╌>

Alvin Bragg’s Outrageous Conspiracy Theory

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  s  •  4 weeks ago  •  338 comments

Alvin Bragg’s Outrageous Conspiracy Theory
the election law Bragg invokes is a misdemeanor — that is, Bragg is trying to exacerbate a single misdemeanor falsification of business records into 34 felony counts by rationalizing that Trump was trying to commit or conceal another misdemeanor.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


A s   I’ve related a few times, Alvin Bragg, Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, is trying to   hoodwink the jury   into believing that (a) it is a crime for a candidate for public office to conspire with others to suppress politically damaging information, and (b) that Donald Trump was charged with such a conspiracy in the indictment that has resulted in the ongoing trial. In point of fact, there is no such information-suppression conspiracy crime in the law and the indictment against Trump does not charge a conspiracy — it charges 34 counts of falsifying business records with fraudulent intent to commit or conceal another crime.

In court on Tuesday, Bragg’s prosecutors became a bit more transparent in arguing that this “other crime” is a New York election statute that contains a conspiracy provision. But the theory is ridiculous. The statute does not criminalize what Bragg claims Trump did — again, suppress politically damaging information. The invocation of it still calls for Bragg to enforce federal election law, which he has no jurisdiction to do. It is plainly intended for state elections because Congress enacted federal campaign law — which is not Bragg’s remit — to control federal elections. And, cherry on top, the election law Bragg invokes is a misdemeanor — that is, Bragg is trying to exacerbate a single misdemeanor falsification of business records into 34 felony counts by rationalizing that Trump was trying to commit or conceal   another misdemeanor.










As I’ve detailed, even though the word   conspiracy   does not appear in the grand jury’s   indictment   against Trump, Bragg published his own purported “ statement of facts ” when the indictment was unsealed. In it, the DA endeavored to spin what the grand jury had charged into a “scheme” to steal the 2016 election by suppressing politically damaging information. Once the trial started,   Bragg’s prosecutors upped the ante , claiming this “scheme” was a “conspiracy” involving Trump, his lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen, and David Pecker, then CEO of the   National Enquirer ’s parent company.

The trial jurors could be forgiven if, after hearing the prosecutors’ opening statement and sitting through two days of testimony, they believe Trump has been charged with conspiracy to steal the 2016 election. That’s what Bragg’s minions keep telling them, and Judge Juan Merchan is allowing them to do it. Juries take cues from the judge; if Merchan won’t put a stop to what the prosecutors are doing, the jurors are going to figure that conspiracy must be the charge in the case.

With that as background,   the   New York Times   reports   as follows regarding this exchange during Pecker’s testimony on Tuesday:

Trump’s lawyers have objected all along to prosecutors couching Trump’s relationship with Pecker and Michael Cohen as a conspiracy — after all, Trump is not facing a conspiracy charge. But Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors, just noted for the first time in court that one of the election statutes the case is based on does in fact have a conspiracy provision. That could prove important later when the jury is instructed on the laws they must consider in reaching a verdict.

Now, when the   Times   says, “one of the election statutes the case is based on,” it is talking nonsense. In the United States, the Constitution requires that   what the case is based on   be spelled out in the   indictment . In Trump’s case, the indictment neither charges Trump with conspiracy nor cites any state election statute.

Rather, the indictment charges Trump with 34 counts of “falsifying business records in the first degree” under   §175.10   of New York’s penal law. The crime of falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor. It is defined in   §175.05   as causing false entries to be made in business records if the defendant acts “with intent to defraud.” This misdemeanor can be enhanced into a felony under §175.10 — again, the crime alleged in Trump’s case — if the intent to defraud “includes an intent to commit   another crime   or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” [Emphasis added.)]










The indictment does not state what “other crime” Trump allegedly committed or concealed by — allegedly — fraudulently falsifying his business records. This is why since last year, when Bragg unsealed the indictment,   I have argued that it is constitutionally insufficient . It does not put the defendant on notice of what crime is alleged. In fact, it does not indicate that the grand jury found probable cause of a particular “other crime” that Trump fraudulently intended to commit or conceal.

Bragg is not an idiot. He is a highly experienced prosecutor. He did not forget to include this vital detail. He intentionally omitted it because the crime he wants to allege is a   federal   campaign-finance violation. As a county district attorney, Bragg is well aware that he has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law.

Indeed, before becoming a top lawyer in the state attorney general’s office, Bragg was a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. He knows that, under federal law and guidelines, the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission have   exclusive jurisdiction   to bring criminal and civil-enforcement actions in connection with campaigns for elections to federal office. Bragg knew it would be scandalous for him to bring such an enforcement action against Trump when (a) he had no authority to do so and (b) the DOJ and FEC had investigated Trump and decided to bring no enforcement action.

Hence, Bragg has been hiding the ball. He did not acknowledge in the indictment that he was trying to enforce federal campaign law.   And as I recently detailed , in his “statement of facts,” he purported to establish that Trump had violated federal campaign law by pointing out that Cohen had pled guilty to federal campaign crimes — even though Bragg had to know that Cohen’s guilty plea is not admissible evidence against Trump (and that Cohen pled guilty to those charges because he was desperate to avoid prison for other crimes he’d committed and was hoping — in futility, it turned out — to sell himself to the feds as a cooperating witness against Trump). Bragg must have calculated that (a) the Biden Justice Department would not complain that he was illegitimately seeking to enforce federal law as long as the target was Trump, and (b) he was likely to get a compliant Democratic judge who would not challenge his usurpation of federal authority — and he has certainly hit the jackpot with Judge Merchan.

Even now, though, Bragg is reluctant to be transparent about what he’s doing. After all, what he’s trying to enforce is not federal campaign law as it exists;   it is a faux federal law that Bragg is making up as he goes along .

Under actual federal election law, payment of an NDA is not a campaign expenditure. Under actual federal election law, even when something is a campaign expenditure, disclosure does not have to be made instantly — it has to be made in the next reporting period, which in connection with the Stormy Daniels NDA would not have been until months after the 2016 election. In Bragg’s peculiar version of federal campaign law, not only do payments to porn stars who extort hush money constitute campaign expenditures, but the moment such payments are made, the candidate — at least if he is Trump — must notify the FEC so the   New York Times   and MSNBC can give the disclosure maximum publicity.

Manifestly, Bragg law is not federal campaign law. Bragg is smart enough to know this, so he’s come up with yet another facile theory: The “other crime” Trump was trying to commit or conceal was a violation of New York state election law. This, at long last, sets forth the statute that includes “a conspiracy provision,” as prosecutor Joshua Steinglass reminded Judge Merchan (see the   Times   report excerpted above).

So what is this conspiracy crime? Well, §17-152 of the state’s election laws says a person is guilty of a conspiracy if he agrees with one or more people “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

In Bragg’s telling — dutifully quoted by Merchan in his   opinion   denying Trump’s pretrial motions (at p. 12) — Trump entered “a scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016 election.” But wait: It’s not a crime for a candidate and his supporters to try to influence an election —   that’s what a political campaign exists to do . Maybe so, Bragg counters, but under §17-152, such influencing becomes a criminal conspiracy if done “by unlawful means.”

What unlawful means? That brings us back to square one. According to Bragg, the unlawful means was Trump’s supposed violation of   federal campaign law .

See? There is no difference between Bragg’s direct reliance on federal campaign law and his invocation of state election law. Either way, Bragg is illegitimately undertaking to enforce federal campaign law and, in so doing, making up his own version of what federal campaign law provides — sharply different from what that law actually says and from the DOJ/FEC standards for enforcing it.

Regarding the prosecutors’ reliance on this state conspiracy law that does not appear in the indictment, three other points are worth making:

First, §17-152 is a state law that is fine for regulating state elections; but Congress enacted federal campaign law to control campaigns for federal office. Trump did not violate federal campaign law, which is why neither the DOJ nor the FEC took enforcement action. (Memo to Alvin Bragg: How is it that you suggest Cohen’s guilty plea to campaign violations is somehow relevant, but you don’t mention the decision by the two authorized federal enforcement agencies not to charge Trump?)

Second, even when §17-152 arguably applies, prosecutors still have to show that the conspirators   agreed to do something unlawful . To repeat, it is simply not unlawful to agree to suppress politically damaging information. That legal objective does not become illegal just because §17-152 uses the word   conspire .

Third, the conspiracy offense prescribed by §17-152 is a misdemeanor. See what Bragg is trying to do here? The thing that is supposed to turn a business-records-falsification misdemeanor into a much more serious crime — a felony — is proof that the defendant fraudulently intended to commit or conceal another crime. Yet, according to Bragg,   that other crime is a misdemeanor, not a serious offense . For   that   — for a misdemeanor business-records falsification supposedly designed to commit or conceal a misdemeanor state-election violation — Bragg has charged Trump with 34 felonies that, statutorily, add up to a potential 136 years of imprisonment.

What a farce.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Very good analysis of what's going on by a former federal prosecutor.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sean Treacy @1    4 weeks ago

Alvin Bragg is a scmumbag shyster leftist liberal DA who has zero business practicing law anywhere in the US.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1    4 weeks ago

Thats so hilarious!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Some people are so easily amused.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

Yes, they are.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

It is amazing how so many supposedly "reputable" people dedicate so much time and energy defending the piece of human garbage known as Donald Trump. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

They are defending the rule of law. Even human garbage deserve its protection. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    4 weeks ago

Other people who also are defending the rule of law disagree with McCarthy. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
2.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    4 weeks ago
They are defending the rule of law.

and Trump is the poster boy for "rule of Law"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
ther people who also are defending the rule of law disagree with McCarthy.

If Joe Biden did the exact same as thing as Trump, would Bragg have charged him with 34 felonies? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.3    4 weeks ago
If Joe Biden did the exact same as thing as Trump, would Bragg have charged him with 34 felonies?

There is no reason to think he wouldn't.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

No, John the other Trump haters on MSNBC disagree.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.6  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
here is no reason to think he wouldn't.

Lol. Perfect.  

Why then  didn't he charge Hillary, who committed an actual campaign law violation per the FEC,  for misbooking the Steele Dossier expense? If Trump committed a crime in New York, than Hillary certainly did as well. Yet only Trump was charged by Bragg.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

Hillary is a Democrat.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.8  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    4 weeks ago
illary is a Democrat.

