then he says we're meanies for wanting to spend another trillion on the infrastructure boondoggle.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-asserts-executive-privilege-audio-interview-special-counsel/story?id=110298904#:~:text=The Justice Department on Thursday,Biden's handling of classified documents. I've highlighted a few key IMO parts. Regarding the comment "Hur's yearlong probe into Biden's handling of classified documents ended with no criminal charges being recommended because the evidence wasn't sufficient to support a conviction." I'll provide the following: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/special-counsel-hur-declines-to-seek-criminal-charges-against-biden So let's cut to the chase on this. - Executive Privilege is intended to protect confidential, security information available only to the POTUS. - The entire transcript of the interview is public, so there is nothing in the video which qualifies as the above. - Biden doesn't want the video released because he'll look bad. Does anyone disagree with this? - Republicans will do as stated in the article -- use it to make Biden look bad. Does anyone disagree with this? Given the above, what are your thoughts on the ability to assert Executive Privilege on this tape? As a bonus, IMO since Hur cited Biden as "an elderly man with poor memory", that opens up to the committee the ability to assess Biden's state itself. Thoughts?

Also @The Real timschochet Presuming this approach is actually legal, I guess we'll agree to disagree on using a novel prosecution on the opposition candidate for president. By a man who ran on his ability to figure out how to get him. In a jurisdiction which overwhelmingly opposes him. I can't seem to get a single Leftie to admit that this case was... as described above, and that it was all about gittin the OMB by whatever means necessary. @Dozer FBGcame close, but then chickened out. Nothing I say will convince you how un-American this is, so congrats, you got him finally!

You didn't mention his threads, just him. Amen Thanks

Well, the Suns were dumb enough to give Bradley Beal $40M/year, so Bronny prolly thinks they might give him some money to be worthless as well.

I'm confused on multiple fronts. One, in the absence of named "different crimes," the charges were misdemeanors. How could a grand jury bring an indictment for felony charges? Two, if specific charges are never brought, or defined, or argued in court, how is a jury supposed to reliably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such uncharged, undefined, unargued crimes?

Thanks, the answer is no, he was not charged with election interference.

Was he charged with this?

Rusty Doesn't think I can hold my own in a vacuous weepaws one-liner thread. Amen Thanks

I'm pretty sure you didn't get the sarcasm in my post. Or you meant to quote someone else.

That's just the first page. Do you ever tire of being dumb?

https://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/forum/10-the-geek-club/

I don't do fantasy baseball, but I'm a DBacks fan. eesh...

I'm sure it does.

Hmm, I had been disregarding the conservatives from FBG and thought you were better than this Duly noted.

This may be the most dehumanizing attacks you've ever packed into one post, good job, good effort.

I already said that I don't blame the jury for reaching the verdict they were chartered to do. My concern was in the judges behavior and instructions throughout. Jeebus, is this mic on? How many times do I need to say this. You are following the Bragg/Maddow "welp the jury found him guilty and that's 'murca" tripe. Sheep.

Your link missed the part about the secondary crime which made this a felony, which was my point about the instructions.

Not quite. I use it in contexts like this, where folks like you won't admit to wanting to get the Orange Man Bad at all costs, and it justifies your Machiavellian conclusions to rationalize trials like this. So yes, I'm saying one of us is a sheep.

Orange Man Bad. It's an acronym to capture how Trump is the satanic boogeyman to you guys. It encapsulates all of the evil stuff Trump does to justify your machiavellian opinions.

Did you miss my words about jury instructions? Cmon, at least try.