Sigh, you're so biased, you think others are too...
Working on your comedy chops?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
...and you completely missed the point.
Explain it to me then... and maybe try to keep it within a thousand words.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The whole world has a lot to lose when the United States "screws up," but they also have a lot to gain, which is why wealthy foreign organizations and individuals are always trying to manipulate it. You manipulate the United States, and you manipulate the entire world. But eventually people get tired of being manipulated, and the country will lose its power as people pull away from what makes the United States powerful... our economy.
Explain it to me then... and maybe try to keep it within a thousand words.
The whole point is that the U.S. gets manipulated by oligarchs and foreign governments, which in turn manipulates the world. WHO then in turn get tired of being manipulated by the United States... which causes the United States to lose control through loss of power (which is the eventual rejection of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency).
We were literally saying the same thing, but you're so absurdly political in every fiber of your being that you couldn't get past your go-to nonsense.
When Donald Trump lies, the falsehood that passes from his lips can be as fragile as a soap bubble, wafted into the air from that common toy of childhood, the bubble wand.
In the first two minutes of this 8-minute segment from Monday's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell," the venerable MSNBC prime time anchor presents one of Donald Trump's latest (but persistent) lies about Joe Biden, and punctures the Trump lie as easily as someone "pops" an airborne soap bubble by jabbing at it with a fingertip.
Trump lied when he said that Biden was having difficulty enunciating the word "democracy," because of the stuttering disability that Biden has worked at diligently throughout his life to control and largely overcome.
There's the brazenness of Trump's lie, as he tells and dramatizes the lie, preceded and followed by two brief video clips of Joe Biden from the same event that Trump is lying about, in which Biden isn't stuttering at all. The word "democracy" passes several times from Biden's lips, as easily as it would from almost any of us.
Lawrence O'Donnell presents this brief video tableaux with his well practiced and straightforward and understated style, which makes it all the more effective and engaging... like the refreshment of a freshly poured Canada Dry ginger ale, over ice, on a hot summer day. (Canada Dry, Seagram's, Schweppes... I'm partial to Canada Dry.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-09-2024).]
When Donald Trump lies, the falsehood that passes from his lips can be as fragile as a soap bubble, wafted into the air from that common toy of childhood, the bubble wand.
In the first two minutes of this 8-minute segment from Monday's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell," the venerable MSNBC prime time anchor presents one of Donald Trump's latest (but persistent) lies about Joe Biden, and punctures the Trump lie as easily as someone "pops" an airborne soap bubble by jabbing at it with a fingertip.
Trump lied when he said that Biden was having difficulty enunciating the word "democracy," because of the stuttering disability that Biden has worked at diligently throughout his life to control and largely overcome.
There's the brazenness of Trump's lie, as he tells and dramatizes the lie, preceded and followed by two brief video clips of Joe Biden from the same event that Trump is lying about, in which Biden isn't stuttering at all. The word "democracy" passes several times from Biden's lips, as easily as it would from almost any of us.
Lawrence O'Donnell presents this brief video tableaux with his well practiced and straightforward and understated style, which makes it all the more effective and engaging... like the refreshment of a freshly poured Canada Dry ginger ale, over ice, on a hot summer day. (Canada Dry, Seagram's, Schweppes... I'm partial to Canada Dry.)
I definitely do not track politics like you do... so this is a drop in the bucket as far as tit for tat goes with politics. But I think Biden's condition is pretty obvious, and I mean... you can defend him, but it doesn't change the fact that it's very apparent. Had Biden run in 2016, there's a possibility that he would have won against Trump. The powers that be though decided that it was "Hillary's turn." So Biden didn't run. But when you look at Joe Biden from 2016, and compare him to Joe Biden of 2020... his change is catastrophic. Biden's decline, both physically and mentally is incredibly noticeable. I'm sure this will all come out at some point in a book after the fact... but they're using every trick in the book to keep him coherent day to day.
When they fire up their plants and all of that pollution comes over the seas and it comes right over our land. And then they want us to have clean. I said wait, “We're gonna be clean but it's all flying.” Just remember that. Does that make sense? In other words, it's all coming through the currents, through the air, it all comes. They can name it, they can say exactly where it's going to be and when.
Another recent crystal clear message from Troubled Trump. I hope we get to see them debate.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Geeze... this is such a dishonest post. Clearly not meant to have any real conversation, but simply just spouting totally improper stuff to push a narrative while trying to pretend like you're dispelling a narrative.
I think you are confused because you stepped into the middle of our conversation.
