All_Pro_Bills

Can you clearly articulate the spoken or written words, or deeds, and the case Smith intends to present per the indictment?

I think I need to hear the actual evidence Smith intends to present. That might be when the trial starts. Based on what I 've heard so far, I'm having trouble getting beyond a conclusion that the government's case rests entirely on conjecture and some mindcrime argument premise. That saying one thing while believing something else is a crime. And somehow Smith employs mind reading experts that know the true thought of others. Knows when thier thoughts match their words and when they don't. If that's some or all of the basis of the case it laughable. And its 100% certainty that any conviction rendered and asisted by a favorable judge and jury will get overturned on appeals.

Understand your argument. But resources, both physical and financial, are not infinite. And this isn't the beginning of some great economic expsnsion which requires skilled and unskilled workers in excess of the population. By all accounts we're entering a slowdown. And if we let into the country every person that could find a better life than their home country that might amount to 6 billion people. So what's the limit? 5 million, 20 million, 100 million? Where are they going to live? Who is going to pay for it? Why isn't the priority helping current citizens in need first? Shelter all the homeless for starters.

Liberals have convinced themselves they're morally and intellectually superior to the common folk that suffer from all kinds of undesirable traits and ideas. It's a fanciful delusion. And virtuue signaling is more or less a cost-free endeavor. Only when they believe there are some personal consequences from their open border policy will they, and they do, change their views.

I remember pizza gate well. That was the scandal a few years ago over the national conspiracy and despicable act of using low-fat cheese on pizza. How dare you I say!

What I would like to know is what overt/covert acts were planned or committed to fraudulently alter the vote count by adding or deleting vote or modifying counted votes? Or override the will of the people? Otherwise, does it boil down to a free speech issue. And is the governments contention that expressing discontent with an election result and discussing available legal remedies is no longer allowed? Says who?

Most of the military ranks have been staffed by conservatives until recently. But lately enlistments and re-ups have fallen. Why should they fight and die for liberal leadership that calls them extremists? And frankly hates and looks down upon people that value virtues such as patriotism and honor. And while the idea of following trans Generals into combat may appeal to the social justice crowd, which obviously would never consider military service, most people that formed the core of what used to be the world's most effective fighting force have decided to pass on that opportunity.

If she could gaurantee a Bills Super Bowl victory this season I would seriously consider supporting her re-election in 2024!

Its official. Diversity coordinators everywhere are dancing in the streets overjoyed and teary eyed as a women of color is leading the nation.

There's chatter that some big currency announcement is coming out of the BRICS meeting of August 22nd. Talk of some gold and resource backed currency the trading bloc is going to establish. This is a story that gets repeated often. And while the event is something to watch I don't expect any major fireworks or announcements about a radial move to get out of dollars. Watching the currency markets recently, just the opposite is happening as the dollar has been catching a bid and is stronger.

The House committee has found evidence and testimony to support it. But nobody should expect the burden of proof is finding a check written by a Burisma executive for $5M and a deposit ticket with the name Joe Biden on the account depositing the endorsed check with the signature of "Joe Biden" for $5M into his personal checking account.

Do you really expect it to play out that way? Expect any guilty verdict in any of these cases will be appealed to a higher court. Perhaps petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the appeal but eventually reaching that group of 9 justices. What would anyone expect the Supreme Court to do? Vote 6 to 3. Then all the shrieking and yelling can commence while wails of Trump got away with it again and calls for stacking the court with liberal justices grow louder. That's the Democrat's plan. Keep Trump from running in 2024, no care in the world if he does time or not, run another candidate instead of Biden, and demonize the Supreme Court, one of few remaining "Conservative" institutions remaining. A win, win, win. Like I told you earlier. The Democrats are just way too smart and crafty for the Republicans to handle at the moment. And 3 steps ahead like the analogy of one guy playing Chess against the other playing Checkers.

I'm certainly not suggesting Trump should be held unaccountable for anything he's done in breaking the law. What I do question is the interpretation and application of the law. But I'm not going to stress out over that as the courts will sort all of that out over time. But I also believe there's sufficient information and testimony about Biden's bribery operation to warrant further investigation. And anyone suggesting there's "no evidence" is completely off target in their assessment.

That in itself is a polarizing question. But number one right now is Joe Biden and his family's influence peddling and pay off operation.

