I wanted to be happy but it's just too depressing

The Steele Dossier was falsified evidence.

 

That was an excellent argument against internet caricatures that would be sure to get you a bunch of likes and thumbs up from like-minded fans of illusions and nonsense narratives, but all you're gonna get from me is an eye roll.

 

That too. But mostly I watched a corrupt Trump, who we all knew was corrupt beforehand(including you unless you lived under a rock up until that point), continue to be corrupt afterwards.

 

What corruption are you referring to?

 

It wasn't meant to be presented as evidence. It was raw intel. Anyway, good thing it had virtually no bearing on Crossfire Hurricane or Mueller's investigation.

 

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_1.pdf

 

I completely believe it, even moreso after reading the indictments. They would need a really biased juror for him not to get convicted.

It's not about hate. The only effect of my dislike for him is I don't feel as bad for him as I normally would somebody in his situation. I'm the kind of person who could never have been a prosecutor had I gone with being a lawyer, only a defense attorney.

 

We're discussing alleged corruption in 2016. Do try to follow along.

Indictments aren't convictions.

 

It was used to obtain a warrant.

 

Indictments aren't proof, no convictions. There's no way you could be a defense attorney...lol

 

if you say the last admin did not try taking land from people for the wall and the pipeline, then so is this fake

 

Considering I didn't go to law school, sure. But I'm successful in the route I took.

Indictments, particularly federal ones, have to have a strong basis. It is true that for it to be official, a conviction is required. I am just saying that the evidence presented in the indictments is really strong. I cannot imagine an adequate defense, but if I were on a jury I would be open to hear the defense's perspective and set aside how I feel about Trump.

 

There's easement on the border that belongs to the government.

It's almost impossible to take someone's land for a pipeline, since the land owners still own and use the land after the pipeline has been built.

Outlaw gas stoves and you can never own a gas stove.

 

Indictments show the evidence that the prosecutor wants the grand jury to see. There's no legal requirement to do otherwise. Hence the old saying, "a grand jury can indict a ham sammich".

 

Yes, it's only one side of the story. But how compelling it is can vary. Will you change your tune when and if he gets convicted, or will you then start attacking the jury?

When I said I could only have been a defense attorney, I was mostly referring to that I do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and not want to see people punished. I would much rather they learn and not do it again. I understand that sometimes people need to be put away to protect others, but it's not something I would feel good about being a part of.

Prosecutors, in contrast, are out for blood. Think Nancy Grace. That's the opposite of me.

 

no one is outlawing gas stoves

 

Ah - we're going back there. I missed the part about his campaign.

What about these four indictments...any falsified evidence there?

 

I'm referring to evidence of criminal activity. Do try to follow along.

 

The warrant would have been obtained without it.

‘Corroboration Zero’: An Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke
The report throws water on one “deep state” conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, but validates complaints about “fake news”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...t-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/

 

Then why did they use falsified evidence and commit perjury if they didn't need to?

 

You posted links to the indictments.

 

Not yet. I proved the Democrats want to.

Look, I'll do it again...

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article276484221.html

 

I didn't say "anyone but Manchin", because other Dem moderates might rise. Skeptical? Most of my votes have gone to Republicans.

Of course I will not vote for inmate P01135809.

 

Wow! All at once the progressive is worried about property rights!

Which would you prefer. A wall, and lose a little land, that would keep the illegals away from your property or letting them come in and damage and destroy your fences if your are cattle rancher, and perhaps break into your house? Yes, I know, all of the illegals are quality people, even the MS-13 members with tattoos all over their faces. As Nancy Pelosi said, "They are God's children" ... until one of them broke into her house and fractured her husband's skull.

I guess taking away property is okay if a progressive does it but not a conservative.

 

If you are such a big Republican voter, I would expect to see some more moderation in your posts. Probably 98% of your posts agree with the progressives. The only time you sound moderate is when you say you would vote for John Kasich, Joe Mansion or Mitt Romney. And why to you mock out "Uncle Sam" by depicting him as Alfred E Newman, the Mad Magazine mascot? It's disrespectful if you really are a moderate.

You precious little Kasich was a long time commentator on Fox News who said a lot of conservative stuff that you would not have liked. In 2016 his presidential primary campaign was finished when the Florida primate rolled around. Yet he stayed in the race and split the anti-Trump vote in that primary, which gave Trump a big boost. If there had been a straight up vote, it would have been between Trump and Ted Cruz. I know you hate Cruz, so what Kasich did was probably okay with you. I voted for Cruz, not Trump in that primary although Trump had a huge advantage at that point. I have never been a big Trump supporter.