I was saying that you can't judge all Trump supporters as racists just because some of them are and you also can't judge all Muslims as terrorist just because some of them are.
Originally posted by BingB: I think you are confused because you stepped into the middle of our conversation.
I was saying that you can't judge all Trump supporters as racists just because some of them are and you also can't judge all Muslims as terrorist just because some of them are.
No... that's not what you meant, and it's not what you mean now. You think all the racists exist on the right... and that's what you're insinuating. Ignoring 200+ years of history of the Democrat party being the primary proprietor of racism in this country... you cannot simply pretend that it's all on the right for the sake of your ridiculous argument.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: No... that's not what you meant, and it's not what you mean now. You think all the racists exist on the right... and that's what you're insinuating. Ignoring 200+ years of history of the Democrat party being the primary proprietor of racism in this country... you cannot simply pretend that it's all on the right for the sake of your ridiculous argument.
why in the nut-con world can't you understand the racist demo's were 100% CONSERVATIVE
WHO ARE NOW THE CONSERVATIVE RACIST Gop THEY CHANGED PARTYS BUT KEEP THE CONSERVATIVE DELUSIONS
why in the nut-con world can't you understand the racist demo's were 100% CONSERVATIVE
WHO ARE NOW THE CONSERVATIVE RACIST Gop THEY CHANGED PARTYS BUT KEEP THE CONSERVATIVE DELUSIONS
So then Prescott Bush and Eisenhower were really Democrats, and FDR and Al Gore Sr. were Republicans?
That's seems unrealistic. FDR was very socialist... but also had a lot of very racist policies that encouraged things like ethnic cleansing.
You can't have both... history is what it is. The Democrats were the racist ones... and to a degree, still are. Look at who hates the Jews. Look at who continues to push abortion clinics in black and brown neighborhoods, look at who continues to try to enslave minorities through Government dependency.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So then Prescott Bush and Eisenhower were really Democrats, and FDR and Al Gore Sr. were Republicans?
That's seems unrealistic. FDR was very socialist... but also had a lot of very racist policies that encouraged things like ethnic cleansing.
You can't have both... history is what it is. The Democrats were the racist ones... and to a degree, still are. Look at who hates the Jews. Look at who continues to push abortion clinics in black and brown neighborhoods, look at who continues to try to enslave minorities through Government dependency.
sure in a big country we can have both also in a big party can have both liberals and regressives
al's dad was a southern political guy who voted like a modern Gop member ie a 1% supporter/racist FDR was in a war when the japs were camped a con supported/demanded action note the islands did not do that just on the mainland were they rounded up in more liberal areas like Hawaii they did NOT do it + too many people
old bush was a nazi trader ike just killed them I fail to see the connection
all southern demo's prior to the 60's were racists or lost north was very different you think both were the same or very similar they were NOT
anti evolution in Gop land apply's to more then the BUYBULL as you want political positions FIXED unchanged and locked sorry change is the way things ''work'' blacks who were the southern Gop woke to nixon as a leader and ran away fast
life is change only the dead never change anti-woke is a huge problem as it means cult members are not allowed to learn or grow
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: No... that's not what you meant, and it's not what you mean now. You think all the racists exist on the right... and that's what you're insinuating. Ignoring 200+ years of history of the Democrat party being the primary proprietor of racism in this country... you cannot simply pretend that it's all on the right for the sake of your ridiculous argument.
I don't know what you are talking about. I never said any of those things.
Clearly Trump has supporters who are racist, but my point is that you can't paint all of his supporters as racist anymore than you can paint all Muslims as terrorists. I am pointing out improper stereotyping by BOTH SIDES.
BRUSSELS — One of Europe's most senior politicians recounted how former U.S. President Donald Trump privately warned that America would not come to the EU's aid if it was attacked militarily.
"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you," Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
BRUSSELS — One of Europe's most senior politicians recounted how former U.S. President Donald Trump privately warned that America would not come to the EU's aid if it was attacked militarily.
"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you," Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
There's no real appetite for it... I'm not sure the U.S. would generally WANT to support it since the E.U. hasn't necessarily been a friend of the U.S. for some time. It would have to be an extreme situation for us to get involved, where we thought Europe couldn't win on their own easily.
But I'm not sure that Trump worded it in such a way... this is a 3rd person recollection, and I doubt it was worded in such a way. I'm sure it was more like... you need to stand on your own to feet and not "expect" the United States to come to your aid.