It's a good test of credibility to see if someone will actually argue that Bragg would indict a democrat for this. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    4 weeks ago

The human garbage that is the former 'president' doesn't believe the rule of law applies to his traitorous ass.  Neither does his cult obviously.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    4 weeks ago
They are defending the rule of law.

If that were true, you wouldn't be supporting trump. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

Or Biden.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

Why are you defending a perversion of the law by Bragg?

What actual "crime" did Trump commit here?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    4 weeks ago

That is the point of the trial bullshit. They are trying to find something he did wrong. Just like the rest of the witch hunts of the last 9 years.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.1    4 weeks ago
That is the point of the trial bullshit. They are trying to find something he did wrong.

Like the impeachment hearings where they couldn't even state what crime they were accusing Biden of having broken?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.2    4 weeks ago

Do you understand the purpose of having the hearing?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.4  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.2    4 weeks ago

 impeachment hearings where they couldn't even state what crime they were accusing Biden of having broken?

You understand the impeachment hearings are political, not criminal, and the whole point is go gather evidence to see what, if any, grounds exist to impeach someone, right?  Can you see how that differs from an actual criminal trial?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.4    4 weeks ago
You understand the impeachment hearings are political, not criminal, and the whole point is go gather evidence to see what, if any, grounds exist to impeach someone, right?

So they decided to open impeachment hearings with no evidence that Biden had committed any crime whatsoever?  Isn't that the very definition of a witch hunt?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.5    4 weeks ago

Didn't read that very closely it seems. That's what hearings are for. To quote Sean...............

the whole point is go gather evidence to see what, if any, grounds exist to impeach someone
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.7  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.5    4 weeks ago
d to open impeachment hearings with no evidence that Biden had committed any crime whatsoever? 

Of course they had evidence.  The issue, as always, is it sufficient? Does it justify moving forward with impeachment? Is the amount of evidence enough to satisfy the relevant burden of proof? The same as opening a criminal investigation.

Stalin would approve of your belief that  opening an investigation means the result is already predetermined.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.6    4 weeks ago
Didn't read that very closely it seems. That's what hearings are for.

So you admit that republican hearings are just witch hunts?  Okey dokey.

Most hearings are to investigate a specific crime that is believed to occur, not digging in search of a crime.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.7    4 weeks ago
Of course they had evidence.

Then why didn't they produce any evidence in the well over a year that the hearings have been going on?

The issue, as always, is it sufficient?

Since they didn't produce any evidence, it being sufficient is the cart before the horse.

Does it justify moving forward with impeachment?

No, 1st it has to justify the impeachment hearings, then moving forward with the impeachment.  Trouble is that no evidence was ever presented.

Is the amount of evidence enough to satisfy the relevant burden of proof? The same as opening a criminal investigation.

No evidence means no criminal investigation.  Or at least that's how it works in the real world outside MAGA.

Stalin would approve of your belief that  opening an investigation means the result is already predetermined.

Well, they opened an impeachment hearing with the intent to find some evidence to justify the impeachment hearing.  What would Stalin think about that???

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.8    4 weeks ago

Nope. They had something to investigate. Not surprising you overlook the Hunter/Chinese/Ukraine pay to play suspicions. You know, 10% for the Big Guy.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.11  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.9    4 weeks ago
en why didn't they produce any evidence

Lol.  Do you not know what evidence is?  This is always the dumbest possible argument for Biden's cheerleaders to make.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.10    4 weeks ago
They had something to investigate.

Name the crime they were investigating... 

A high crime or misdemeanor are the only reasons to open an impeachment hearing.  So name it, and list the evidence that provides sufficient cause to believe it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.11    4 weeks ago
Do you not know what evidence is?

Then list the evidence and provide links to it.  Remember, we are talking Joe Biden, not Hunter, not his brother.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
2.2.14  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.12    4 weeks ago

funny how they differentiate the former potus and the current one, where as irregardless of how much Real evidence one produces on 45, it's all another witchunt, yet when you turned the tables in regards to the Benghazi style Biden investigation, crickets, or we will see, but so damn hypocritical are they, as doesn't matter to them what be said, for on arrival always dead

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.15  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.12    4 weeks ago

Getting his 10% of Hunter's "deals" was enough for Congressional oversight.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.15    4 weeks ago
Getting his 10% of Hunter's "deals" was enough for Congressional oversight.

You missed the whole evidence concept, huh?

EVIDENCE

Any body of objectively verifiable facts which are positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other.

-or-

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.17  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.13    4 weeks ago
Remember, we are talking Joe Biden, not Hunter, not his brother.

THe witness testimony. The Hunter Biden texts, whats app threats, the bank payments etc..

How are you unaware of these things? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.17    4 weeks ago
How are you unaware of these things?

How are you unaware of what those witness actually said?  How many republican witnesses either testified that Joe Biden had nothing to do with Hunter's dealings, or were found to be liars and foreign agents?

And I notice you also do not believe in any links to any evidence presented.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.19  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.18    4 weeks ago

w many republican witnesses either testified that Joe Biden had nothing to do with Hunter's dealings,

How many didn't?  DO you think the texts messages testified? Or the checks? 

or were found to be liars and foreign agents?

Lol. Who found the to be that? when did the trial occur? 

Also, if they were lying, you've just destroyed your own argument. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.9    4 weeks ago

Sounds like a witch hunt, fishing expedition, projection.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @2.2.14    4 weeks ago

The maga cult hold the former 'president' to absolutely no standard(s) whatsoever.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
2.2.22  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.21    4 weeks ago
a cult hold the former 'president' to absolutely no standard(s)

their HIGHEST

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.2.23  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.10    4 weeks ago
Not surprising you overlook the Hunter/Chinese/Ukraine pay to play suspicions.

How about the 2 billion from the saudi's? You know, the same people that flew planes into the WTC on 9/11?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.23    4 weeks ago

Prove it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.2.25  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.10    4 weeks ago
Not surprising you overlook the Hunter/Chinese/Ukraine pay to play suspicions.

A politically motivated with hunt. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.25    4 weeks ago

Right, because no foreign money ever went through Biden Family shell company accounts and ended up in Joe's account 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.27  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.26    4 weeks ago
Right, because no foreign money ever went through Biden Family shell company accounts and ended up in Joe's account

Silly Texan

Don't you know that in order to get anywhere close to a leftist agreeing that Biden is corrupt, they have to see a video of him taking an envelope directly from a Chinese, Russian, Ukranian, etc.

Other than that, and maybe not even than that, to them, there is no "evidence" of Biden being corrupt.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @2.2.27    4 weeks ago

At times I question whether anything on earth could shake their loyalty to Biden.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.29  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.28    4 weeks ago

The projection.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.30  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.28    4 weeks ago
mes I question whether anything on earth could shake their loyalty to Biden.

As long as he maintains loyalty to progressive dogma, he could shoot a man on 5th avenue and they wouldn't care. They are perfectly happy with an actual indicted  foreign agent in the Senate because he votes correctly. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

But you can't dispute the above facts so you resort to name calling. There are others here who simply ignore the above facts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3    4 weeks ago
the piece of human garbage known as Donald Trump. 

Is that what you call "name calling"?   I call it having eyes wide open. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

Adress the facts in the article.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.2    4 weeks ago

I dont care what is in the article. There is nothing special about Andrew McCarthy. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.3    4 weeks ago
I dont care what is in the article.

That's right, just like the one with the college degree, dismiss the facts and destroy every law & norm to get Trump.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

It's hilarious how some folks see the truth as 'name calling'.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.3.6  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.2    4 weeks ago

Pay no attention to the man with the checkbook behind the curtain

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @2.3.6    4 weeks ago

For he is "conspiring" to win an election as every good candidate does.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.3.8  Ronin2  replied to  Thomas @2.3.6    4 weeks ago

Trump should have just gotten 50 former Intelligence directors to sign off that the allegations against him were a Russian plant. Using his future SoS to do it.

Trump should have used the FBI to make sure all disparaging references about him on social media were labeled as Russian disinformation; and those posting them had their accounts suspended- or the algorithms change so they wouldn't appear on any search lists. Paying the social media companies millions in tax payer money to do so.

Trump definitely should have used the FBI and DOJ against his political opponents.

And Trump should also have used a government department whose primary purpose is to help small businesses to register Republican voters in heavily Republican areas in key battle ground states.

Pay no attention to Stalin sitting in the Oval Office. He is just trying to establish one party rule.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3.8    4 weeks ago

If Trump had done what Biden did, Bragg would charge him

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3    4 weeks ago

What facts?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.3.11  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.7    4 weeks ago
For he is "conspiring" to win an election as every good candidate does

Well, I am quite sure that every good candidate doesn't have the sexual appetites and lack of couth and dignity like Trump does. 

So, what I don't get is if it was all above board and, "Nothing to see here. This is just common everyday political activity," why did they try to hide the fact that Trump's lawyer paid the porn star so she would be quiet and then call the payments from Trump to his lawyer in repayment, "legal fees?" I mean. if it is totally benign and commonplace, why didn't Trump just give her the money, grab her pussy once for old times sake and tell her she was, "quite the sport," as he watched her big ass walk out the door?

If this is as you say something that, "every good candidate does," then we have a much larger problem. I say we get rid of the mess of them and start over.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.3.12  Thomas  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3.8    4 weeks ago
Pay no attention to Stalin sitting in the Oval Office. He is just trying to establish one party rule.

Delusional commentary.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.3.13  George  replied to  Thomas @2.3.11    4 weeks ago

I am quite sure that every good candidate doesn't have the sexual appetites and lack of couth and dignity like Trump does. 

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.14  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @2.3.11    4 weeks ago

To some the ends justify the means.  The former 'president's' only end is staying out of prison, dropping all cases against his traitorous self if he, God forbid, gets re-elected.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.14    4 weeks ago

right, like 50 people lying for Biden and claiming stupid shit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.16  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @2.3.11    4 weeks ago

See 2.2.21

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.3.17  Thomas  replied to  George @2.3.13    4 weeks ago

Fail

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

It's amazing how many supposed "reputable" prosecutors have spent so much time chasing their tails to "get Trump" only to end up with a zero balance success rate.  

