jerryskids

Why would he make a token donation? I presume it is to show his support, without donating so much as to cause a formal ethics violation.

Nice red herring.

You do love your Venn diagrams.

1.02 Xander Schuffles

I've already said my peace in the trial thread regarding the "he only sorta kinda had to do something that might have broken some unnamed law", so I won't rehash it in detail here. But I'll say it needed to be a law, not a "reason," and it should matter too much what it was.

I certainly have questions about the defense strategy. My guess is that Trump insisted they focused on his claim of innocence. That being said, I believe that the defense tried to bring in the Federal Elections Commission chair to testify that they thought it was a nothingburger, but the judge wouldn't let them. Also, the prosecution didn't even argue for election interference until their closing.

I don't completely understand this word salad, but I'll take it to mean that you are sticking with the latter of my options: it's cool to invent novel prosecutions to convict the opposition candidate for POTUS.

Hey Torrid, none of the other Lefties here will own up to this trial being a proxy to get the Orange Man Bad. Will you do so, or do you also agree that the country should invent novel prosecutions to convict opposition candidates for POTUS?

Cmon man...

I like that idea.

The beauty in white is looking down thinking, "no way I can beat fatzilla to my right." The one in blue is smiling at the fat black chick thinking, "too bad so sad, you got out fatted here." The blonde is thinking, "I think that judge I focked really, really loves me this time."

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.