BRUSSELS — One of Europe's most senior politicians recounted how former U.S. President Donald Trump privately warned that America would not come to the EU's aid if it was attacked militarily.
"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you," Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
That is awesome news!!! It proves he is no neocon. No more world policeman. Stop these proxy wars and bring our troops home. Countries will have to solve their own problems rather than running to daddy America.
Who knew that Ray was a nationalistic imperialist. This video is for you Ray.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a hearing on whether Trump can claim "presidential immunity" and have the federal charges against him over the 2020 presidential election dismissed without trial. Here's some of how that went... in so many words.
Judge Florence Pan:
quote
Are you saying that a President of the United States could not be prosecuted after leaving office, even if as President, he used his authority as Commander In Chief to order Seal Team Six to assassinate one of his political opponents in Congress?
Attorney John Sauer, representing Donald Trump:
quote
He could be prosecuted, but only if he had already been impeached and convicted by Congress for this crime.
Later that day, legal scholar Laurence Tribe appeared on MSNBC's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell" and raised this question:
quote
What if a President who was facing trial in the Senate, after the House filed charges of impeachment against him for ordering a political assassination by Seal Team Six, interfered with his impeachment trial by ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate the Senators that he thought would be likely to vote to convict him on the impeachment charge of having ordered a political assassination by Seal Team Six? Would he be immune from prosecution after leaving office, unless there were somehow a second impeachment and conviction for ordering the political assassinations that prevented the Senate from convicting him after the first impeachment?
It boggles the mind!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-11-2024).]
Originally posted by rinselberg:On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a hearing on whether Trump can claim "presidential immunity" and have the federal charges against him over the 2020 presidential election dismissed without trial. Here's some of how that went... in so many words.
There's more to this than meets the eye. Constitutionally, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity. I could read through the whole thing again, but I see nothing about it other than the president cannot be sued while in office. There's also absolutely nothing that defines the concept of executive order... which again, is a bastardization of the clause, "...to faithfully execute law."
All of that aside... none of the stupid **** that the DOJ is charging him with have absolutely any basis at all... and all of this crap will get thrown out, and the only reason why the DOJ is doing this is because the President is asking them to in hopes that it makes Trump look bad. What they don't realize is that it actually only makes Biden look bad, and more and more people are questioning what the point of this is.
Anyway... don't be surprised if these judges are very careful what they say / do... Democrats do not want this evolved concept of "presidential immunity" to be eliminated for them in the past, so the judges may attempt to "refine" exactly what it means... even though the Supreme Court already found that Presidential Immunity didn't exist and that Nixon had to hand-over the Watergate tapes.
There's more to this than meets the eye. Constitutionally, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity. I could read through the whole thing again, but I see nothing about it other than the president cannot be sued while in office. There's also absolutely nothing that defines the concept of executive order... which again, is a bastardization of the clause, "...to faithfully execute law."
All of that aside... none of the stupid **** that the DOJ is charging him with have absolutely any basis at all... and all of this crap will get thrown out, and the only reason why the DOJ is doing this is because the President is asking them to in hopes that it makes Trump look bad. What they don't realize is that it actually only makes Biden look bad, and more and more people are questioning what the point of this is.
Anyway... don't be surprised if these judges are very careful what they say / do... Democrats do not want this evolved concept of "presidential immunity" to be eliminated for them in the past, so the judges may attempt to "refine" exactly what it means... even though the Supreme Court already found that Presidential Immunity didn't exist and that Nixon had to hand-over the Watergate tapes.
If Trump is found guilty of some of these charges, will you find the convictions valid?
It's pretty bold to claim that the DOJ is just doing this because Biden asked them to, and to preemptively say the judges are going to be careful about how they word things because they want to leave doors open for Democrats. Every one of Trump's cases will be carefully considered and worded because the implications of everything decided through these are broad.
Someone else could just as easily claim that every charge is true, but not to expect much because the Supreme Court leans right and will have a largely biased set of carefully limited decisions as to not create precedent (a la Gore/Bush).
Both are just preemptive excuses to avoid facing whatever the outcome of all of these are. Personally, I think Trump's lawyers are arguing full immunity because they're going to try stalling everything with as much B.S. as possible to try and get any decisions stalled until after Trump wins a second term, in which he will pardon himself of all federal charges.
If Trump is found guilty of some of these charges, will you find the convictions valid?
