POLICE STATE BIDEN TRIALS: Corrupt DOJ/FBI/GA DA/CO SC/ME SoS: Trump Indicted 4x.

[cle23]

1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

 

At least we’ve accepted that it exists - you’ve clearly seen enough the last 7 years to believe it does.  
 

And so I think you know the answer to this question - he clearly didn’t but was clearly seen as a threat.  

 

First off…..He won.  2015 in Britain and here in 2016 thanks to a Wild West internet they saw they lost all narrative control.  That freaked them out more then anything.  
 

But bigger then that….
 

He didn’t start or further any conflict.  

So your “them.”  
 

Your worried his winning is potentially at worst the beginning of the end of a military industrial complex that wants troops in Ukraine.  That wants to bomb Syria.  That sees Russia as a forever threat.  

At best it stands to lose out on billions due to Trump disinterest in “America starting wars first.”

Everything is totally normal 

 

 

i

Do I think that there are different set of rules and situations for the wealthy, and those in the higher ups up politics?  Absolutely.  Do I think there is a national and worldwide conglomerate that secretly plots any and all major events in the world?  I do not.  And if there was, I think Trump would be the last person to try to stand up to them.  Trump is as ME first as it gets, so he would look to benefit off of it as much as the next guy.  He used his presidency and campaign to line his families' pockets.  He or his advisors have figured out that if he makes himself out as some champion of the "people", he can use it as a source of vast income.  For a billionaire, all he ever does as ask others to fund all of his legal and politic ambitions.  Politicians have always done that, but not the the extent that Trump is doing it in all manner of things.  He has a history of campaign and charity fraud going back years.

 

And again, let's say there IS a Deep State.  What has Trump done, in actions, to dismantle or attack it?  He' talked to no end about doing it.  But what has he actually done?  Actions, not words.

[BillsFanNC]

🎯 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

9 minutes ago, cle23 said:

i

Do I think that there are different set of rules and situations for the wealthy, and those in the higher ups up politics?  Absolutely.  Do I think there is a national and worldwide conglomerate that secretly plots any and all major events in the world?  I do not.  And if there was, I think Trump would be the last person to try to stand up to them.  Trump is as ME first as it gets, so he would look to benefit off of it as much as the next guy.  He used his presidency and campaign to line his families' pockets.  He or his advisors have figured out that if he makes himself out as some champion of the "people", he can use it as a source of vast income.  For a billionaire, all he ever does as ask others to fund all of his legal and politic ambitions.  Politicians have always done that, but not the the extent that Trump is doing it in all manner of things.  He has a history of campaign and charity fraud going back years.

 

And again, let's say there IS a Deep State.  What has Trump done, in actions, to dismantle or attack it?  He' talked to no end about doing it.  But what has he actually done?  Actions, not words.

 

Nothing.  
 

That’s a major reason why I’m not voting for him in the primary no matter what and doing all I can to convince my conservative friends to do the same.   
 

 

The main reasons why it’s ridiculous he’s even running - he’s the most hated man rightly or wrongly - among all the voters we need to get and nothing drives Ds to the polls then to vote against the evils of Trumpism (his tweets, his face, the insults he hurls at opponents or random people he’s mad at); he’d be a lame duck president.  We’ll be doing this all over again in 2028 against an incumbent D because Biden is not running.  
 

I expect Biden to drop out by April of 2024.  

[The Frankish Reich]

42 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

"no particular reason"   😆     Man, you guys are scared.

 

 

 

Mean while in DC

Most pro-Trump Trump-appointee judge assigned to Mar-a-Lago classified files case: Luck of the Draw!

 

[Roundybout]

48 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

"no particular reason"   😆     Man, you guys are scared.

 

 

 

Mean while in DC

What does what you replied with have to do with trump killing that general?

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

What does what you replied with have to do with trump killing that general?

 

 

Good Lord.  You ARE that dense.

 

 

Meanwhile.

 

Jonathan Turley and Andy McCarthy Rip Apart Flawed Nature of New Trump Indictment

by Nick Arama

 

As we reported earlier, Special Counsel Jack Smith dropped another indictment on former President Donald Trump, charging him with three counts of conspiracy and one count of obstruction on Tuesday.

 

At this point, it’s getting a little ridiculous and frankly, transparent, as to how hard the Biden administration seems to be working to try to take Trump out of the race with lawfare and indictments.

 

Fox News’ Bret Baier shared how Republicans are describing the indictment for what it is: Democrats looking at a box of chocolates, trying to figure out what was the best box of chocolates to “prevent him from becoming president again.” That’s hitting the nail on the head; that’s what it’s all about.

