2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: rhayder on October 19, 2023, 12:22:37 PM
-
So much for that stolen election idea now that lawyer Sidney Powell has confessed to election interference in an attempt to steal the election for Trump. She will be testifying against her x-boss now.
-
Nice. Hope this is resolved quick so the GOP can pick a real candidate.
Won't happen. Just a baseless conspiracy.
-
welcome back Jean.
-
So she wanted the Dominion machines examined by forensic professionals and that's against the law cause an offiicial government request wasn't made to do so. She hired them and sent them to the county. I wonder who has access to show them were the machines are and opened the door to the machines.
She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges instead of criminal ones. Which means zero jail time, just probation and pay a $9K fine.
I'll bet she foresaw that she would be bankrupt by the honest DOJ and they would also look for something else if she beat this charge. Smart to plead down to a misdemeanor with zero jail time.
-
So she wanted the Dominion machines examined by forensic professionals and that's against the law cause an offiicial government request wasn't made to do so. She hired them and sent them to the county. I wonder who has access to show them were the machines are and opened the door to the machines.
She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges instead of criminal ones. Which means zero jail time, just probation and pay a $9K fine.
I'll bet she foresaw that she would be bankrupt by the honest DOJ and they would also look for something else if she beat this charge. Smart to plead down to a misdemeanor with zero jail time.
That's the crux of it. Not everyone has Trump's resources to sustain a protracted legal battle against BS charges.
Gen Flynn plead guilty even though he was innocent, for the most part because he was already going broke defending himself.
The gov't has unlimited money (debt).
DOJ drops case against Michael Flynn, in wake of internal memo release
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/drops-doj-case-against-michael-flynn-in-wake-of-internal-memo-release
-
Not everyone is excited about martyrdom
-
So she wanted the Dominion machines examined by forensic professionals and that's against the law cause an offiicial government request wasn't made to do so. She hired them and sent them to the county. I wonder who has access to show them were the machines are and opened the door to the machines.
She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges instead of criminal ones. Which means zero jail time, just probation and pay a $9K fine.
I'll bet she foresaw that she would be bankrupt by the honest DOJ and they would also look for something else if she beat this charge. Smart to plead down to a misdemeanor with zero jail time.
Did you mean “misdemeanor charges instead of felony ones? Because misdemeanors ARE crimes.
-
Did you mean “misdemeanor charges instead of felony ones? Because misdemeanors ARE crimes.
Apparently not in places like California and Chicago. Just go to the store and get what you want without paying. Misdemeanor, but not a crime under a certain amount ($1k?).
-
Apparently not in places like California and Chicago. Just go to the store and get what you want without paying. Misdemeanor, but not a crime under a certain amount ($1k?).
Still a crime, but punishment optional… Craziness. All misdemeanors are crimes, but not all crimes are misdemeanors, and not all jurisdictions are created equal.
-
Still a crime, but punishment optional… Craziness. All misdemeanors are crimes, but not all crimes are misdemeanors, and not all jurisdictions are created equal.
Logically, is it a crime if the statute is not enforced? My computer brain says it's not. Without enforcement, there are no consequences, and without consequences there is effectively no criminal act.
it might be unethical to commit the act depending on the law as written, but many laws are symbolic, and many of those were never intended to be enforced.
Example: you take a quarter you find on the floor next to the check-out in a store and put it in your pocket. Technically, that is not your quarter, and you should hand it to the cashier. Was that a 25 cent crime? Any possibility you'll be arrested? Convicted? Penalized? Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean everyone who doesn't comply is actually breaking the law within the context of what happened. That's why courts are so busy. Instead of trying to do what's right, people are conditioned to only do what's lawful. Since the laws are poorly written in most cases and hard to interpret, knowing what's lawful is often left to a judge or jury to decide.
Still others are enforced based on discretion, like 2 miles over the speed limit versus 20 over. Both are crimes, but not worth taking up the courts time to have you fight something that is within the margin of error for speed detection equipment.