Absolutely... but it will never happen... or let's say I'd be really shocked if it happened. What would be more likely, is they come up with sort of a feigned made up conviction. Like... none of the actual charges will have applied, but they'll come up with something like falsifying information, or lying to FBI... which could be totally subjective in nature. It'll be none of the stuff they're actually charging him for.
We've gone round and round on this before, but there's only three people on this board here that have had a clearance, and understand unequivocally the power structure of classification, and who has ultimate authority. There's literally nothing in law that defines what classified material is, and you can't charge the President for it because he's literally the one that is the SOLE authority for it, and the president can literally wave his hand over a stack of documents and declassify it... all of the things he basically did while he was President. EVEN if he lied about doing such a thing... it wouldn't matter because of the power vested in him as President. It's one of the reasons why I said classification should be legislated... and not created by executive order.
The records thing is also totally silly... because literally everything was a print-out of a digitally generated document, which are all ALREADY recorded and stored in the National Archives... and anyone with a clearance already knows this because the President is a special person and everything he writes is automatically saved. The "we want the documents back" is so 1950s... because they already have them, these were just print outs in the first place.
All of it is so totally ridiculous. The public doesn't understand this, you don't understand this (no offense), and even most politicians don't understand this, but people who've had clearances clearly do. So as I've said from the very beginning... all of this stuff will get thrown out.
They'll probably try to charge him with something totally unrelated... to save face, like lying to the FBI or something ridiculous like that. And that's really a "gotcha" charge because it could simply be the same question asked two different times with a slightly different answer (with no ill-intent). They probably will just fine him too because there's no way they want the backlash of imprisoning the former President. This is all just to damage his campaign.
Anyone who actually thinks this is going to turn into anything... AGAIN... really needs to wake up.
When faced with the possible return of former President Donald Trump, the current agenda of the Democratic Party is summed up simply as "We had to destroy democracy to save it."
The effort shares a common theme: Any means necessary are justified to prevent the people from choosing their own president, given the fear that a majority might vote to elect Trump.
So I read that far into this column from VDH and I stopped right there!
There's no way that a majority of this country is going to vote for Trump to be President again. Just as Trump did not have a majority of the popular vote in 2016, when he became President only because of the malign anachronism that is the Electoral College system of electing the President and Vice-President.
The only way I can imagine Trump getting more popular votes than Biden in 2024 is if there is some big turnout for a possible third-party candidate like RFK Jr, or someone at the top of a "No Labels" party ticket. I can imagine a "splintered" popular vote, in a third-party scenario, in which Trump gets more popular votes than Biden—but not a majority of the popular vote. Maybe a plurality of the popular vote.
But I doubt that will actually happen.
I think I'd rather see a President Trump again, than RFK Jr.
Victor Davis Hansen talks about the high profile court cases in which Trump is a defendant, but he omits the federal case against Trump on four criminal charges related to the 2020 presidential election.
To my mind, that's the most important of these cases, and it may be the first to go to trial, comfortably in advance of the 2024 general election date in November.
I wonder what happens if this case goes to trial and Trump is convicted and given a prison sentence. Does he remain free while the case is being appealed? That's what I'd expect, but I'm not an expert.
I expect that Trump will be on the ballot as the Republican candidate for President in all 50 states for the general election in November.
I don't think that Victor Davis Hansen is standing on solid ground when he refers to Jack Smith, who is heading up the two federal cases against Trump, as a "leftist" prosecutor.
Victor Davis Hansen talks about the high profile court cases in which Trump is a defendant, but he omits the federal case against Trump on four criminal charges related to the 2020 presidential election.
To my mind, that's the most important of these cases, and it may be the first to go to trial, comfortably in advance of the 2024 general election date in November.
I wonder what happens if this case goes to trial and Trump is convicted and given a prison sentence. Does he remain free while the case is being appealed? That's what I'd expect, but I'm not an expert.
I expect that Trump will be on the ballot as the Republican candidate for President in all 50 states for the general election in November.
I don't think that Victor Davis Hansen is standing on solid ground when he refers to Jack Smith, who is heading up the two federal cases against Trump, as a "leftist" prosecutor.
Rinse... Trump is NOT going to get a prison sentence. I will be shocked, and I know you will be too. There are a lot of people that, for whatever reason, really, really want to see him in prison. But it will never happen. It just won't. Can you imagine how insane it will be? Trump will win in a landslide out of sheer anger. Even the Democrats would be nervous about putting him in jail. Besides the fact that there is literally nothing to jail him on.