You would think that after 8 years there would be some kind of criminal conviction.  

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
2.4.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.4    4 weeks ago

If the GOP had any BALLS, they would have convicted the POS long ago, but G rab O ur P ussy, pussed out. Yea, the perpetual witch hunt trying to pin crap on the biggest piece of SHIT i've ever seen....please

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @2.4.1    4 weeks ago

Why haven't the Democrats?  They've had 8 years of investigations and all come up empty handed.  For once you are sort of right.  In that, the perpetual witch hunt has been a total failure.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.4.2    4 weeks ago
They've had 8 years of investigations and all come up empty handed. 

lie.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.4.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.3    4 weeks ago

Yeah, your right.  I think it's actually been longer.  Either way, the results are still the same - total failure.

Thanks for the correction.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.5  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @2.4.1    4 weeks ago

The former 'president' must have some real kompromat on those magat gqp/gop - why else would they support it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.6  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @2.4.1    4 weeks ago

So true!  They've become the grab our pussy party.

lol

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

I just don't get it.  What does he have on them?????????????

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3  evilone    4 weeks ago
Bragg’s prosecutors upped the ante , claiming this “scheme” was a “conspiracy” involving Trump, his lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen, and David Pecker, then CEO of the   National Enquirer ’s parent company.

Considering Cohen plead guilty to his actions and Pecker got immunity for his testimony I'm not certain the point the author is trying to make is valid. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @3    4 weeks ago
Considering Cohen plead guilty to his actions and Pecker got immunity for his testimony I "he purported to establish that Trump had violated federal campaign law by pointing out that Cohen had pled guilty to federal campaign crimes — even though Bragg had to know that Cohen’s guilty plea is not admissible evidence against Trump (and that Cohen pled guilty to those charges because he was desperate to avoid prison for other crimes he’d committed and was hoping — in futility, it turned out — to sell himself to the feds as a cooperating witness against Trump)." and Pecker's immunity deal in federal Court also did not result in Federal charges against Trump.

The point is that the authorities actually charged to enforce the Federal campaign law at issue did not charge Trump for violating it. Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce the federal law, which is the key to the whole case.  Those agencies that do, declined to charge Trump. 

What unlawful means? That brings us back to square one. According to Bragg, the unlawful means was Trump’s supposed violation of   federal campaign law . See? There is no difference between Bragg’s direct reliance on federal campaign law and his invocation of state election law. Either way, Bragg is illegitimately undertaking to enforce federal campaign law and, in so doing, making up his own version of what federal campaign law provides — sharply different from what that law actually says and from the DOJ/FEC standards for enforcing it.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.1  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    4 weeks ago
The point is that the authorities actually charged to enforce the Federal campaign law at issue did not charge Trump for violating it. Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce the federal law, which is the key to the whole case.  Those agencies that do, declined to charge Trump. 

As the author admits the 34 charges ARE NOT federal campaign crime. They were committed to cover up that crime. The crime Cohen was charged and admitted to. The crime Pecker was given immunity for his testimony. What you, and the author are trying to do is similar to a stage magician's misdirection. 

I'm not saying Bragg doesn't have a partisan agenda and I'm not saying Bragg will win his case, or have it overturned on appeal if he does. I'm only saying his case has merit and the argument on campaign conspiracy is your misdirection.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    4 weeks ago
The point is that the authorities actually charged to enforce the Federal campaign law at issue did not charge Trump for violating it

Why do you suppose that was ? For i believe this goes back to nice guys finishing last. Biden and his Attorney General both believed going directly after Trump, after all of the division and stoked emotions Trump had given rise to with his election fraud bullshit, would only worsen the already greatly Divided United States, therefore Biden and Garland figured it would fizzle away in time. They were both wrong.Trump and his Cult following, until under oath or smacked with lawsuits they eventually lost, just kept LYING about the election loss. The gutless GOP who refused to convict Trump after the second impeachment were all brave in wantig an investigation and rightfully blaming Trump for January 6th and the insurrection that almost ended with a few of they and Mike Pence dead. Then Mc Carthy went Mar Largo and the rest of Trumps unbelievable ascent back to power began and eventually brought US here. Don't believe too many saw Donald Trump rising from those ashes, yet, he did.

The gutless Republican party are the Dr. Frankenstein's whom enabled this monster they now can't control, and yet to save face, many still defend the abomination...

Irregardless, what was wrongly done then has morphed into this ugly disgusting despicable poor excuse for a human being again becoming the leader of the GOP.

[deleted,] [] cause there is not an excuse for Trump, nor, Trump defenders , imho

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
So how about owning your POS instead of parsing every word, in an attempt to slither Trump on by, cause there is not an excuse for Trump, nor, Trump defenders , imho

They would rather fantasize that Biden is as bad as trump. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
hey were committed to cover up that crime.

But there is no crime to cover up.  That's the point. The federal agencies with actual jurisdiction to enforce the laws, declined to charge Trump. There's no rational way to argue Trump  conspired to illegally interfere in the 2016 election because the payment at issue didn't have to be disclosed until 2017, after the election. Even if they did everything the way Bragg says it should have been done, it would have had zero impact on the election. So how could it be a conspiracy to effect an election when the supposed criminal  act  occurred after the election? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.5  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
Biden and his Attorney General both believed going directly after Trump, after all of the division and stoked emotions Trump had given rise to with his election fraud bullshit, would only worsen the already greatly Divided United States,

Except you know that's exactly what they did, right?  There's this special prosecutor you may have heard of...

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.6  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

that is some sick fantasy at that

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.7  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.5    4 weeks ago
There's this special prosecutor you may have heard of...

and when was this Special Prosecutor appointed ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.7    4 weeks ago
when was this Special Prosecutor appointed ?

Whenever Biden decided to. The timing was all his. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.9  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.8    4 weeks ago

November 18th 2022, or more than TWO YEARS after Trump LOST the election. Do you not see a problem with your conspiracy theory ? Furthermore, I believe it was the January 6th hearings that finally roused enough people to demand Trump be punished for his crimes, and rightfully so. I'd have rather this began on day 1 of Bidens administration myself.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.10  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    4 weeks ago
Even if they did everything the way Bragg says it should have been done, it would have had zero impact on the election. So how could it be a conspiracy to effect an election when the supposed criminal  act  occurred after the election?

What if Trump didn't capture and kill Stormy's' story in time, ? You know, right after 'grab em buy the pussy" came out, but before the Playmates affair was mentioned. Do you think Trump would have been elected, cause i don't !

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.11  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.10    4 weeks ago
hat if Trump didn't capture and kill Stormy's' story in time

Who cares? It's not a crime to pay someone to sign an NDA and no one claims it is. It's also not a crime for a campaign to lobby the media about how they  cover a candidate.  Literally every campaign since Andrew Jackson has done that.  The Clintons had an entire "bimbo eruption squad" that secured NDA's from Clinton's lovers/victims and worked the media to influence their coverage. Do you think the Clintons should be arrested for that? 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.12  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.11    4 weeks ago
Who cares?

I do, and perhaps the Trump Cult members would, if they knew who this person they relentlessly support, when long past abort, was in real life, for he is absolutely not the person he portrays on TV 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.13  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.12    4 weeks ago
I do,

Great! But you don't make the laws.  and what Trump did isn't any more illegal than what Clinton and his bimbo eruption squad did. Ask Alvin Bragg.

, for he is absolutely not the person he portrays on TV 

Trump voters know who he is. I don't think many have any illusions.  They don't care any more than Clinton voters cared about his sexual escapades. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

"They would rather fantasize that Biden is as bad as Trump."

Fact is a large part of the population of this country believe that is the case that Biden, in his own way, is as bad as Trump. That is not fantasy, but I do not in any way expect you or those that share your views to comprehend or accept that. But it is still a free country. Peace and have a good day.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.15  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.13    4 weeks ago
and what Trump did isn't any more illegal 

as new charges are brought daily, you attempt to excuse Trtump for any and every damn thing the POS has done, continues to do, and will eventually do if not finally forced to take responsibility for his blatant disregard for all things Presidential, and anything that might bhava to-do with morality. It is your choice to defend a total Piece of Shit, and you do, along with your little group of defend all but were not Trumpers. Well I'll again call BullShit, nobody goes this far out of their way to defend a mental midget sell you a widget while in court again he does fidget, cause he is a piece of TRASH the dump does not want. This abysmal habitual hooligan will play you and so many the fool again and again till someone says when, and if it must be, it can be me. WAKE the FCK UP ! 

Trump deserves ANY punishment as he has eluded it his entire life, do to enablers like the Republican Party and excusers like you and so many others who would FCK over our sisters and brothers cause your too cowardice, to admit you FCKD UP !

Well some of US have had ENOUGH of your FCK UP !  Own IT , realize your mistake and move on, cause this is getting way too old.

In one thought ill sum this up, would anyone want their child to grow up and be like Trump ? Think about that. Who would elect a person they would never wish for their own children to emulate,  who wants a total piece of SHIT to be our leader,                                                    the damn leader of free world    WTF PEOPLE

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.15    4 weeks ago

people who defend trump at this point have forfeited 100% of their credibility

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.17  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.16    4 weeks ago

It is just so over the top, the Biden comparison, the Democratic witch hunt, NO\

Trump is a POS bLOSER LIAR   CRIMINAL    all there is to it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.18  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.15    4 weeks ago
new charges are brought daily, you attempt to excuse Trtump

What are you even talking about. I was responding to you false claim that getting Stormy Daniels to sign an NDA is a crime.  It's not.  

The rest is you arguing against a vast army of strawmen of your own creation.   

 up, would anyone want their child to grow up and be like Trump ?

Probably not. Same as biden.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.19  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.16    4 weeks ago
efend trump at this point have forfeited 100% of their credibility

I think the same of people who make things up to attack Trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.19    4 weeks ago

No one needs to make up anything to attack trump. his insane behavior is an open book.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.21  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.20    4 weeks ago
No one needs to make up anything to attack trump.

you would think. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.22  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    4 weeks ago
But there is no crime to cover up. 

Weird? It seems to be common knowledge...

