ChiGoose

Honestly a little flattered that you wake up thinking about me. 🥰🥰🥰

I think you should look up the definition of ad hominem arguments… In any case, like I said, if enacting laws about crime has no impact on crime, then why do we have any laws about crimes?

If you follow this argument to its natural conclusion: we don’t need any laws at all. Hardly convincing since many of the Jan 6 terrorists stored their weapons just outside of DC with rapid response teams because they DC gun laws were so strict.

Twice before 6am, dude? Get a life.

If you’re argument is that guys who sexually assault women, like Clinton and Trump, should not be president, I am in complete agreement with you.

1. There is a middle ground between “didn’t do anything” and “rape”. It’s called sexual assault, which is the thing they found him guilty of. 2. Thinking that someone cannot get a fair trial based on the trial location is brain worms thinking. 95%+ of Americans don’t spend their time thinking politics all day. 3. Thinking the average voter will be more inclined to vote for Trump after he was found liable of sexual assault is also brain worms. Normie voters will likely be less inclined to support him. 4. Thinking Joe Biden was involved in this somehow is way behind brain worms. It’s brain dead. There’s no way any rational thinking person could possibly believe it. Go see a shrink. What a mess.

I believe this is what they call a LAMP post.

If I hand you my tax records, there’s no crime I’m aware of that you violate from making them public. Depending on the circumstances, I may be able to sue you for breach of contract or something similar, but I don’t think you’d be risking criminal charges.

I’ll repeat: the person who had them almost certainly obtained them legally. Therefore, there would be no crime for the FBI to investigate.

I did like 5 minutes of Googling and I’m pretty sure not only that I know who leaked them but also that the person had obtained them legally. Which means that there would be no need for a criminal investigation. There may be a civil cause of action that Trump could pursue but doing so would confirm their authenticity. So the most likely outcome is that there is no legal action taken from them being made public.

You are upset that Trump’s actual tax documents were leaked but also that leaking the actual documents is defamatory because they are fake? Or are you upset that there were fake documents that purported to be Trump’s tax returns but were defamatory because they were fake but also upset that there was no investigation into how someone obtained Trump’s actual tax documents (which were fake)?

Here’s an idea: spend a couple minutes looking up something for yourself instead of asking people to do it for you. Also: the idea that there is a potential defamation suit with this is ridiculous.

I’m sorry, but is your argument that if someone dumps the president’s secret tax returns on the doorstep of a journalist that it’s the journalist’s duty NOT to report on it?

So here’s a fun thing about the first amendment: if you innocently obtain information, such as some anonymous source mailing you old tax documents, you can publish them as part of a journalistic endeavor. Now maybe the person who sent them broke some law, maybe not, but if it was anonymous, it’s unlikely to result in a successful prosecution of the leaker.

Not something I said or implied. I’m sorry if you struggle to read.

I was just pointing out that the claim that only the court had Trump’s tax records was false. I don’t know how Maddow got them. I don’t know if it was in conjunction with the lawsuit or just someone who had access passing them along.

So the solution to Twitter’s dwindling ad buys is the guy whose show couldn’t keep advertisers? Well, let’s see how this works out…

Anytime a potential supporter meet with DeSantis, they seem to be convinced not to support him…

Just a reminder: people outside the courts had access to those records as well. Specifically, the large company that prepared Trump’s taxes.

Always the most likely thing when courts are involved. Also, the assertion that the jury is politically motivated against Trump for retribution and that’s why they *didn’t* say he raped someone seems… suspect.

They likely believed that a preponderance of the evidence showed that some sort of sexual abuse had occurred but were not sure there was enough evidence for actual rape.

Not guilty of rape, so I guess he’s got that going for him.

Glad you agree that NATO had nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s clearly not why Putin invaded.

I generally try to avoid calling people Nazis as it’s rarely warranted and normalizes Nazism. However, a guy with Nazi tattoos posting Nazi things is fair game to call a Nazi