Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

I love the simps for Biden that are like yeah we know Biden has passed some of the most destructive policies in us history, took bribes, corrupt, mentally unfit for office but trump took some docs that had no real significance. Realize where we are 


Don’t do crimes. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Kemp said:

Did you answer whether Trump should be prosecuted in there in some sort of code?

I’m sorry about your inability to pay attention to detail but that’s not on me. I’m not used to playing middle school games with grown men (apologies for assuming gender) so I will bow out now. Hopefully you will have an hour or two this afternoon without the orange menace foremost in your mind. All my best. 

Posted
51 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Societally speaking, justice was served.  From the

perspective of family and friends of the victims, it was not.  Sadly, that happens everyday. 

 

Absent recognition that it’s an imperfect system and bias, emotion, theatrics, interpretation of law and occasional animus factor into it all, you end up with Kempian logic, where one-sided dialogue rules, you’re worried about nazi’s hidden behind the mail box and the thinking the only case with a poor outcome involved as former Rb for the SF 49ers. 
 

 

 

 

well, ok then.  You changed my mind on virtually everything.

Posted
1 hour ago, Westside said:

I just love how you twist like a pretzel to defend your guy. You’re not a serious ( or mentally competent) person.

Lots of rationalization of inconsistent application of the law.

  • Agree 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Lots of rationalization of inconsistent application of the law.


It’s actually a pretty consistent application of the law if you actually look at the facts and apply them to the law. 

  • Vomit 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


It’s actually a pretty consistent application of the law if you actually look at the facts and apply them to the law. 

Not when you consider all of the instances, beginning with Clinton. I know you believe so. But it really isn't.

Posted
1 hour ago, Pokebball said:

Not when you consider all of the instances, beginning with Clinton. I know you believe so. But it really isn't.


Actually it is when you consider all of the instances, even beginning with Clinton. 
 

That is, if you actually read the investigation findings instead of listening to people who maybe don’t have the best reasons to be truthful. 

Posted (edited)

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4043338-senate-gop-leaders-break-with-house-on-trump-indictment/

I'd put my money on the Senators.

“Most Republicans want somebody else, even Trump people want somebody else, because they want to win and they recognize Trump is incapable of winning a general election at this point,” Gregg said.   

He said Senate Republican leaders should call on the GOP to move past the former president.  

“I would be advising them to say, ‘Listen, we have to move on as a party. Let Donald Trump work through his legal issues, which are considerable, but we as a party need to move on and let’s find ourselves a candidate for president who can win,’” he said.  

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Friday evening said the charges brought by the Department of Justice are “quite serious and cannot be casually dismissed.”

Edited by redtail hawk
Posted
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:


Actually it is when you consider all of the instances, even beginning with Clinton. 
 

That is, if you actually read the investigation findings instead of listening to people who maybe don’t have the best reasons to be truthful. 

I disagree

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Westside said:

I just love how you twist like a pretzel to defend your guy. You’re not a serious ( or mentally competent) person.

Where's the twist?  Lol!

 

There's not enough evidence.   Explain that because it seems pretty plain.   May not be right, May not be fair....

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Where's the twist?  Lol!

 

There's not enough evidence.   Explain that because it seems pretty plain.   May not be right, May not be fair....

He was a SENATOR when he stole the classified documents. By law, which you love to quote, he has no right to possess any documents, classified or not!

Intent doesn’t matter. He never should of had them! 
Pretty simple to understand 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Westside said:

He was a SENATOR when he stole the classified documents. By law, which you love to quote, he has no right to possess any documents, classified or not!

Intent doesn’t matter. He never should of had them! 
Pretty simple to understand 


Saying something is one thing. Proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is another. 

Edited by ChiGoose
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Westside said:

He was a SENATOR when he stole the classified documents. By law, which you love to quote, he has no right to possess any documents, classified or not!

Intent doesn’t matter. He never should of had them! 
Pretty simple to understand 

And then when told to turn them in, he hid them, had people lie for him, and refused to turn in all the docs, right? 

 

Oh wait, that was Trump and not Biden

×
×
  • Create New...