Innocent until proven guilty = no crime unless convicted. :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
-
Logically, is it a crime if the statute is not enforced? My computer brain says it's not. Without enforcement, there are no consequences, and without consequences there is effectively no criminal act.
it might be unethical to commit the act depending on the law as written, but many laws are symbolic, and many of those were never intended to be enforced.
Example: you take a quarter you find on the floor next to the check-out in a store and put it in your pocket. Technically, that is not your quarter, and you should hand it to the cashier. Was that a 25 cent crime? Any possibility you'll be arrested? Convicted? Penalized? Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean everyone who doesn't comply is actually breaking the law within the context of what happened. That's why courts are so busy. Instead of trying to do what's right, people are conditioned to only do what's lawful. Since the laws are poorly written in most cases and hard to interpret, knowing what's lawful is often left to a judge or jury to decide.
Still others are enforced based on discretion, like 2 miles over the speed limit versus 20 over. Both are crimes, but not worth taking up the courts time to have you fight something that is within the margin of error for speed detection equipment.
Innocent until proven guilty = no crime unless convicted. :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
So it seems we’re now trying to define “crime.” My Dictionary.com app lists the first definition as:
An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
If you accept that definition, no punishment (or even conviction) is required; any action or any instance of negligence that is 1) injurious to public welfare, morals, or interests of the state, AND 2) prohibited by law, is by definition a crime. The first condition has some subjectivity, but the second one is pretty objective (see malum in se vs. malum prohibitum). In my opinion (yours may vary), interfering in an election would be injurious to both the public welfare and to the interests of the state, and is (I believe) objectively prohibited by law.
“Innocent until proven guilty” can be a useful simplification of how our system of criminal justice works, but it lacks nuance. I think it’s more accurate (but less of an appealing sound bite) to say “the state may not sanction you for a criminal offense unless and until you have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”
So by your logic, if you kill someone without legal justification, that act is not really a crime unless you get prosecuted and convicted? I think it is possible to both 1) commit a crime and never be convicted or punished (paging OJ Simpson), and 2) be convicted and punished without ever committing a crime.
-
So it seems we’re now trying to define “crime.” My Dictionary.com app lists the first definition as:
If you accept that definition, no punishment (or even conviction) is required; any action or any instance of negligence that is 1) injurious to public welfare, morals, or interests of the state, AND 2) prohibited by law, is by definition a crime. The first condition has some subjectivity, but the second one is pretty objective (see malum in se vs. malum prohibitum). In my opinion (yours may vary), interfering in an election would be injurious to both the public welfare and to the interests of the state, and is (I believe) objectively prohibited by law.
“Innocent until proven guilty” can be a useful simplification of how our system of criminal justice works, but it lacks nuance. I think it’s more accurate (but less of an appealing sound bite) to say “the state may not sanction you for a criminal offense unless and until you have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”
So by your logic, if you kill someone without legal justification, that act is not really a crime unless you get prosecuted and convicted? I think it is possible to both 1) commit a crime and never be convicted or punished (paging OJ Simpson), and 2) be convicted and punished without ever committing a crime.
According to the "Hillary Defense," as long as you don't intend to break the law, you have not committed a crime -- even after the FBI director spends 20 minutes listing most of the crimes she was guilty of.
No matter what the dictionary says, that's the "book answer." Reality doesn't know how to read.
-
Nice. Hope this is resolved quick so the GOP can pick a real candidate.
If the GOP tries to disqualify Trump from running without a solid reason to do so it is really going to hurt them so I think they are waiting for the cases to build a little more. Indictments are decent but when it comes to disqualifying a candidate I would want something stronger to justify removing him. One conviction at least or something a bit more evidence wise.
-
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa21ab4c9-92ce-4667-8ad2-87e7dcb3338e_894x680.png)
-
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa21ab4c9-92ce-4667-8ad2-87e7dcb3338e_894x680.png)
The Swamp wasn't getting their cut.......
-
If the GOP tries to disqualify Trump from running without a solid reason to do so it is really going to hurt them so I think they are waiting for the cases to build a little more. Indictments are decent but when it comes to disqualifying a candidate I would want something stronger to justify removing him. One conviction at least or something a bit more evidence wise.
So the GOP can determine who is allowed to run?
