
All_Pro_Bills
Community Member-
Posts
6,901 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by All_Pro_Bills
-
Well if you choose to ignore the obvious that's your business. But targeting a specific individual and morphing a federal misdemeanor offense, which the DOJ decides has no merit, into some vague felony charge the State of NY most likely has no legal standing to prosecute sounds a bit fishy. Of course we'll have to wait to hear the specific on the charges. Or just last week, the IRS showing up at the door of an investigative reporter during his testimony to Congress on the weaponization of government and social media resources to suppress opposition voices sounds a bit of a coincidence. Don't they typically send a litter first Is Lois Lerner's Obama enemies task force back in business? Today Nancy Pelosi showing a complete lack of respect for how the justice system works and the rights of the accused said it best, "Donald Trump Has A 'Right To Prove His Innocence". So apparently a senior member of the Democratic leadership in Congress believes we are no longer operating under the Constitutional protections of innocent until proven guilty where the State is required to prove guilt and not the accused who must prove their innocence? Sure sounds like that's the thinking.
-
I see it like this. We don't know the exact charges until they are unsealed. But the libs declaring victory now is like kicking a field goal on the first drive of the game and counting the game as a win. There's a lot of time left on the clock. My gut says everybody including Bragg knows these charges are on shaky legal ground, transforming a Federal misdemeanor charge to a felony State charge, statute of limitations issues, the legal standing of the State to pursue Federal charges, the integrity of the witness, and on and on. But none of that matters. The Democrats aren't stupid, they know all this too. They know the charges are flimsy and will most certainly be dismissed at some court level. But not in Manhattan district court where they can pick a friendly judge who can deny most of the defenses motions, and an almost all Democratic jury. They find Trump guilty, the case is appealed and overturned at the next level. But they get their conviction in the lower court and will use that conviction as proof of guilt, even though the defendant was ultimately acquitted. Ultimately they don't care if he's guilty or not. What they want is the voters to think he's guilty. That's how I see it playing out.
-
What's interesting is how few people understand that having a healthy respect for your adversaries is a fundamental characteristic of productive leadership. And displaying a constant high level of hostility and contempt for others is not a recipe for successful engagement. Be it in business, politics, or personal life. If you're going to engage in dialogue or negotiations, or conflict that approach is needed to succeed. That's what Trump is saying in his less than eloquent speaking style. This is neither aiding or abetting any enemy. Its an effective approach to problem resolution and communicating your objectives and demands. Otherwise, you're left with one option, conflict. Now if you approach every relationship thinking the U.S. has some until the end of time "right" to take a my-way-or-the-highway stance with every engagement of some other party be it an ally or an enemy you'll see no need to approach problems in this manner. Its take it or leave it for everyone.
-
People that directly or indirectly support an ideology and political view that accepts the concept that a man can be a woman simply by believing they're a woman demanding and accepting only "fact" based arguments. No self-awareness.
-
Its well thought out reasoning supported by the conclusion that a policy which was in effect would continue. What's your argument? That regardless of who won Putin would have attacked? How is that any better?
-
I've got to laugh at the "evidence" ploy. But I'm not making anything up. For the unfamiliar its called reasoning and my reasoning is Trump would have continued the administration's policy and Biden's would not have been implemented. That seems like a reasonable conclusion. But put your money on the Washington establishment. But be warned, its a losing bet. They've bungled every foreign adventure for the past 25 years and there's no reason to expect anything different. They're well on their way to screwing this up too.
-
Biden's administration, thru re-inserting neocon Nuland and stepped up arms deliveries, encouraged Ukrainian paramilitary groups to step up attacks on ethnic Russian separatists in the east which began in 2014 and dismissed any diplomatic efforts and conversations between the parties. Escalation followed escalation and events unfolded to where they sit today. Trump's Department of State would have done neither. Now China is stepping into the vacuum and along with new partner France have begun engagement with Ukraine and Russia to broker a peace deal, absent Washington which of course is against any peace deal.
-
I don't know why they lied. Perhaps poor judgment? But the only charge was lying to investigators and if they told "the truth" there would have been no charges for anything. So the lesson is that if FBI or some other law enforcement agency asked you questions either tell the truth or decline to answer their questions without the presence of your attorney. That's a moot point. Because if Trump was President the Russians wouldn't have invaded.
-
The truth is Trump pardoned Stone. So what's you're point? I don't think Putin tried to get Trump elected. What would he want to do that for? To keep Biden's administration from destroying America and our standing in the world community? Great plan.
-
4 cases of lying to investigators, Manafort's tax evasion charges prior to joining the campaign. A Dutch lawyer? That's a stretch. And Stone meeting with a Russian person? That's not a crime. But this same Russian person, met with Glen Simpson at FusionGPS. The guy Hillary used as a conduit to funnel payments to Steele for the bogus dossier. Does that seem the least bit suspicious to you? What could they have possibly discussed? Should we scrutinize all of Mr. Simpson's contacts too? So how many millions votes and which States did this alleged interference change? Reality is a lot of people have been bullshitted into believing this story for 7 years and there's no turning back for them.
-
See my list below of people convicted of any connection with Russia. (empty) Case closed.
-
Maybe you should pack it in on the Russia hoax and take the loss on this one?
-
They've been wrong about almost everything but will never admit to that, retract anything, alter their views or thinking, or apologize for it. They're not concerned about being right, just winning. If winning take lying. cheating, and stealing to accomplish then lying, cheating, and stealing it is.
-
I'm curious about the eligibility rules. Does a person that's half black and half another race other than black get a full share, a 1/2 share, or no share? Do you need to be genetically verifiable black or can you just "identify" as being black to qualify?
-
These people don't care if they're right. They only care if they win. They throw these stories into the atmosphere and their minions in the media pick them up and carpet bomb the public with the story. Day after day, hour after hours translating some fairy tale into perceived fact. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or not. Most people hear it often enough and they believe its true. Regardless of any future facts or outcome that prove it false. They count on the idea that the average attention span of any average American is about 15 seconds and they don't care too much for detail.
-
Because the State of New York has no legal jurisdiction over or standing to hear cases involving Federal campaign law. Period.
-
Apparently he doesn't because the legal basis for his potential indictment is dreadful.
-
You can take up any personal complaints with the DOJ and AG Garland.
-
I think its clear using campaign funds for such a payment is illegal. But one claim is Cohen paid Daniels with "his own funds" which seems absurd as he had no relationship with her, it was Trump. But does the State of New York have any legal standing to bring charges for an alleged violation of Federal campaign law that the DOJ has declined to pursue? I think "no", but the Manhattan DA's office has translated this into a violation of some State law. There seems to be ongoing internal debate at the DA's office about the merit of such an argument. My guess is that's part of the hesitation to bring charges to this point.