More than likely... this administration / DOJ will drag it out through the end of this year, and into the new administration cycle. If Trump wins, Democrats can say that Trump averted prosecution because radical racists elected him. If Biden wins, Democrats will probably drop the charges and "pardon" him, after Biden makes a bumbling ridiculous speech about "healing America."
Victor Davis Hansen talks about the high profile court cases in which Trump is a defendant, but he omits the federal case against Trump on four criminal charges related to the 2020 presidential election.
To my mind, that's the most important of these cases, and it may be the first to go to trial, comfortably in advance of the 2024 general election date in November.
I wonder what happens if this case goes to trial and Trump is convicted and given a prison sentence. Does he remain free while the case is being appealed? That's what I'd expect, but I'm not an expert.
I expect that Trump will be on the ballot as the Republican candidate for President in all 50 states for the general election in November.
I don't think that Victor Davis Hansen is standing on solid ground when he refers to Jack Smith, who is heading up the two federal cases against Trump, as a "leftist" prosecutor.
This dribble is the result of a horse being led to water and refusing to drink.
Reading is your friend. You should try learning something new occasionally.
I just returned to this "VDH" to see what I had previously overlooked:
quote
He [Biden] has hammered Trump as an insurrectionist and guilty of a number of egregious crimes against democracy—even as Biden's own attorney general has appointed a special counsel to try Trump on just those federal charges concerning the January 6 demonstrations, a dead horse that Biden periodically still beats to death to scare voters.
Kudos to Victor Davis Hanson for mentioning my current favorite prosecution of Donald Trump; namely: United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257, (D.D.C.)
Heretofore, I mistakenly thought that VDH had omitted any mention of this case. It's a four-count federal indictment of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump alone. These are the "counts:"
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding. Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2),2 Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding. Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding. Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2),2 Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding. Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights.
Ok, so for these... let's take them one at a time...
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. ... defraud from what? Please explain. And if you say that Trump has been claiming that Democrats cheated in the election, I'll refer you to the four States Supreme Courts that all ruled that Democrats had illegally manipulated and violated election laws in those four swing states. If you need me to repost those links again, let me know. So Trump clearly can state this. Another aspect of course is that all of these things that Trump was saying was "post-election" ... which was for the benefit of his court-cases. Anyone can say anything in a court case, and it has / had no effect on anything in this country at that point. You could TRY to make an argument that he did all this to try to sway Pence... which then we get to these...
Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding. Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2),2 Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
For both of these, you'd have to directly prove... within not just a preponderance of proof, but in fact totally innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, that in fact Trump told people to storm the Capitol and directly halt the election certification. He very clearly told people to "protest peacefully," and furthermore... he also told them to go home when things started to get out of hand.
Finally...
Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights.
??? What rights of the people were violated?
So you see... this is really all just hand wavey... and like I said... the DOJ will intentionally drag this out past the election and two things will happen:
1 - Trump wins, and the DOJ gets replaced and the Democrats can say that Trump "destroyed democracy" (or some nonsense) and wasn't held accountable. 2 - Biden wins, and the Biden administration pardon's Trump (for whatever nonsense he came up with) to "heal America."
It's a shame you have to be cajoled to be curious.
You need wider sources of information. The leftwing echo chamber you immerse yourself into leaves you blind and manipulated. A recommended website that gives opinion pieces from both left and right perspectives is Real Clear Politics.
Expand your mind......or don't.
Maybe I'll pay more attention to RealClearPolitics. This is not the first time that I have read or scrolled through an article on RealClearPolitics.
Victor Davis Hanson:
quote
Currently, four leftist prosecutors—three state and one federal—have indicted Trump.
They are petitioning courts to accelerate the usually lethargic legal process to ensure Trump is tied up in Atlanta, Miami, New York, and Washington, D.C. courtrooms nonstop during the 2024 election cycle.
Their aim is to keep Trump from campaigning, as he faces four left-wing prosecutors, four liberal judges, and four or five overwhelmingly Democratic jury pools.
"Leftist... liberal... Democrat..." Hanson is just whining. This isn't analysis. It's innuendo. It's especially off target in the case of U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Defendant Trump is not entitled to select the prosecutors and judges, or the jurors. Trump's lawyers will have a hand in selecting the jurors.
The prosecutors and judges are charged with the responsibility and the requirement to conduct the trials without the interference or interjection of politics.
If Trump's lawyers can identify "politics" in any of the proceedings, they can examine that and see if there are any arguments that they can put forward to appeal any verdict that is rendered.
It's surprising that a man (VDH) whose Curriculum Vitae is replete with such a remarkable and oecumenical track record of accomplishments would be spouting this kind of nonsense.