I thought anyone can as long as the requirements that apply the same to both sides are followed.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
So the GOP can determine who is allowed to run?
I thought anyone can as long as the requirements that apply the same to both sides are followed.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Yes, through the nomination process governed by the rules of the RNC (which I believe is a not-for-profit corporation). Party rules determine whether a state’s delegates have to vote for whomever their state primary system selected as a nominee, so I think it’s possible for someone to win a majority of state primaries, but not get chosen as the Republican candidate at the convention. That, of course, would cause an even bigger kerfuffle in the party than what the House of Representatives is currently doing, so probably unlikely to happen.
I don’t think party rules allow the committee to disqualify an otherwise constitutionally qualified candidate because they don’t like him or her.
-
So the RNC, if they want to, can block a candidate from becoming the party's nominee?
Is this similar to when Bernie Sanders was passed up for Hillary Clinton?
-
It isn't the GOP/RNC and their nomination process we should be concerned about. It's the individual states.
There are petitions and lawsuits in almost all the swing states trying to keep Trump's name off the ballot. If that happens, there's still the possibility of a write-in campaign, but the write-in candidate still has to satisfy whatever qualification rules a state's law have.
The Democrats are gaming the system in all areas. It's all about winning at any cost. They demonstrated that beautifully in the 2 failed impeachment trials that were based on BS political accusations. The Russian collusion hoax is another. All they did was keep Trump's people busy producing millions of pages of documentation and hundreds of hours in hearings and investigative meetings just to slow his administration's roll. A speed bump against them doing their jobs.
Anyway, Trump is the front runner for the nomination by a lot. And he didn't even participate in the debates. I think the Dems are very worried he'll win again if he's allowed to run. can't beat him at the ballot box, so make sure he never gets there.
-
So the RNC, if they want to, can block a candidate from becoming the party's nominee?
Is this similar to when Bernie Sanders was passed up for Hillary Clinton?
That was different. The Dems had "Super Delegates" that pretty much overrode the votes of the rest. So, a minority of states could decide on the nominee over the wishes of the majority.
The DNC uses a process of pledged and unpledged delegates as well as multiple ballots depending on whether a candidate gets the majority right away or not.
Let's say there are 12 candidates on the primary ballot. It's not often one will get a majority of votes since the delegates will be split among more than a couple of candidates. The new rules now make the super delegates sit out the first ballot, giving a front runner a better chance of reaching that majority needed. After the first ballot, the super delegates get to vote.
There are all kinds of rules invloved, but the old way basically gave Hillary the nomination even though Bernie probably had more delegates wanting him to win.
The change stems from a tumultuous 2016 primary campaign, in which Sanders’
supporters accused the superdelegates of having too much influence over the outcome.
The overwhelming majority of them supported Clinton.
This article has a section called "How to win the Democratic nomination for president" if you're still curious:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html
It can get complicated, especially since each state can have a variety of small differences in the voting process.
-
It isn't the GOP/RNC and their nomination process we should be concerned about. It's the individual states.
There are petitions and lawsuits in almost all the swing states trying to keep Trump's name off the ballot. If that happens, there's still the possibility of a write-in campaign, but the write-in candidate still has to satisfy whatever qualification rules a state's law have.
The Democrats are gaming the system in all areas. It's all about winning at any cost. They demonstrated that beautifully in the 2 failed impeachment trials that were based on BS political accusations. The Russian collusion hoax is another. All they did was keep Trump's people busy producing millions of pages of documentation and hundreds of hours in hearings and investigative meetings just to slow his administration's roll. A speed block against doing his their jobs.
Anyway, Trump is the front runner for the nomination by a lot. And he didn't even participate in the debates. I think the Dems are very worried he'll win again if he's allowed to run. can't beat him at the ballot box, so make sure he never gets there.
Sure looks that way. Half the country loves him. The other half hates him. Amazing.
-
So the RNC, if they want to, can block a candidate from becoming the party's nominee?
Is this similar to when Bernie Sanders was passed up for Hillary Clinton?
The RNC chooses the candidate, so by definition they “block” all other contenders when a candidate is nominated.