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to violating campaign finance laws by paying Daniels, which he testified Trump directed him to do.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.23  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @3.1.22    4 weeks ago
It seems to be common knowledge... Under actual federal election law, payment of an NDA is not a campaign expenditure. Under actual federal election law, even when something is a campaign expenditure, disclosure does not have to be made instantly — it has to be made in the next reporting period, which in connection with the Stormy Daniels NDA would not have been until months after the 2016 election. In Bragg’s peculiar version of federal campaign law, not only do payments to porn stars who extort hush money constitute campaign expenditures, but the moment such payments are made, the candidate — at least if he is Trump — must notify the FEC so the   New York Times   and MSNBC can give the disclosure maximum publicity.

Which is why Trump was never charged with violating campaign finance law for the NDA.  They are perfectly legal

But by all means, explain how a book keeping entry that wasn't required to made until 2017 constitutes illegal interference in the 2016 election, which is what Trump is charged with. . 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.24  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.23    4 weeks ago
Which is why Trump was never charged with violating campaign finance law for the NDA.  They are perfectly legal

Correct, Trump was never charged, Cohen was and he pleaded guilty. Trump is now accused of covering it up in his bookkeeping.

But by all means, explain how a book keeping entry that wasn't required to made until 2017 constitutes illegal interference in the 2016 election, which is what Trump is charged with. . 

You're shifting the focus again. The timing isn't in question. The first charge is from Feb 14th 2017 and It's the bookkeeping act itself. The explanation of it's legality is playing out in court. We'll see how that works out. 

Here are the actual charges - https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf\

All 34 charges are the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10

Nothing in there charges Trump with illegal NDAs or campaign violations. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.25  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @3.1.24    4 weeks ago

 The first charge is from Feb 14th 2017 and It's the bookkeeping act itself

Yes, and the "other crime" mandated by New York State law is 17-152 which makes it illegal  "to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”  The NDA was not illegal.  The payment was not illegal.  So how does the supposedly illegal act (bookkeeping in 2017)  interfere with an election in 2016? 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
3.1.26  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.16    4 weeks ago

No doubt. It’s only credible when one is so obsessed with trump they make an ass out of themselves every day. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.1.27  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.20    4 weeks ago
No one needs to make up anything to attack trump.

Agree, why do you think they are constantly doing it? They don't seem to care about damaging their own credibility.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.28  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.25    4 weeks ago
The payment was not illegal.

So why are Cohen and Pecker are admitting to crimes you say never happened? 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.29  Igknorantzruls  replied to  evilone @3.1.28    4 weeks ago

i've recently read the reason this was not pursued earlier, was due to pressures from the DOJ, and NOT due to there being not a case, or a crime, cause obviously there are both

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.30  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.18    4 weeks ago
a vast army of strawmen of your own creation. 

you made me snort with that one. I am not the one bringing more charges against the most corrupt administration in our countries history

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1.31  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.27    4 weeks ago
No one needs to make up anything to attack trump.

because you can see with your own two iiiiii's, Trump has already done it

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

Like everything else, they create the monster, and then blame anyone and everyone else for the havoc they create.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  Gazoo @3.1.26    4 weeks ago

So true, I see it every day by the magats.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4  Ronin2    4 weeks ago

Michigan's AG feels left out and has jumped into the BS.

Former President Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michigan attorney general’s probe into the attempts to overturn the 2020 election in that state, an investigator testified Wednesday.

The investigator also said the list of unindicted co-conspirators includes ex-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis.

The revelations came at a pretrial hearing in Lansing for some of Michigan’s fake electors , who have been charged by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in her investigation into the attempts to subvert the 2020 election.

Former President Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michigan attorney general’s probe into the attempts to overturn the 2020 election in that state, an investigator testified Wednesday.

The investigator also said the list of unindicted co-conspirators includes ex-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis.

The revelations came at a pretrial hearing in Lansing for some of Michigan’s fake electors , who have been charged by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in her investigation into the attempts to subvert the 2020 election.

The shear stupidity of Democrats burns.

They will attempt to tie Trump to anything everything.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Ronin2 @4    4 weeks ago
The shear stupidity of Democrats burns. They will attempt to tie Trump to anything everything.

yea, cause Trump is obviously just always in the wrong place at the wrong time....

Do you realize how stupid defending Trump is at this point....obviously not

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5  Snuffy    4 weeks ago

Guess not all Democrats are on board with this case.

Democratic attorney and former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein joined " Brian Kilmeade Radio " Wednesday to discuss why he believes New York City's case against former President Trump is "outrageous" and an "embarrassment to the legal system."

JULIAN EPSTEIN:   This is an outrageous case. It's an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought. The notion, the theory that we heard on Monday from the prosecution, that this is about election interference because the   Trump campaign   was trying to suppress bad stories. Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016. You know, everything falls apart, Brian. I mean, the idea that this was election interference, the conduct, the election occurred in November of 2016. The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017.

Democrat lawyer calls out NY vs. Trump trial: 'It's an embarrassment to the legal system' | Fox News

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Snuffy @5    4 weeks ago

you know what is an embarrassment to the legal system; TRUMP IS

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1    4 weeks ago

You're mistaking Bragg for Trump again.  

"[Since] at least 2018, the DANY has weaponized the criminal justice system, scouring every aspect of President Trump’s personal life and business affairs, going back decades, in the hopes of finding some legal basis—however far-fetched, novel, or convoluted—to bring charges against him,"

He has been working for 6 years and the best he could come up with was THIS pathetic clown show.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

The GOP failed US as they could have and should have convicted via one of the two impeachments, but no, party over country is fckd up

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

Then present something worth impeachment.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.4  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

Trump was impeached twice...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @5.1.4    4 weeks ago

And what were they for?  

1.  Getting in the way of the Democrat Hoax of "Russia Collusion".  

2.  Getting in the way of the Democrat narrative that he "instigated" a protest.

Both, just like Alvin Bragg's trial, total nonsense based in hurt feelings and ignorance.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JBB @5.1.4    4 weeks ago

"Trump was impeached twice..."

And stayed in office both times, so what's your point?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1.7  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
Then present something worth impeachment

What, like if Hunter was awarded TWO BILLION DOLLARS from Saudi Arabia like Ivanka and Jarred...?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.7    4 weeks ago
What, like if Hunter was awarded TWO BILLION DOLLARS from Saudi Arabia like Ivanka and Jarred...?

Why are you comparing payoffs with investments?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.6    4 weeks ago

Point?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1    4 weeks ago

And the maga cult's endless defense of the indefensible

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1.11  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.8    4 weeks ago
Why are you comparing payoffs

YOU SPELLED PAYBACKS WRONG.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.11    4 weeks ago

Apparently the word "payoff" escaped you and perhaps READING what I actually wrote would reveal to you the truth.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.7    4 weeks ago

So far that hasn't been brought up.  But then again investments aren't impeachable offenses.  

Care to try another talking point?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.11    4 weeks ago

Be the 1st, prove it.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
6  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

Doesn't Alvin Bragg's logic mean that Hillary Clinton erasing emails was a felony?  Clinton was attempting to hide salacious information, after all.  Or does Bragg's logic only apply to sex workers?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago

Alvin Bragg is a freaking idiot.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.2  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 weeks ago

Doesn't Alvin Bragg's logic mean that Hillary Clinton erasing emails was a felony?  Clinton was attempting to hide salacious information, after all.  Or does Bragg's logic only apply to sex workers?

Politically motivated with hunt, she did nothing wrong or illegal. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @6.2    4 weeks ago

Expected response.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
6.2.2  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @6.2    4 weeks ago
Politically motivated with hunt, she did nothing wrong or illegal. 

Hillary Clinton attempted to hide information from voters.  According to Bragg that is a felony.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6.2.3  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.2    4 weeks ago
Hillary Clinton attempted to hide information from voters.  According to Bragg that is a felony.

No. Lying about why you are making a payment with campaign funds is.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.2.4  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @6.2.3    4 weeks ago
ying about why you are making a payment with campaign funds is.

Hillary CLinton was actually  found guilty by the FEC (Trump was not)  for doing just that over the Steele Dossier.  Yet Bragg didn't indict her.  Crazy huh?

It's almost like the only thing that matter to Bragg is the D or R. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.4    4 weeks ago

Spot on.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6.2.6  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.4    4 weeks ago
Hillary CLinton was actually  found guilty by the FEC (Trump was not)  for doing just that over the Steele Dossier.  Yet Bragg didn't indict her.  Crazy huh?

So I guess that she didn't piss in quite as many people's Wheaties? It really sucks when you piss people off to the extent that they start to bring you up on any conceivable charge, and you are so bad that even your friends and lawyers turn on you. God. Trump musta been a baaaad boy.

I don't think it's crazy at all. More like comeuppance.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @6.2.6    4 weeks ago

No, it is more like an unethical double standard based solely on political party.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
6.2.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Thomas @6.2.3    4 weeks ago
No. Lying about why you are making a payment with campaign funds is.

What were you saying about lying about payments made with campaign funds?

The DNC was fined $105,000 and the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000,  according to a letter   sent by the Federal Election Commission to a conservative group that requested an inquiry.
The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” instead of opposition research.

As the evidence reveals, Donald Trump's Presidential campaign is not the first to have done something like this.  Trump is the first to be indicted.  

Oh, BTW, Clinton was throwing people under the bus before they could turn on her.  But that magic blue D has always been a 'get outa jail' card for the Clintons.  Now which definition of 'is' will be used to rebut the facts?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.8    4 weeks ago

must be fake news since everyone knows Bragg would bring Trump-like charges against her.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6.2.10  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.8    4 weeks ago

Did she pay?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.11  bugsy  replied to  Thomas @6.2.6    4 weeks ago
So I guess that she didn't piss in quite as many people's Wheaties?

Certainly not any leftist Wheaties.

Had Hillary had an R next to her name, Bragg, would have went after her the day he found out about it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @6.2.10    4 weeks ago

Has Bragg charged her?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.13  bugsy  replied to  Thomas @6.2.10    4 weeks ago

She paid the author of the dossier, but because she essentially did the same thing you think Trump did, she gets the "get out of Bragg courthouse free" card.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @6.2.10    4 weeks ago

No.  Lies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.14    4 weeks ago

Yeah, right.

Except all the parts which are true.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.14    4 weeks ago

So now you are denying that the Hillary campaign was fined despite the mountain of evidence proving otherwise?

