Pokebball

The educational loss in our kids will take decades to reverse, or get caught back up. Seeing that this information was known as early as it was and was purposefully hidden from the public, is what is so bad it's almost criminal.

their hypocrisy is deafening

I think Kinzinger's and Cheney's hatred of Trump clouds their judgement. I didn't vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020, largely due to his character flaws. I didn't necessarily think he did anything illegal. He was just an arrogant SOB with little to no civility. For full disclosure, I didn't vote for Clinton or Biden. I liked and respected both Kinzinger and Cheney for calling Trump's character out. I voted for Cheney in 2020. Now, however, I believe both Kinzinger and Cheney purposefully withheld information and testimony from the public relating to the Jan 6 investigation. Kinzinger's comment today is in this same vein. The means doesn't matter to him, as long as it's harmful to Trump. This NYC trial was 100% political and the result severely hurt many Americans trust and faith in the judiciary, all "to get Trump" A few years ago, I held Gabbard, Cheney and Kinzinger in the same category. I thought all three were brave, willing to put country over party. Cheney and particularly Kinzinger seem to me, to be willing to push truth aside over their hatred of Trump. That's not America.

Huh? That's what legal scholars do. They live in courtrooms. And she wasn't on the NYC jury, I agree

There are a lot of people on this board that have higher opinions of their opinions than other's have of their opinions. Don't ever forget that and you'll be just fine

absolutely. many a legal scholar are critical of this NYC case. and all she did was ask the question

That's all you got? That's a pretty low bar. Now do NYC

Everyone holds biases to some extent. Bragg pursued Trump hard and he made that a part of his campaign for DA. I think it's pretty clear he had significant bias against trump, and clearly campaigned on it. What's your case against Cannon?

Here's what Bragg said, interpret that as you may... While campaigning, Bragg said: "I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation. I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times for the travel ban, the separation of children from their families at the border. So I know that work. I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable." He also said that he would continue with Vance's investigation and hold Trump "accountable by following the facts where they go."

the jury in the DAs district would have. It's a moot point now, except for the appeals process

did anyone incolved in this case campaign on getting trump?

Venue changes, particularly, are done to obtain fairness. Given the DAs campaigning on getting Trump and the recent civil case, I don't think it would have been odd at all.

Venues and judges are changed all the time to achieve fairness in our judicial processes. Not necessary opining that either should have happened in this case, but fairness is always considered pretty important in our judiciary. Bias is always considered, both in fact and in appearance. Odd the powers didn't think either was necessary in this case. We'll see what the appeals process concludes.

So we've answered the "so what"! Making progress

They support both, don't they? Again, the ends justifying the means

So what? You don't think jurisdiction mattered in the case? You don't think the judge mattered in this case? Interesting

Or the federal election commission. And all of this in a jurisdiction that is not prosecuting some pretty serious crimes. This was clearly political.

This is the definition of the ends justifying the means

A vile criminal? Based on this trial? Like I said... The ends are justifying the means for you

I have to say that the response from either side was probably predictable, right? I'm sad for the state of our country today.

so go to the judge each time they have a question about the instructions?

this x 1000

Add it all up to achieve "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Still peddling the bloodbath lie. What's that tell you about Kamala?