I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the Clinton/Sanders drama, but I think that’s kind of the parallel. If delegates to the convention aren’t bound to vote the way their state primaries went (party-specific version of “faithless electors,” I guess), they could in theory nominate someone who didn’t get the most primary votes.
-
Dems are hoping Trump will run because he has no chance to win. Independent voters won't break for a criminal and Biden has been proving lately that he is actually a wise and experienced negotiator and leader that shows empathy towards people.
He's applying a band-aid (a very expensive one with dollars the US doesn't have).
So much for a wise and experienced negotiator.
He lately stated about a cease fire until all hostages are freed. What idiot thinks a terror organization will give up it's hole card?
You're gonna have a cease fire that lasts till kingdom come. And biden played right into it. :rofl:
-
cool story, bro...
0Dems are hoping Trump will run because he has no chance to win. Independent voters won't break for a criminal and Biden has been proving lately that he is actually a wise and experienced negotiator and leader that shows empathy towards people.
-
cool story, bro...
0
I rarely hear even my hardcore lib friends talking like he does any more. In order to believe it there must be something not working right.
-
Jean is so entertaining. Better than the real one.
-
So you already convicted Hillary? When was the trial. What's up with that?
The proof was made public. Her excuses in the Congressional hearings only verified those facts and offered no defense. The corrupt DOJ chose to not charge her.
Can't have a trial if the feds and politicians are protecting each other.
-
Dems are hoping Trump will run because he has no chance to win. Independent voters won't break for a criminal and Biden has been proving lately that he is actually a wise and experienced negotiator and leader that shows empathy towards people.
LOL!
Where were you in 2015-2016? The dems and media made that mistake then. You're advocating for repeating that mistake.
:rofl:
-
The proof was made public. Her excuses in the Congressional hearings only verified those facts and offered no defense. The corrupt DOJ chose to not charge her.
Can't have a trial if the feds and politicians are protecting each other.
What's very dangerous is that people have TDS, which blinds them to what is really going on. The DOJ is acting like a communist countries government agency. The only thing the DOJ is not doing is executing people.
-
So rather than negotiate for hostages in a building, your solution is to blow up the building and kill all the civilians so everyone dies?
I must have missed the latest TDS memo.
Who died, exactly? Did Trump dox elite special forces members TWICE?
You can't make an analogy that involves people dying when that's not even close to the situation at issue.
:crazy:
-
You are the one always complaining about innocent until proven guilty and misdemeanors not really being crimes. Justify yourself. Your only justification appears to be that it's a big conspiracy theory? You leader said he was going to lock her up? Conspiracy again? Does it ever end?
And you are the one wanting to convict Trump before any testimony or evidence is offered in a court of law.
Don't call me inconsistent and then pretend like you care about innocence before proof.
-
So your reasoning is lets lock up Hillary without a trial. Regarding the indictment of Trump, well that is just a big persecution because there is no chance he would every commit a crime. If he is convicted he still must be innocent because the justice system is rigged against him.
What say you about his co-defendants that have already plead guilty and will be testifying for the prosecution?
My reasoning is you need to stop being such a hypocrite.
Is that plain enough for you, or are you going to misinterpret what I said again?
-
The state of Georgia not the DOJ is handling the criminal case in Georgia. Four people and counting have pleaded guilty and will testify for the prosecution. You still think they don't have a case and the indictment is just part of your conspiracy theory to promote communism? We also talk about the house of lies the Trump Organization was built upon defrauding banks and the state .. of course you probably don't consider those lies crimes because it is just a civil case. Also not the DOJ.
SWOOOOSSSHHHHHHH. #doesntunderstandreference
-
My reasoning is you need to stop being such a hypocrite.
Is that plain enough for you, or are you going to misinterpret what I said again?
Xhe doesn't understand that the DOJ even with evidence of crimes being committed can still chose not to prosecute someone. Damn that's hard to understand.
-
So rather than negotiate for hostages in a building, your solution is to blow up the building and kill all the civilians so everyone dies?
They're doing that now. You cannot negotiate with terrorists. This is not time for Kumbaya thinking. Israel declared war on Hamas. That means elimination of this terror group.