Well, alrighty then!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.17  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.12    4 weeks ago
Has Bragg charged her?

i think Bragg would have shot himself in the head five times if he did.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @6.2.3    4 weeks ago

She did that, too!

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
7  Thomas    4 weeks ago

This whole article argues at cross-purposes to what the DA is arguing.

The charges are not for the lawyer making the payment to the porn star, nor for the presence or absence of any non-disclosure agreement, the charges are for using campaign funds to reimburse a lawyer for paying her off and claiming it was a regular legal fee instead of a reimbursement. 

Lying gets you in trouble. Trump has done a lot of lying. It is about time that Trump gets in trouble for lying. It should happen more often.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Thomas @7    4 weeks ago

Funny how you mention Trump but totally neglect to mention the whoppers Biden comes up with.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1    4 weeks ago

Trump lies continuously.   Lying is Trump's modus operandi.    Outside of 'normal' political lying (taking credit, downplaying failures) Biden typically lies when telling stories; probably for effect.   I do not approve of lying under any circumstances, but there is no comparing the pathological lying of Trump with Biden's lies (actually with any public figure in the USA).   

Can you think of anyone else in this nation who perpetually lies like Trump?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    4 weeks ago
Can you think of anyone else in this nation who perpetually lies like Trump?

Rugs LIE less than Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

800

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

Not excusing Trump's lies, but Biden lies too.

Sme non-partisans are able to see it, while others pretend he doesn't.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.4    4 weeks ago
Not excusing Trump's lies, but Biden lies too.

No shit.   Did you not read that in my comment?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.5    4 weeks ago

Did you read my comment?

I guess the difference is I will readily admit that both men lie and hold them equally accountable instead of trying to whitewash Biden's lies.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    4 weeks ago
Did you read my comment?

What part of it do you think I missed?

I guess the difference is I will readily admit that both men lie and hold them equally accountable instead of trying to whitewash Biden's lies.

You do not see where I stated both men lie?    Absolutely crystal clear.

The difference is that I recognize that they are NOT equal in frequency and method.   Trump lies continuously ... that is what he does.   His life is nothing but one lie after the other.   It is a failure of reason to hold that Biden (or anyone) comes close to Trump's level of lying.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.8  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.4    4 weeks ago
Not excusing Trump's lies, but Biden lies too.

your comparing Bidens to Oranges !

Exaggeration's are mostly Bidens, while blatant opposites be mostly Trumps. Who is damaged if Bidens uncle was eaten by carnivorous cannibals as opposed to attempting to upset the peacful transfer of power by calling it a stolen election with ZERO EVIDENCE, or Mexico paying for the wall , ETC ETC

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.7    4 weeks ago
What part of it do you think I missed?

I'm not sure, based solely on your comments whitewashing Biden lies as mere embellishing of his little "stories".

I hold them both equally accountable and won't attempt to whitewash one in a partisan fashion.

A lie is a lie.

Just another reason why I won't be voting for either LIAR. I just can't pretend one's lies are somehow acceptable while denigrating the other's lies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.8    4 weeks ago
your comparing Bidens to Oranges ![]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    4 weeks ago
I guess the difference is I will readily admit that both men lie and hold them equally accountable

is NT a comedy club now ? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.11    4 weeks ago

You have claimed you will vote for Biden. Biden lies.

You can try to deny it, but it would be pointless.

I, on the other hand, won't be voting for either.

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.13  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.10    4 weeks ago
when you can recognize a lie is a lie no matter whose lips it falls from.

yea, we all know how the fate of a countries Democracy is the same as people eating it up, as opposed to distant relatives being eaten up, now don't we...?

Tex, do you realize ho foolish this sounds ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.13    4 weeks ago
yea, we all know how the fate of a countries Democracy is the same as people eating it up, as opposed to distant relatives being eaten up, now don't we...? Tex, do you realize ho foolish this sounds ?

Yes, I recognize exactly what your post portrays.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.13    4 weeks ago
yea, we all know how the fate of a countries Democracy

Your boy Biden doesn't seem at all fazed. He keeps telling Americans to vote for freedom over democracy, so your argument falls flat.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.16  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.15    4 weeks ago
your argument falls flat

ok D cup, what is your argument again, that cannibal's and a Free Democracy are both eaten up by Trumps lies, that are equal to Bidens ? By the way , which cannibals did you talk to that prove Biden is not stating the truth ?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.8    4 weeks ago
Who is damaged if Bidens uncle was eaten by carnivorous cannibals

The good people of Papua New Guinea.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.18  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.17    4 weeks ago
he good people of Papua New Guinea.

to they i say  EAT ME

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.16    4 weeks ago

My argument AGAIN?
Have you not read my posts by now?

A lie is a lie. Now, if you want to whitewash Biden's I understand that type of partisanship.

See, you only seem to care about Trump's lies.

I won't vote for a liar, but perhaps you will--IF it is a Democrat, of course.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.20  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.15    4 weeks ago
Your boy Biden doesn't seem at all fazed.

Cause fazers were on stun, not kill

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.20    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1.22  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.18    4 weeks ago

I don’t think that they will see your comment here.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.23  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.19    4 weeks ago
I won't vote for a liar,

ALL POLS LIE !

i'll vote for the guy not tearing our country apart, not caring about only HIMSELF and  his WEALTH, and NOT attempting to LIE CHEAT AND STEAL HIS WAY TO REMAIN OR OBTAIN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY. you continually DEFEND Trump, and then U lie about that. There is NO equalization of the two for you

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.11    4 weeks ago
is NT a comedy club now ?

Now?  When hasn’t it been comical, don’t we come here for cheap laughs?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.25  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.24    4 weeks ago

all that can't be afforded 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.23    4 weeks ago
ALL POLS LIE !

Then why do you seem to get so upset over Trump's lies, and why do you try to 'splain away Biden's lies?

'll vote for the guy not tearing our country apart, not caring about only HIMSELF and  his WEALTH, and NOT attempting to LIE CHEAT AND STEAL HIS WAY TO REMAIN OR OBTAIN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY. 

That doesn't jibe with you claiming to vote for Biden then.

you continually DEFEND Trump, and then U lie about that. There is NO equalization of the two for you

That comment can't be further from the truth.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.24    4 weeks ago
When hasn’t it been comical, don’t we come here for cheap laughs?

Well, cheap laughs and hundreds of "I Hate Trump" articles.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.28  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.26    4 weeks ago
That doesn't jibe with you claiming to vote for Biden then.

BullShit

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.28    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.30  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

Not that comes to mind, but I did not say anything about who lies more than who. My point was that Biden is just as capable of telling lies as Trump but that does not get a mention by the hard core liberal left.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.30    4 weeks ago

Well 'the right' does not mention Trump's lies either, Ed.   That is the nature of our highly partisan politics in the USA.

Disregarding partisan politics and just observing the two men, my point is that Trump is a pathological liar ... a guy whose entire life is based on perpetually lying.   In contrast, Biden is a politician who will lie and pander to his audience.    As I noted, no amount of lying is acceptable to me.   But when comparing Trump with Biden, Trump takes lying to a whole new level.   Indeed, is there anyone of notoriety in US politics who lies as frequently and outrageously as Trump?   I think history will note that Trump is, by far, the most dishonest PotUS we have ever had.

"Lies at a level nobody has seen before."   "I have lies, I know lies;  nobody is a better liar than me"    jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.30    4 weeks ago
Not that comes to mind, but I did not say anything about who lies more than who. My point was that Biden is just as capable of telling lies as Trump but that does not get a mention by the hard core liberal left.

Good point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.31    4 weeks ago

If absolutely NO lying is 'acceptable' to you, why even bother with comparisons?

Seems rather pointless.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.33    4 weeks ago

Because all lies are not equal.   Obviously.

Lying about "corn pop", "cannibals", etc. in a one-off story does not compare with a multi-month campaign of lying with the intent to steal a US presidential election.

See?   

Similarly, stealing is wrong.   But there is no comparing a kid stealing a piece of candy to someone robbing a bank.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.34    4 weeks ago
Because all lies are not equal.   Obviously.

Now, that just sounds like justification to accept Biden's lies.

What exactly does "No lies are acceptable to me" mean to you?

How are your opinions or actions affected by lies?

Will it ever cost someone your vote?

Seems like something reasonable--all lies are unacceptable, until they aren't, I guess.

What are, if any, the consequences for lying?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.36  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.35    4 weeks ago
Because all lies are not equal.   
Obviously. Now, that just sounds like justification to accept Biden's lies.

Where did Tig say that? He said clearly that not all lies are created equal. That is a pretty simple concept. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.37  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.35    4 weeks ago

what don't you OVIOUSLY get Tex ? 

One states lies are not acceptable, after on many occasions stating ALL POLS lie. 

In your mind with your line of 'thinking', he is no longer able to vote what so ever because he states no lies are acceptable. 

So please example a POL who has not Lied >?  Can You ?  And please explain how you can deny ones right to vote because they don't accept liars, when there are only liars on the ballot. Because you claim you will not be voting for these two frontrunners, and will be voting for another LIAR. Do you accept LYING ? Cause i'm not buying, as you example daily biastowards unequal liars, as it appears are your desires, to point out how Bidens statements are equal to or that Trump Trumps. We all know how being the first in ones family to attend college is equal to sharing classified top secret documents with ones without clearance nor the knowledge , or say LYING about a NOT stolen election or establishing fake electors is equivalent to Eat my uncle you Hannible Lectors, cause you have not a case yet you imply you do, and to that i wood sae, iF ewe do, make it already mocker, cause you mixing up batters doesn't make you Betty Crockers cock blocker, it just means your lineup of switch hitters is on deck , and up to their neck, in twisting and turning till made burning is your logic, so again, please a tempt to make a sound argument, for you have not, and apparently it's all you have  got  it

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.38  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.34    4 weeks ago
n a one-off story does not compare with a multi-month campaign of lying with the intent to steal a US presidential election.

Exactly.  No Democrat ever made a big deal about Trump's lying before that.  They sure didn't spend 5 years obsessing about his lying and even claiming factually accurate statements were lies in order to claim his lying disqualified him from the Presidency. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.39  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.38    4 weeks ago

so you are ok with Trump lying constantly ?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.40  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.35    4 weeks ago
all lies are unacceptable, until they aren't, I guess

Unacceptable lies come are those by someone with an R after his name. 