I don't think there's any question our society is polarized. And in order for the middle to reappear and re-assert control there needs to be acceptance and awareness by that middle that "the criminal precipitant of the extremism" exists at both ends or extremes. Otherwise its just an act of reinforcing the system of extremes.

One truth is there's just no political middle-ground at this point in time. Regardless of how we might all view ourselves individually as "moderates" that might agree on most things. In the aggregate, the current political and social environment has forced everyone to choose one extreme or the other. There is no middle. There is no representation for the middle choice. Which extreme you gravitate towards depends on how your views align with a couple points below (I've listed 4 but I could probably generate 40): You think big government is the answer or you think big government is the problem. You think the election in 2016 was fraudulent and the 2020 election was clean or you think the 2016 election was clean and the 2020 election was fraudulent. You think the DOJ is enforcing the rule of law or you think the DOJ has become a tool of political oppression which runs a protection racket for the political establishment. You think the government is defending our system of democracy or you think the government is the threat to democracy.

I'm certain those Ukrainian Nazi militia fighters, the MSM will never mention exist, those that wern't KIA to this point, which form the core of the countries most experienced and battle hardened troops love trans people. Just know, for blind, deaf and dumb war supporters. In Ukraine, Nazi good. In America, Nazi bad

They're running circles around the Republicans although they're starting to catch on to the game the "traditionalist" among them are slow thinkers. Look at how they managed to minimize the damage in the 2022 mid-terms. Absolute genius. By all rights they should have lost the House by 25 to 30 seats. But they focused on the races they expected to be most competitive and won most of them. I always find it prudent to have a healthy respect for your competitors whether in sports, business, and I guess politics. When you're all full of yourself that's the moment you get your ass handed to you.

The J6 case presided over by judge Chutkan is assigned to the District of Columbia Federal court. So no risk there of an impartial judge or jury. The documents case is assigned to Florida because of the venue of the actions pertaining to the indictment. Suggesting a conspiracy, as if the very word dismisses all reason and logic to question or be skeptical of how perfectly scripted events appear to stack the deck in the government's favor, does no justice nor gives proper credit to the planning and execution expertise and proficiency of the Democrats. If I was planning to screw somebody over they'd be the first people I'd contact for advice.

Another fun fact: U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the Trump J6 trial being prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department, previously worked at a law firm that represented Fusion GPS, the company that helped orchestrate the Russia collusion hoax targeting former President Donald Trump. The same law firm also represented Burisma. This is not to suggest this person had any direct involvement with either situation. But consider there are some 670 Federal District Court judges serving in 94 districts, how this particular attorney shows up, appointed to a particular district, assigned to a particular case out of 15 potential judges, trying a particular defendant, must be a mind-boggling coincidence. But if you have any sense of curiosity, which automatically excludes leftist non-thinkers, you might wonder why all the same characters keep showing up at the scene of all the mischief? One might generate some suspicion there might a connection is quite possible with the exception of the buffoons supporting the administration who prefer to remain oblivious to the obvious.

Saudi Arabia "pegs" its currency to the US dollar.

You're alleging Trump personally hacked voting machines? Is that what CNN told you?

The funny part will be when Jack Smith adds charges of conspiracy to commit arson and obstruction to Trump's indictment! Because while he said the fires were tragic, in his mind he really didn't care, so he was lying and as his thoughts don't match his words he is therefore guilty of conspiracy and obstruction. All the regressive talking heads nod everywhere simultaneously in approval as they support the flimsy argument that lying is a crime and exempt from first amendment protections. But seriously, whatever anyone's political or social views I expect everyone here has nothing but compassion and sympathy for the people of Maui.

I'm waiting for that moment of honesty from you. I'll ask for the last time. What are the grounds for banning somebody from office using 14A if they haven't committed the crime of either insurrection or rebellion? Neither of which anyone running for any office currently is charged with or tried on those charges. This is a simple question and a simple answer. Otherwise, you might consider you've got nothing rather than me.

So playing the "proof" card? I've stated much. Such as suspects are being held without bail on minor misdemeanor charges without bail for over 1 & 1/2 years. This is absolutely true and a widely accepted fact. And I believe my other points are an accurate description of events. But here's my problem. I could go to a lot of effort in answering your request but I believe regardless of what I present you'll reject it. So I deny your request and counter by suggesting you refute a couple points you find most egregious.