Many people don't want to go there but the hostages are as good as dead or will be soon.
You think my heart doesn't break knowing this? Even Israel don't talk about it but they know and have experienced it in the past.
It is the reality. The longer this drags on gives Hamas time to escape Gaza leaving behind dead hostages.
-
There you go projecting again. Your position is hypocritical. It makes no sense to only be in favor or Trump at any cost. You seem to believe he can do not wrong and just blame everything on the evil conspiracy against him whatever that may be at the time.
Jeanism, so it must be true.
-
That's always been the choice that is called prosecutorial discretion. So are you saying Trump should have prosecuted Hillary when he had the chance but the FBI was corrupted by Republicans in collusion with the Democrats? You know how crazy that sounds? Maybe all of the Trump AGs were working with the Democrats? Jeff Sessions and William Barr colluding with Democrats?
Proof you don't understand how the DOJ works. You should google if the POTUS is king.
-
Things have now changed. More Trumps lawyers are now pleading guilty to felonies as two more of Trumps lawyers plead guilty to trying to steal the election from the American people. You still think Trump is innocent? This is a criminal trial. Will the GOP nominate a candidate that is likely to be found guilty of a conspiracy to fraudulently steal an election?
I’ve got a fun word search activity for you. Here it is: find any post, on this thread or anywhere else in this forum, where I implied that I think former President Trump is innocent.
Ready? GO!
I’ll wait.
-
You know how crazy that sounds?
Less crazy than someone who believes Joe Biden is mentally fit for office
-
There you go projecting again. Your position is hypocritical. It makes no sense to only be in favor or Trump at any cost. You seem to believe he can do not wrong and just blame everything on the evil conspiracy against him whatever that may be at the time.
As I predicted, you misinterpreted what I said in order to have something to say about it ... as usual.
-
You have never said anything critical of Trump so I must assume you are one of his biggest fans. You have nothing but praise and continue to parrot the MAGA line. Do you also think George Santos is a great leader?
I never said anything negative about Atilla the Hun, jack the Ripper or Caligula either.
I guess you will also assume I'm their biggest fan, too, huh?
You really aren't very bright.
-
I don't think you understand how our democracy works. You still want Trump to be your king?
I don't think you understand that the US is not a democracy.
-
I don't think you understand that the US is not a democracy.
Democrats. Democracy. They forget. The US is a Republic. I think they wish it wasn't so.
-
I never said you did. I was responding to someone else that said misdemeanors are not really crimes. Try not and take it so personal. I actually agree with you that misdemeanors are crimes and now we see misdemeanor pleas are apparently off the table. They might avoid prison time with a felony on their record as first offenders if they plead guilty and agree to cooperate. Their law careers are pretty much over.
You quoted my post and then said “ You still think Trump is innocent?”
Entirely reasonable to assume you were asking that question of me.
-
I don't think you understand how our democracy works. You still want Trump to be your king?
Google King and POTUS. It's obvious you haven't if you think that I want Trump to be my king.
Same goes with reading all the other threads I pointed out for months.
I wonder if "jeanism" is on google.
-
I never said anything negative about Atilla the Hun, jack the Ripper or Caligula either.
I guess you will also assume I'm their biggest fan, too, huh?
You really aren't very bright.
U also never said anything to criticize Padawon Anakin Skywaler when he killed all those younglings. HOW DARE YOU support pre Vader.
-
U also never said anything to criticize Padawon Anakin Skywaler when he killed all those younglings. HOW DARE YOU support pre Vader.
It's not his fault! He was lied to by the future Emperor and believed this was the only way to save his true love from a foreseen death.
Intentions ... just like Hillary.
-
It's not his fault! He was lied to by the future Emperor and believed this was the only way to save his true love from a foreseen death.
Intentions ... just like Hillary.
So you didn't talk against him, which means u must support him. Do I sound like someone? (This is a joke).
-
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/U9CFWw4zEzlDO/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47oz95sbds4043n5qnfvee449cvwr1levv2gaqqxiy&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
-
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/U9CFWw4zEzlDO/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47oz95sbds4043n5qnfvee449cvwr1levv2gaqqxiy&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
HI is so small, trolls dont realize this...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
HI is so small, trolls dont realize this...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
but they should heed the RO when they say,"STAY BEHIND THE YELLOW LINE!"