If you have a D you can lie repeatedly  about every aspect of your educational, family, work, history. You can steal speeches and papers. You can lie about being arrested or participating in protests. You can lie about easily verifiable facts. As long as you have the D after your name, its just normal lying that "everyone does." 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.41  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.38    4 weeks ago
No Democrat ever made a big deal about Trump's lying before that. 

what planet have you been on ? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.42  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.39    4 weeks ago
you are ok with Trump lying constantly ?

I've never been okay with Trump, which I why I have never voted for him. 

It's just amazing to me that any Biden voter could possibly criticize anyone else for lying.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.43  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.41    4 weeks ago

i'd go with either Pluto or Uranus

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.44  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.41    4 weeks ago
what planet have you been on ? 

I guess I should have added the sarcasm tag.  

Democrats have claimed Trump's dishonesty disqualified him years before the "big lie," and before his record of public lying could even hold a candle to ole Plagiarizin Biden. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.36    4 weeks ago

He also said all lies were unacceptable, so it would be pointless to compare them.

if there are no consequences for lying, like losing your vote, then it would appear that SOME lies are acceptable DEPENDING on who tells them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.37    4 weeks ago

please rewrite that.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.47  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.42    4 weeks ago

how does Biden stating his college education was families first affect our country ?

I believe it is wrong for him to Lie or even exaggerate, but when comparing to one who has blatantly attempted to overturn a Legal election, or sharing Top Secret Documents with whomever, one need not be too clever, to see how one might have far greater affects, on say you and I, than say the other guy, No ?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.48  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.46    4 weeks ago

what upsets you Tex, i'll delete it

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.49  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.31    4 weeks ago

"I think history will note that Trump is by far, the most dishonest PotUS we have ever had."

I have to disagree with you there. People who say that about Trump should really do a little research on Richard M. Nixon for dishonesty, whom most presidential scholars admit to being the most dishonest president. Nixon was famous for saying "I am not a crook!" when is fact he was a huge one whom Trump does not hold a candle to. So Nixon was hand's down our worst president.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.38    4 weeks ago
No Democrat ever made a big deal about Trump's lying before that.

I gave the best example of harm from Trump's lying.   I did not include every example of Trump's pathological lying in a comment that would not compare with one-off lies as part of a story.   That would be a thesis.

Do you acknowledge that Trump's modus operandi is to lie?   That he lies continually and unabashedly?   That it is rare for him to go even a few minutes in public without lying?

This is not just some politician lying; Trump is the poster child for lying.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.51  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.47    4 weeks ago
es Biden stating his college education was families first affect our country ?

That's one lie out the hundreds he's told about his educational history.  His lying is all encompassing. 

Does stealing other's people work bother you? Is a President who lies about every single  aspect of his personal history  okay?  Is that an acceptable quality for a President?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.52  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.49    4 weeks ago

is that an agreement, or just a quote?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.53  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.48    4 weeks ago

Nothing, I just hate trying to wade through some of your posts because at times you seem more interested in what you consider humor instead of making valid points.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.54  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.50    4 weeks ago

Is Joe Biden a pathological liar? 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.55  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.51    4 weeks ago
Is a President who lies about every single  aspect of his personal history  okay?  Is that an acceptable quality for a President?

No. But how do these affect you and i and our country, as compared to LYING about who won the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.56  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.54    4 weeks ago

Why, no, poor old Joe merely embellishes, and when he does lie, it simply doesn't matter.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.57  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.56    4 weeks ago

ive stated i don't like LIARS, but when we are left with who we are left with, there IS NOT A COMPARRISON 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.55    4 weeks ago

Is Biden President?

How were you affected by Trump's lies?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.54    4 weeks ago
Is Joe Biden a pathological liar? 

I doubt he would qualify as such.   Pathological liars are typically consistent, compulsive liars.   Trump is so extreme, if he is not considered a pathological liar it is difficult to imagine how anyone could be deemed as such.   

You deflected rather than answer my questions.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.60  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.55    4 weeks ago
as compared to LYING about who won the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

so you never called Trump a liar until after his presidency was over? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.61  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.57    4 weeks ago

right, there should be no comparisons, lies are lies.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.62  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.59    4 weeks ago
Pathological liars are typically consistent, compulsive liars. 

If you don't think that applies to Biden with his decades of history of compulsive lying about every aspect of his life there's really no point in discussing this. He's a textbook case and it's only partisanship that can prevent someone from admitting the obvious. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.62    4 weeks ago

If you think Biden's lying compares to Trump's level of lying there is no reasoning with you.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.64  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.60    4 weeks ago

Trump is on record as being the biggest liar as potUS. Damn straight i called Trump a LIAR, long before he ran for office. Does BIRTHER ring a bell ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.62    4 weeks ago

If lying is so bad, why would it make any difference who tells it or what it is?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.66  Igknorantzruls  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.63    4 weeks ago

about were i am now at, sick of wasting time with dishonesty

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.67  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.66    4 weeks ago

You claim to be against lying but will vote for one who does so anyway.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.68  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.52    4 weeks ago

I had to update the comment because accidently got out of it before I finished.  Sorry, please reread.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.69  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.67    4 weeks ago

see 7.157

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.70  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.68    4 weeks ago

 all good, but you can see why question was posed

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.71  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.70    4 weeks ago

Yes I do. My bad.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.72  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.69    4 weeks ago

Still the same as it ever was.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.73  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.62    4 weeks ago
He's a textbook case and it's only partisanship that can prevent someone from admitting the obvious. 

Plainly 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.74  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.49    4 weeks ago

lol

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7.1.75  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.51    4 weeks ago
Does stealing other's people work bother you? Is a President who lies about every single  aspect of his personal history  okay?  Is that an acceptable quality for a President?

Interesting question, Sean. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.76  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.74    4 weeks ago

And your point is?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.77  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.75    4 weeks ago

nteresting question, Sean

Lol.  Not that it addresses the issue whatsoever, but do you actually take politifact seriously? You know its just a liberal pundit hand picking what "lies" he wants to address right?  The site is just an exercise in subjective partisanship designed to manipulate people who don't understand statistics or objectivity.  

But you got me. Trump is too dishonest to be President. That's only the 1,001 time I've written it. 

But now address the actual question and tell us how  Biden plagiarizing  papers in law school, stealing the stump speech of a British politician as well as lying about every aspect of his life, career, and accomplishments is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior, unlike that liar Trump.  It's always fun to watch. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.78  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.65    4 weeks ago
ad, why would it make any difference who tells it or what it is?

We'll never get a logical answer. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.79  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.63    4 weeks ago

Trump's lying has nothing to do with Biden being a pathological liar.

It's telling how you always pivot to attacking Trump when Biden's ongoing, decades long history of compulsive  lying is  pointed out. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.80  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.79    4 weeks ago

I have been accused of defending Trump for less.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7.1.81  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.77    4 weeks ago

So which trump lie that they listed isn't really a lie?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.82  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.79    4 weeks ago

Such bullshit, Sean.  You are pretending that Trump's level of lying is not outrageous.   

There is no comparing Trump and Biden in terms of lying.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.83  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.81    4 weeks ago

Who cares?  Do you not get the liberal pundit only picks statements he wants to grade? He can ignore Biden's lies and only "review" statements he can mark true, while doing the opposite for Trump. 

now address the actual question and tell us how  Biden plagiarizing  papers in law school, stealing the stump speech of a British politician as well as lying about every aspect of his life, career, and accomplishments is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior, unlike that liar Trump.  It's always fun to watch.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.84  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.82    4 weeks ago
llshit, Sean.  You are pretending that Trump's level of lying is not outrageous.

That's bullshit. You are falsely claiming things I've never said.

Yet again, Trump's lying has nothing to do with Biden being a pathological liar.

It's telling how you always pivot to attacking Trump when Biden's ongoing, decades long history of compulsive  lying is  pointed out.  Thanks for providing another example. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.85  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.84    4 weeks ago
You are falsely claiming things I've never said.

I did not claim that you made a specific statement; I stated that you are pretending Trump's level of lying is not outrageous.   Because you ARE pretending it is not outrageous by attempting to equate it with Biden's level.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
7.1.86  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.84    4 weeks ago
It's telling how you always pivot to attacking Trump when Biden's ongoing, decades long history of compulsive  lying is  pointed out.

And we have a winner!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.87  Texan1211  replied to  George @7.1.86    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.88  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.84    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.89  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.64    4 weeks ago

As I posted earlier,  Nixon beats Trump by a mile.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.90  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.89    4 weeks ago

Since you brought this up a second time, I am now going to respond.

You will find plenty of individuals who disagree with your assessment that Nixon was a worse liar than Trump.   

Note that this was written before Trump lost the election.   So it does not even include the outrageous campaign of lies known as his Big Lie and the endless stream of lies that followed after he left office up to the present:

In   “Lying in State,”   Eric Alterman, an English professor at Brooklyn College and media columnist for the Nation, surveys the history of presidential falsehood from Washington to Trump and finds plenty of misinformation, disinformation, baldfaced lying and plain BS Past presidents have lied mainly for reasons of national security or to justify ideological or expansionist ambitions, he writes, and they showed some shame when caught. In Trump, however, the public encountered a president “who was an unapologetic, pathological liar and did not care who knew it,” a president who lied about his own biography, his election results, his policies, his wealth, his infidelities, even his golf game.
Trump’s lies may surpass those of previous presidents in numbers and shamelessness, but he still owes much to his predecessors. Past presidential falsehood has conditioned the public and the news media to expect, accept and in some cases enable White House duplicity, Alterman argues. Trump, he explains, “is the Frankenstein monster of a political system that has not merely tolerated lies from our leaders but has come to demand them.” This book is an attack on Trump specifically, but also a broader critique of a press that Alterman sees as complicit, and of past presidents whose legacies give Oval Office dishonesty an aggregate force.