PS: That's not a misspelling... oecumenical. But it's the first time I've ever used that word. I stumbled across it in a list of synonyms for "ecumenical," which I think has unwanted religious overtones in this context.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-13-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, so for these... let's take them one at a time...
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. ... defraud from what? Please explain. And if you say that Trump has been claiming that Democrats cheated in the election, I'll refer you to the four States Supreme Courts that all ruled that Democrats had illegally manipulated and violated election laws in those four swing states. If you need me to repost those links again, let me know
Changing a law that was later ruled improper by the Supreme Court is not "fraud". If so then every single legislature controlled by EITHER PARTY has committed fraud many times. Also the laws were changed but they still applied EQUALLY TO BOTH SIDES. There was no fraud and no unfair benefit to either side.
What Trump did was organize fraudulent panels of delegates to cast fraudulent votes for Donald Trump as President when he had lost the election in those states.
I don't know enough about the law to comment on the other charges against him, but those seem pretty clear to me.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 01-13-2024).]
Maybe I'll pay more attention to RealClearPolitics. This is not the first time that I have read or scrolled through an article on RealClearPolitics.
RealClearPolitics claims that they provide "political diversity" which means that they post articles from both sides. It does not mean that every individual article they post is centrist or unbiased.
The one quoted here has a clear right-wing bias. How else can you claim that no courts are legitimate unless they are controlled by conservatives/Republicans? That is pretty much the definition of bias.
"Leftist... liberal... Democrat..." Hanson is just whining. This isn't analysis. It's innuendo. It's especially off target in the case of U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Defendant Trump is not entitled to select the prosecutors and judges, or the jurors. Trump's lawyers will have a hand in selecting the jurors.
The prosecutors and judges are charged with the responsibility and the requirement to conduct the trials without the interference or interjection of politics.
If Trump's lawyers can identify "politics" in any of the proceedings, they can examine that and see if there are any arguments that they can put forward to appeal any verdict that is rendered.
It's surprising that a man (VDH) whose Curriculum Vitae is replete with such a remarkable and oecumenical track record of accomplishments would be spouting this kind of nonsense.
PS: That's not a misspelling... oecumenical. But it's the first time I've ever used that word. I stumbled across it in a list of synonyms for "ecumenical," which I think has unwanted religious overtones in this context.
You must have missed where I posted the video as 'opinion', not analysis.
I don't know enough about the law to comment on the other charges against him, but those seem pretty clear to me.
May I ask then, why are you arguing fine points of the law with a Forum member that has at least one law degree?
The Democrat lawyers sidestepped the voting procedures in some States. Would you call that 'fraudulent intent' or just 'illegal activity' on the part of the lawyers?
Originally posted by BingB:Changing a law that was later ruled improper by the Supreme Court is not "fraud". If so then every single legislature controlled by EITHER PARTY has committed fraud many times. Also the laws were changed but they still applied EQUALLY TO BOTH SIDES. There was no fraud and no unfair benefit to either side.
What Trump did was organize fraudulent panels of delegates to cast fraudulent votes for Donald Trump as President when he had lost the election in those states.
I don't know enough about the law to comment on the other charges against him, but those seem pretty clear to me.
I think you are confused. This isn't one of those "everyone is bad," situations.
I'm talking about the Democrat-led PACs and election commissions that intentionally violated local state election laws, AGAINST the will of the state legislatures. I'll repost what I said again, because I think either you're confused, or you are intentionally misrepresenting this. I have it saved in a text file so I can easily copy/paste any time I need to for situations just like this.
- - -
In all of the major swing states, Democrats got into the elections departments and... using COVID-19 as an excuse, wantonly violated state election laws to perform the following:
- Mass mail-in voting... in some cases, just sending out a ballot to literally everyone who was registered to vote. - Ballot harvesting, as in... allowing people to go door to door and collect ballots on behalf of the political party. - Ballot drop-boxes... allowing people from anywhere to be able to deliver ballots, without any verification. - Waiving registration deadlines - Waiving signature verification - Waiving proof of identity verification This allowed rampant and mass voting violations. I've gone through this whole thing before, and people say... "show me the proof, you have no proof!!!" so here it is... state Supreme Courts literally ruling that Democrats violated and illegally changed the state's election laws without the consent of the legislature. Go ahead, click the links:
There have been some other recent court rulings, but these are really the only ones I remember off hand. I can't remember the other states. I think maybe North Carolina, and a few others...