-
I don't think you know what is a republic.
You don't think. Period. That's your problem.
-
You don't think. Period. That's your problem.
Hahahhahaha
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Nice weaponized justice department you have there. Would be a shame if someone defunded it.
-
So what what's a republic? Do you even know what that means? Go do your research.
And back to the original topic. Looks like Mark Meadows will also be testifying against defendant Trump. All the evidence against him is from Republicans and the majority of witnesses that will be testifying for the prosecution are Republicans.
Can you post the evidence?
-
So what what's a republic? Do you even know what that means? Go do your research.
And back to the original topic. Looks like Mark Meadows will also be testifying against defendant Trump. All the evidence against him is from Republicans and the majority of witnesses that will be testifying for the prosecution are Republicans.
Yeah. I dunno what what's a republic. :rofl:
-
I guess you haven't noticed that all the lawyers that have admitted their guilt and agreed to cooperate with the prosecution are Republicans.
so are you going to keep on repeating yourself hoping that eventually you will be right?
-
I guess you haven't noticed that all the lawyers that have admitted their guilt and agreed to cooperate with the prosecution are Republicans.
So no evidence that youre aware of. Got it. I figured this would be the kind of response since u parrot what the news tells u to.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I guess you haven't noticed that all the lawyers that have admitted their guilt and agreed to cooperate with the prosecution are Republicans.
U also stated "admitted their guilt". But werent wr talking abt evidence against trump? Welcome back hit n run.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
so are you going to keep on repeating yourself hoping that eventually you will be right?
Sounds like that guy who hangs out by the dumpster behind 7/11
(https://media.tenor.com/4bwTTo9QwKUAAAAC/ok-okay.gif)
-
Trump supporters will claim that being a criminal shouldn't disqualify you from being President. So even if he was convicted they would still vote for him. How times have changed.
Not really. Trump supporters just don't believe he committed any actual crimes. People don't always consciously ignore such things rather they find a way to rationalize it. Rather than saying a criminal can be president they rationalize it as Trump isn't a criminal.
-
So the GOP can determine who is allowed to run?
I thought anyone can as long as the requirements that apply the same to both sides are followed.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Possibly. I don't know the details of the internal GOP rules of all 50 states however it is possible that they have rules about what sort of standing someone may be in to have their name on the republican ballot. So for example if some state GOP group had a rule that said no one who is indicted for a felony can run then their name could be removed. On top of that, if a state law prohibited a person convicted for a felony from running that could remove Trump's name from the ballot and the GOP of that state would have to choose a replacement candidate in some way.
Of course if that happens Trump could always try to run as an independent. That would be interesting to see what happens...
-
Not really. Trump supporters just don't believe he committed any actual crimes. People don't always consciously ignore such things rather they find a way to rationalize it. Rather than saying a criminal can be president they rationalize it as Trump isn't a criminal.
Kind of like people who rationalize that a "president" can take millions in bribes from our enemies, open up the southern border to a foreign invasion, turn the national currency into toilet paper, and use all the powers of the federal government to go after his political opponents and that's totally okay and not at all like an insane suicidal banana republic?
-
Kind of like people who rationalize that a "president" can take millions in bribes from our enemies, open up the southern border to a foreign invasion, turn the national currency into toilet paper, and use all the powers of the federal government to go after his political opponents and that's totally okay and not at all like an insane suicidal banana republic?
There is nothing Trump has done that hasn't already been done a million times worst by the very people terrified of him.
It's a Witch Hunt and even the people conducting it know it. That's how afraid of him they are.
-
Kind of like people who rationalize that a "president" can take millions in bribes from our enemies, open up the southern border to a foreign invasion, turn the national currency into toilet paper, and use all the powers of the federal government to go after his political opponents and that's totally okay and not at all like an insane suicidal banana republic?
U also left out how 1 POTUS is constantly being looked for things to "get him" on. He better not be off by 1 penny on his tax returns.