I am confident that Trump will be seen by history as the PotUS who surpassed all others in terms of volume, magnitude, and negative impact of his lies.   Unless, of course, one of his predecessors is even more outrageous ... hard to imagine how that is even possible.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.91  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.85    4 weeks ago

No, but you did claim he was pretending.

prove it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.92  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.90    4 weeks ago

Nixon was a pig, so is Trump, so is Biden.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.93  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.91    4 weeks ago
s pretending.

if you think trying to claim Trump attempting to change the results of an honest and fair election, as deemed by the courts, Trumps AG Barr, Trumps election overseer at the time, and literally almost every single close associate of Trump when under penalty of perjury or going bankrupt. They all seemed to see the light. 

Do tell Tex,what lie has Joe Biden stated that comes within a thousand milrs of Trumps' elction LIE ? Cause i'm done with ypu on this. You clowns are arguing for arguments sake, with an equation totally fake. All to get a rise out of people, and you are only embarrassing yourselves. Go ahead, tell me what Biden has lied about that equates Trumps' false election claims, we'll wait

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.94  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.90    4 weeks ago

I.  JUST.  DON'T.  GET.  IT.

This defense of the former 'president' NO.  MATTER.  WHAT.

It's mind boggling.  Stupefying.  Dumbfounding.  

They hold him to no standard(s) whatsoever.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  Zero.  Diddly squat.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.95  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.93    4 weeks ago

Unlike you, I take no solace in comparing lies and liars.

That 'reasoning' serves no legitimate purpose.

The only purpose I can detect is to justify a vote for one of the clowns.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
7.1.96  Thomas  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1    4 weeks ago
Funny how you mention Trump but totally neglect to mention the whoppers Biden comes up with.

I didn't know we were talking about Biden. But since you brought it up, I do not see Bidens lies having the same gravity or frequency. His are mostly like when friends get together and just start laying out whoppers just because. 

I had the pleasure of knowing these two individuals that, when they came together, you knew it was time to pull on your hip waders because of the outlandish and unbelievable stories that they would concoct together to outdo each other. That is Biden's type of lying.

Trump lies because he has no filter on his ego and (IMO) literally thinks he can say or do anything that he desires because no one has stopped him yet. This class of lies can be anywhere from benign to caustic and hurtful, and Trump says them because he wants the subject of his lies to be abashed and fearful. This is what differentiates Trump's lies from Biden's and the reason why they are so very much worse. Trump is malicious and shows it. Biden is not.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.97  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.85    4 weeks ago
   Because you ARE pretending it is not outrageous by attempting to equate it with Biden's level.

fior the third straight time.  Trump's lying has nothing to do with Biden being a pathological liar.

It's telling how you always pivot to attacking Trump when Biden's ongoing, decades long history of compulsive  lying is  pointed out. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.98  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @7.1.96    4 weeks ago
His are mostly like when friends get together and just start laying out whoppers just because. 

Sure. I know when I get together with friends I tell them I have a higher IQ then they do, lie about getting scholarships, lie about my work accomplishments, lie about my grades, lie about my family history. .  Because that's what secure, confident people do when they get together.  Just tell lie upon  lie to make themselves look better than the people around them.  And if someone dares challenge your lies , you insult them (call them fat!) and then just double down on the lying.  Or maybe ask them to step outside and fight.  The Biden way!

Totally normal behavior from an adult. 

His are mostly like when friends get together and just start laying out whoppers just because. 

this sounds like the PR campaign the government ran to make Stalin kindly "uncle Joe." once he became an ally in WWII.  The same disconnect from reality. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.99  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Thomas @7.1.96    4 weeks ago

that was a good breakdown of the differences between Trump and Biden. I would say even caustic is to light of a description, for one who's depiction is primarily to invoke friction, as does his language multiple times per day. As stated above, where one refuses to answer, there just is not ANYTHING Biden has ever stated, that comes within a thousand miles of Trumps election LIES. 

There are millions on the 'right' who still believe Trump was the actual winner of the 2020 election< and that is a disgrace for anyone attempting to compare Joe Bidens speculation that his uncle was eaten by cannibals, cause we all know the ones on those islands are strictly vegan...  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.100  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.98    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.101  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.95    4 weeks ago
Unlike you, I take no solace in comparing lies and liars.

Y not just say there is no equivalence, because you know there is not, but you're too frightened to admit it here. 

That concludes my discussion here with you Tex, because you are not serious, just arguing for arguments sake, and I've stated my case, care to save face...?  Doubt it

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.102  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.101    4 weeks ago

Perhaps since I am not voting for either, I consider comparing an exercise in complete and utter futility.

I see no good coming out of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

All that comes out of comparing two pieces of shit is some misguided, irrational justification for voting for an idiot.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
7.1.103  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.98    4 weeks ago

Booooooooo Hoooooooooo. We can't all be saints, but it is somewhat beyond comprehension why you keep wanting to draw these parrallels between Biden and Trump...

Wait.

No.

I lied.

It isn't difficult at all to discern the source of your desire to have the extreme and reprehensible behavior of Trump Squished down into the tiny space that Biden's bad characteristics encompass. Your master wants it.. Bwaaahhahhahah

And now, For something completely different...

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.104  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.102    4 weeks ago

like i said, you can't

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.105  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.101    4 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.106  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.105    4 weeks ago

in other words Tex, YOU CAN'T

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
7.1.108  George  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.106    4 weeks ago
That concludes my discussion here with you Tex,

that comment,  followed by 2 additional comments is just hilarious on a tread about lies.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.109  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.97    4 weeks ago
fior the third straight time

You can keep repeating your complaint but that will not change the point I made.

Quit complaining, cease making this personal.  

I stated upfront that I doubt Biden would be deemed a pathological liar by a certified expert.   So cease your whining.   I also stated that Trump is, IMO, so outrageous in his lying that if he is NOT a pathological liar one wonders what one would have to do to earn that qualification.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.110  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.106    4 weeks ago

Perhaps you didn't read my post.

But if it will get you to stop, here ya go!

Trump lies. Trump's lies are the most despicable thing ever heard or seen on the face of the earth in its entire existence.

Biden lies, but his are the most beautiful lies ever told by any human ever.

Still won't catch ME voting for one of the shitbirds or ever attempting to justify such insanity!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.111  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.102    4 weeks ago
I see no good coming out of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

What good do you see by not voting or voting for someone who has no chance of winning in 2024?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.112  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.111    4 weeks ago
What good do you see by not voting 

As has been repeated SO many times now, I will vote. I have no control over others to make them vote.

The person I vote for won't win, but millions of others will be in the same boat with me, their candidate will not win.

I see it as a good thing to be proud of who I vote for vs. justifying a vote for shit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.113  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.111    4 weeks ago

What good do you really see about voting for Trump or Biden?

And " he isn't as bad as Trump" is too weak of an argument for voting for Biden.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.114  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.106    4 weeks ago

But in real life, I did!

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
7.1.115  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.98    4 weeks ago
this sounds like the PR campaign the government ran to make Stalin kindly "uncle Joe." once he became an ally in WWII.  The same disconnect from reality. 

Fun as a child is a must for proper adult growth. Exercising the imagination is beneficial. Do you remember "Gremlins From the Kremlin" ?  Weren't those times much simpler because the Government just lied to us? Donald Trump wants to do that too. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.116  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.90    4 weeks ago

To each their own. Anybody else is welcome research it for themselves like I did and draw their own conclusions. People will see and read what they want to see. I have never claimed that Trump is not a liar because he most certainly is. I do not know about you, but grew up during the Nixon years. He was president when I took part in the little soiree in Southeast Asia called Vietnam and I remember a lot that went on then when he was president. You have a good evening.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.117  Igknorantzruls  replied to  George @7.1.108    4 weeks ago

yea George, on a tread about lies , some make it a mill, u know, like a tread mill of lying while not being able totake a step forward, in something they could believe in, because they can't support an argument, only sidetrack and come back to coming back like they were smokin crack, as this frontal  peppered by assault lobotomy, says much about she/he, or is it he/she/it, cause when talking in circles it becomes difficult to differentiate the spin, and in a round about way, i'll eat pie, cause i'm that guy, you know the one you shy'd away from on the Military leaders stating Trump is unfit, cause you could see my points were valid, just like another here, yet he too, is afraid to show what others following already know,, his nan nan na nan nan is all he has to show, asz he can't equate lies that won't rate, hell he can't equate cause he'd rather a tempt to pontificate, or like Christie , attempt to connect via bridgegate over watergate, asz is his fate, like a Maryland bridge hit by a freighter, can't be the maite der D, waiting on a waiter, asz he serves only one so far lower, than the other fellow, biden time while the other looks for another crime, to commit himself to, cause thats watt sum due, over and over, like that circular firing squad that takes oneself out on a date, and still can't score, so b careful now, cause in a roundabout weigh, i'll state more than even your impure thoughts can sanitize, cause there just may be some others round hear, who can spew lies to match the disingenuous diatribe delivered daily by D delusional derelicts lacking duty, just more missions to un accomplish, and to think they won,  don't they wish...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.118  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.112    4 weeks ago

You truncated my question to change the meaning.   

I asked this: 

TiG@7.1.111What good do you see by not voting or voting for someone who has no chance of winning in 2024?

Not including the part in red changes the meaning of my question.   

I see it as a good thing to be proud of who I vote for vs. justifying a vote for shit.

I see it as a critical thing to keep Trump from securing the power of the presidency.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.119  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.113    4 weeks ago
What good do you really see about voting for Trump or Biden?

Trump should never be given the powers of the US presidency.    

How is it that you cannot see that Trump will abuse the powers of his office to suit himself?   He has provided excellent evidence with his Big Lie campaign and years of supporting evidence as to his character and intentions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.120  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.118    4 weeks ago

I answered your question, read it again. I won't let you say otherwise.

why not answer Mine? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.121  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.119    4 weeks ago
Trump should never be given the powers of the US presidency.    

ok, I agree which is why I won't vote for him.

How is it that you cannot see that Trump will abuse the powers of his office to suit himself?   He has provided excellent evidence with his Big Lie campaign and years of supporting evidence as to his character and intentions

You are merely claiming something completely and utterly false.

How the hell do YOU know what I see?

BTW, still not a decent reason to vote Biden, as he is only slightly better than Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.122  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.121    4 weeks ago
BTW, still not a decent reason to vote Biden, as he is only slightly better than Trump.

Right here is a fine example that you cannot (or pretend the inability) see that Trump will abuse the powers of his office to suit himself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.123  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.122    4 weeks ago

example that you cannot (or pretend the inability) see that Trump will abuse the powers of his office to suit himself.