 

 

But George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley noted how weak this latest effort was from Special Counsel Jack Smith.

 

Turley agreed with what Baier said, “I think that the indictment does not have this compelling level of evidence.”

 

Turley also ripped into Attorney General Merrick Garland and his statement on the matter, saying that he’s acting like a “pedestrian” rather than truly looking at the case, and saying “Wait, is this all you have?” Turley said this was stretching the law, and it was an indictment that didn’t say enough. He said he thought that this was going to “tarnish his [Garland’s] legacy”—and the legacy of the special counsel.

 

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/08/01/jonathan-turley-and-andy-mccarthy-rip-apart-flawed-nature-of-new-trump-indictment-n786048

[Gregg]

21 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Nothing.  
 

That’s a major reason why I’m not voting for him in the primary no matter what and doing all I can to convince my conservative friends to do the same.   
 

 

The main reasons why it’s ridiculous he’s even running - he’s the most hated man rightly or wrongly - among all the voters we need to get and nothing drives Ds to the polls then to vote against the evils of Trumpism (his tweets, his face, the insults he hurls at opponents or random people he’s mad at); he’d be a lame duck president.  We’ll be doing this all over again in 2028 against an incumbent D because Biden is not running.  
 

I expect Biden to drop out by April of 2024.  

 

I am hoping for DeSantis to be the Republican nominee. Whoever wins for the Republicans I expect they will go up against Newsome. Biden's health will decline even further, or he will be dead. If the VP wasn't such a moron, the Dems probably would have tried to have him step down by now. Instead, they will "Weekend at Bernies" Joe until 2024.

[Roundybout]

Just now, Gregg said:

 

I am hoping for DeSantis to be the Republican nominee. Whoever wins for the Republicans I expect they will go up against Newsome. Biden's health will decline even further, or he will be dead. If the VP wasn't such a moron, the Dems probably would have tried to have him step down by now. Instead, they will "Weekend at Bernies" Joe until 2024.

I don’t think it’ll be Newsome, I don’t think he’s popular enough outside Cali. I’m hoping Jared Polis runs. 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

Turley also ripped into Attorney General Merrick Garland and his statement on the matter, saying that he’s acting like a “pedestrian” rather than truly looking at the case, and saying “Wait, is this all you have?”

So it's come down to this: Turley is arguing that Biden political appointee, AG Merrick Garland, should be MORE involved in the investigations of Trump.

[B-Man]

3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So it's come down to this: Turley is arguing that Biden political appointee, AG Merrick Garland, should be MORE involved in the investigations of Trump.

 

 

He IS saying that Garland should do his job better, and not allow weak charges to be brought, yes.

 

.

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

He IS saying that Garland should do his job better, and not allow weak charges to be brought, yes.

 

.

There is nothing "weak" here. I read it. It is detailed and it obviously foreshadows testimony of certain key witnesses that Trump did not reasonably believe he had won the election, such that his attempts to subvert normal processes were part of a criminal scheme to remain in power without any valid claim to do so.

And if Garland had been in the loop, all Trumpies would be satisfied that everything was kosher? No. There would be a firestorm of protest about a political appointee bringing charges.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

Holding that one in reserve for when the next cycle of bad news for the Bidens hits.

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

There is nothing "weak" here. I read it. It is detailed and it obviously foreshadows testimony of certain key witnesses that Trump did not reasonably believe he had won the election, such that his attempts to subvert normal processes were part of a criminal scheme to remain in power without any valid claim to do so.

And if Garland had been in the loop, all Trumpies would be satisfied that everything was kosher? No. There would be a firestorm of protest about a political appointee bringing charges.

 

Facts just don't matter to these people.

 

You could have Trump telling people that he didn't think he won the election, that the same election theories he was putting out there were crazy nonsense, and they would still believe he won the election. Feelings over facts.

 

No matter what Trump does or says, they will never believe he ever did anything wrong. 

[Tommy Callahan]

3 hours ago, Roundybout said:

…didn’t trump drone strike that Iranian general for no particular reason?

epic.  you must have a true understanding of the leviathan conflicts.

 

 

 

do you also jump up and down when the coffins of service members come home?

 

 

[Big Blitz]

This is why we elected you Elise

 

 

 

My favorite conspiracy (for today at least) is that Trump is working with the Ds on all this as part of some back room deal - he’s never going to prison - just to divide the GOP for 2024.  It’s why he’s running, won’t drop out, won’t endorse, may even run 3rd party if need be.

[BillsFanNC]

And here's how you end up with commie activist judges.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

@Kemp