-
So no evidence that youre aware of. Got it. I figured this would be the kind of response since u parrot what the news tells u to.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Just FYI, a witness statement is considered evidence.
-
U also left out how 1 POTUS is constantly being looked for things to "get him" on. He better not be off by 1 penny on his tax returns.
You aren't wrong, but that also doesn't make him innocent either. I mean John Gotti can claim cops were always trying to find something to get him in too.
-
You aren't wrong, but that also doesn't make him innocent either. I mean John Gotti can claim cops were always trying to find something to get him in too.
You seem to lack this thing called “perspective”
-
Just FYI, a witness statement is considered evidence.
And what was the statement? I'm sure any witness statements are for the better of the world and not to look after their own okole. In this specific situation only.
And for other Trump "bombshell guilty" stuff, we had many "witness statements" as well, only turns out they were not accurate. So is this another accurate one or another witch hunt?
-
You aren't wrong, but that also doesn't make him innocent either. I mean John Gotti can claim cops were always trying to find something to get him in too.
And no one was trying to get stuff on Hitler during the 1936.
-
You seem to lack this thing called “perspective”
And reasonable logic.
-
There is zero proof that he is mentally ill. Biden has been running rings around the GOP.
Illusions of Grandeur.
-
You seem to lack this thing called “perspective”
One of us does....
-
And what was the statement? I'm sure any witness statements are for the better of the world and not to look after their own okole. In this specific situation only.
And for other Trump "bombshell guilty" stuff, we had many "witness statements" as well, only turns out they were not accurate. So is this another accurate one or another witch hunt?
I am not privileged to what statements those people have made. Guess we will find out at trial.
I don't know what other bombshell things you are talking about so I can't answer that question.
-
And no one was trying to get stuff on Hitler during the 1936.
What?
-
I am not privileged to what statements those people have made. Guess we will find out at trial.
I don't know what other bombshell things you are talking about so I can't answer that question.
SWOOOOSSSHHHH.
-
It's taken some time, but ALL CHARGES against Donald Trump AND all co-defendants have been DROPPED.
Those who pleaded guilty must live with the consequences of their decision.
Side note: Is it just me, or has Tim been getting podcast lessons from Alex Jones?
https://youtu.be/1KWWLpXDYE4
-
That scenario Timcast presented is a tough one. Serve the evil one or your loved ones will suffer or die.
I'll do anything for my loved ones. Even succumb to the evil ones. Just to save those I love.
But the minute that f*cker is not looking I will slash his throat and makes sure the last thing he sees is my face before he dies.
-
That scenario Timcast presented is a tough one. Serve the evil one or your loved ones will suffer or die.
I'll do anything for my loved ones. Even succumb to the evil ones. Just to save those I love.
But the minute that f*cker is not looking I will slash his throat and makes sure the last thing he sees is my face before he dies.
Tim's perspective is a little skewed now that he's rich-ish. He has the resources and personal network to mount an effective counter-attack, but most of us would be financially and professionally ruined if we spent years going to court while the media ripped us to shreds.
Sometimes people need to think things through a little more thoroughly while imaging "what-if's" like "what if i'm living pay check to pay check while supporting a wife and 2 kids?"
-
Tim's perspective is a little skewed now that he's rich-ish. He has the resources and personal network to mount an effective counter-attack, but most of us would be financially and professionally ruined if we spent years going to court while the media ripped us to shreds.
Sometimes people need to think things through a little more thoroughly while imaging "what-if's" like "what if i'm living pay check to pay check while supporting a wife and 2 kids?"
I watch and listen to him more often nowadays. I like about how in his past he went through some pretty hard financial times and now he's doing quite well.
Another thing I find interesting is because I'm hard of hearing, I have a hard time listening to people who talk fast. My kids are hard to understand and people like Ben Shapiro for me is also very difficult for me to catch the gist of what he is saying.
But I tell my wife that for some reason I can understand Timcast pretty well. He talks very fast but I can understand him without re-playing the podcast like I would Ben Shapiro.
But yeah, regular guys like me would probably do similar actions like that lawyer lady, especially if it will affect my family.