 
Utter nonsense.
 
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.124  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.118    4 weeks ago
You truncated my question to change the meaning

I didnt copy your whole post, b.f.d. but I DID address your whole post,, so please stop pretending i did not.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.125  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.123    4 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.126  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.125    4 weeks ago

What exactly do you want me to put up?

Please be specific.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.127  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.126    4 weeks ago

i asked you to tell me what Biden lie equates to Trumps' election lie where hundreds were injured and some Capital police and a rioter died. 

Answer that question Tex

I won't hold my breath, cause i would bet, you'll hold yours with an answer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.128  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.127    4 weeks ago
i asked you to tell me what Biden lie equates to Trumps' election lie where hundreds were injured and some Capital police and a rioter died.  Answer that question Tex

Nothing that I know of.

Of course, it isn't something I have ever claimed.

I won't hold my breath, cause i would bet, you'll hold yours with an answer.

Bad call, as you would have lost the bet.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.129  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.97    4 weeks ago

It amazes me that some just don't see that Biden has been in the national spotlight for 50 years, is a known racist, is overwhelming evidence of corruption and using his name for numerous payouts by our adversaries, but think that someone that also is a politician (they all lie) is so far worse.[]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.130  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.120    4 weeks ago
why not answer Mine? 

Very good question.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.131  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.122    4 weeks ago
see that Trump will abuse the powers of his office to suit himself.

You mean like ignoring a SCOTUS ruling and "forgiving" college loans to little leftists only to suit himself?

That abuse of power?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7.1.132  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.83    4 weeks ago
Who cares?

Well clearly you do if you are claiming they are biased. I was just asking you to prove their bias by listing the lies they reported as false, (in other words, lies they listed that aren't really lies). 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7.1.133  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.83    4 weeks ago
He can ignore Biden's lies

I listed Bidens lies as well. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
7.1.134  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @7.1.129    4 weeks ago

“It amazes me…”

What amazes me is the entire dialogue is the ‘tit for tat’ discourse of who is worse.

No thoughts of moving forward, no policy other than retribution, and no sense of responsibility, maturity, or leadership.

We’re in a tight spot and we’ll somehow survive the next four years…2028 will determine if we discard the dysfunction and move on or if we continue to deleteriously hold onto the hyper partisanship and eventually let apathy take over. Just my opinion. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.135  bugsy  replied to  afrayedknot @7.1.134    4 weeks ago

Agree 100

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.136  JohnRussell  replied to  afrayedknot @7.1.134    4 weeks ago

As you can see from post 7.1.135 , both sideism can take a deep toll.  This entire thread is ludicrous, but it serves its purpose of trying to equate Trump , one of the worst human beings in the history of U.S. politics, and Joe Biden. 

The only way Trump can win is if bothsidesism is accepted and practiced. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.137  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.125    4 weeks ago

Always

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.138  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.122    4 weeks ago

As the former 'president' has already done with its' prior criminal enterprise of an administration.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.139  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.90    4 weeks ago

There's no comparison between Nixon and the former 'president' whatsoever.

It's just the continuing defense of the indefensible.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.140  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.136    4 weeks ago

Yes, and heavy on the outrageous baseless accusations. Joe and Jill Biden's taxes are public going back for decades with no hints of evasion or evidence of unreported taxable income. President Biden has honorably served the United States as US Senator, Vice President and Commander In Chief. There are no legitimate comparison to be made with You Know Who - The Indicted Criminal Defendant and presumptive gop nominee...

Talk about TDS...

original

MAGA must be soundly defeated in November 5th, or else...

original We cannot let MAGA, these guys, win...

original

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.141  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @7.1.131    4 weeks ago

No, I mean attempting to steal a US presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.     Not bad policy decisions.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
7.1.142  afrayedknot  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.136    4 weeks ago

Well said and sadly true.

“Popularity may be united with hostility to the rights of the people, and the secret slave of tyranny may be the professed lover of freedom.”
     ~Alexis deToqueville

The demonstrable dangers of populist rhetoric professed hereabouts daily. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.143  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @7.1.134    4 weeks ago
What amazes me is the entire dialogue is the ‘tit for tat’ discourse of who is worse..

Sounds like Biden's campaign strategy and what Biden voters see in him.

What amazes me is how many are willing to vote for "He's not as bad as the other guy" without thought to the job he does.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.144  Texan1211  replied to  Igknorantzruls @7.1.127    4 weeks ago

 ow that I have answered your question, how about answering mine since no one else seems willing:

Besides the obvious fact that he isn't Trump. what about Biden inspires you to vote for him again?

It is sad how fast people run from this easy question😕

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
7.1.145  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.143    4 weeks ago

[removed][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.146  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @7.1.131    4 weeks ago

No, no. that is different because, well, well................Biden!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.147  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @7.1.140    4 weeks ago

I’m told by a highly respected NTer scholar that there is no such thing as TDS [removed][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.148  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.147    4 weeks ago

Lmmfao!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.149  bugsy  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.147    4 weeks ago
NTer scholar

Damn good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.150  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @7.1.149    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1.151  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.150    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
7.1.152  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.92    4 weeks ago

Amen.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8  JBB    4 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @8    4 weeks ago

The Judge:

00trump-trial-judge-1-9942-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg
New York Judge Juan Merchan, Biden donor, whose daughter is a liberal activist.


The Jury:

6f0368fd-8b66-4e84-b480-44efec1082c2.jpg
Sworn to holding no opinion, except when the defense found their social media comments.


The executioner:

OIP.7H3YSKrB9qCnwGxkFaAtXQHaE7?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain
The man who wasn't supposed to be in contact with any of the 4 prosecutors.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    4 weeks ago

Bill Barr told a tv interviewer that when he was in office Trump would occasionally casually talk about executing his political or policy opponents .

Thats your guy. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

"I remember him being very mad about that, I actually don‘t remember him saying executing, but I wouldn‘t dispute it. The president would lose his temper, say things like that. I doubt he would have actually carried it out," Barr said. "I think people sometimes took him too literally and he would say things like similar to that in occasions to blow off steam but I wouldn‘t take them literally every time he did it."

Bill Barr says people shouldn’t take what Trump says so literally (msn.com)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.2    4 weeks ago
Barr's revelation came during a CNN interview when anchor Kaitlan Collins referenced claims by former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin. Griffin alleged that Barr was present when Trump suggested that a White House leaker should face execution in the summer of 2020.

In response, Barr recalled, "I remember him being very mad about that. I actually don't remember him saying ‘executing,' but I wouldn‘t dispute it, you know. The president would lose his temper and say things like that. I doubt he would've actually carried it out."

When pressed by Collins if Trump made similar remarks on other occasions, Barr explained that Trump's words were often blown out of proportion. He suggested that Trump's statements were more about venting frustration than serious threats.

Barr emphasized, "He would say things similar to that on occasions to blow off steam. But I wouldn't take them literally every time he did it." Collins pressed further, asking why not.

Barr replied, "Because at the end of the day, it wouldn't be carried out and you could talk sense into him."

So you think its fine for the president of the United States to talk about executing his political enemies as long as "it wouldnt be carried out".[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

Yet the scumbag said he'd still vote for the turd.   I wonder what the former 'president' has on him.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.2    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

Like being a dictator, but only on day 1.  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

Talk sense into him?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

Mark Levin had a great show on the Bragg case last night.

He showed his viewers what it would be like if an unbiased Judge had been assigned to the case:

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @10    4 weeks ago

This is not 'election interference'

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @10.1    4 weeks ago

You have one candidate confined to court every day while the other is out campaigning.

What do you call it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    4 weeks ago

Justice, hopefully.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.2    4 weeks ago

It's past time that the former 'president' be held accountable for this conspiracy and all the others while 'president' and after - his incitement of 1/6 is what is most important here.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.2    4 weeks ago
Justice
justice
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.3    4 weeks ago

Actually that and the obstruction and hiding and the boss telling people to destroy the evidence - and don't forget the fake electors,

The former 'president' is going to be in court a lot - so the former 'president' brought this all on himself and it is not election interference.  

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time . . .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.3    4 weeks ago
It's past time that the former 'president' be held accountable for this conspiracy and all the others while 'president' and after - his incitement of 1/6 is what is most important here.  

Is that what he is on  trial for?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.5    4 weeks ago

The top secret documents is what I'm referring to here

It would be nice to actually see justice for all the crimes he's committed, the traitor has committed so many, it's hard to keep track

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
10.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.5    4 weeks ago
hiding and the boss telling people to destroy the evidence

Leave Hillary out of this.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.7    4 weeks ago

No answer to Texan's question?

Maybe the people who are lurking would like to try?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.10    4 weeks ago
No answer to Texan's question?

Of course not.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.3    4 weeks ago

You're right, just as soon as Biden is held accountable at the same time for his questionably illegal actions over the last 3+ years.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.7    3 weeks ago

Like the ones Joe Biden had in his garage in boxes next to his Corvette and in a unsecured office as well? Right...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.13    3 weeks ago

If Trump had cooperated as Biden and Pence both did in the return of official documents, there would be no classified documents case.   Trump's obstruction in the safe return of those documents is what turned a mere non-criminal violation of the PRA into a crime.

You surely would not be in favor of indicting Trump if classified documents were found in a toilet in Mar-a-Lago but Trump immediately cooperated with their safe return and then looked for more violations.     Now substitute Biden for Trump and garage for toilet.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.13    3 weeks ago
Like the ones Joe Biden had in his garage in boxes next to his Corvette and in a unsecured office as well?

You mean the ones he had that date back to when he was a Senator and shouldn't have had access to in the first place?  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.15    3 weeks ago

Excactly.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.14    3 weeks ago

I believe both should be held to the same standards. I thoroughly do not like Trump, but I honestly do not see that happening at this time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.17    3 weeks ago
I believe both should be held to the same standards.

Which is exactly the point I made.   They are being held to the same standards.   If we look at the Biden, Pence, and Trump cases, the difference between Trump and [Biden, Pence] is that Trump obstructed whereas Biden and Pence both cooperated.   Biden and Pence did not obstruct ... they both cooperated fully.

Without the obstruction, Trump would not be dealing with a classified documents case.