Just buffoonery, or something worse?

We're use to it after democrats did it for years over DJT.

 

My eyes have seen the glory...............

 

Challenging a law's constitutionality is in no way illegal.

 

When I saw that you posted a link I was hoping it was provided to substantiate your claims. I should have known better. Make your case............if you can.

 

I think it's "Mine eyes have seen the glory.............'

 

I already did and you declared it nothing but noises you didn't want to hear. We can stop here or you can take the last word.

 

Yes it is, thank you so much. You hear it too?

 

1 Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

Refrain:
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

 

I must have missed the link substantiating this...Who is the "Big Guy" and what did he do for Hunter to collect 10% for him?

Please post it again.

 

That isn't what the Eastman memo did. https://www.thedailybeast.com/jan-6...d-trumps-pressure-campaign-against-mike-pence

 

This is where you show your hyper-partisan stripes. Name one congressional investigation launched by Dems in to Trump that was unwarranted.

 

Hunter Biden's business partner has said Joe Biden is the "Big Guy" and received a 10% cut. He says he will swear to it under oath. The only reason it hasn't gone anywhere is because of the DoJ not wanting to advance it. It's not a matter of a lack of evidence. It's a matter of a lack of desire to prosecute.

On top of that he very obviously lied to obtain a firearm which is a felony.

 

The guy in charge of the investigation is a Trump appointee kept on by Garland/Biden. There have been no credible accusations of DoJ interference in the investigation.

 

Dissecting GOP claims about Hunter Biden deals allegedly involving his father

James Gilliar, a business associate summarizing the allocation of the equity in Oneida Holdings LLC., in the email, wrote how four partners would get 20 percent each, except for Jim Biden, who would get 10 percent. He added a question: “10 held by H for the big guy?” One of the recipients of the mail, Anthony Bobulinski, has said that the “big guy” referred to Joe Biden and that “H” referred to Hunter. Bobulinski was a guest of Trump at one of the 2020 presidential debates.

But Gilliar told the Wall Street Journal in 2020: “I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure. I am unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.”

Three days after the email was sent, a draft agreement setting up Oneida was circulated. It shows each partner would receive 20 percent, including Jim Biden. No mention is made of Joe Biden. The company agreement signed on May 22, 2017, had the same allocation. Oneida was to hold 50 percent of another corporate entity called SinoHawk. Neither Gilliar nor James Biden responded to requests for comment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...r-biden-deals-allegedly-involving-his-father/

The allegations are just noise.

 

I mean, he’s right that indicting Trump for this literally trumped up (pun intended) charge is only going to galvanize his base. The hush money scheme is the least serious of his crimes. When indictments come down for his more serious crimes, people will take them less seriously because of this one.

I’m no fan of The orange lardtard. But I don’t want to play into his “I am the victim” narrative. And this lame ass charge does exactly that. Do I think it’s bad that Trump paid a pornstar to keep quite about his past affair? Yes. Do I think it’s worse that he tried to intimidate election officials in Georgia to find votes for him? Hell yes. Do I think that Americans (particularly Trumpers) are stupid enough to think the latter crime is made up if brought after the former crime. Absolutely yes.

Nobody is above the law. But when prosecuting the former president, the court of public opinion matters a lot.

 

It's not "snarkiness" to point out the use of a paywall opinion piece.

Okay, don't support your arguments with sources we can all see without having to line someone's pocket.

 

The court of public opinion is the purpose of this mess. It's the only court they can get a conviction in and that's all that matters.

 

Do you mean the porn star hush money charge, the impending charge for intimidating election officials in Georgia, or all the above? Cause if you think Trump is innocent just because he’s Trump then my only response is

 

I asked you a question, after you complained about the paywall. Then I took the time to find another source for you. I get that you most likely didn’t see the edit of my post, but that doesn’t excuse you. You’ve confirmed your disinterest.

 

They've made no secret of their intent to use their legislative positions to gain control of all aspects of government. The good news is that they're dumber than a bag of rocks and their success will possibly be thwarted by their own stupidity. Amusingly, these folks are also largely the same ones that have armed the population to the brim, and this includes folks like the NFAC. I'm planning to build a rebar reinforced concrete bunker complex down in Alvin full of flatscreens and a popcorn machine to watch this all playout should I live into my 80s or 90s. Greg Abbott has personally assured me of private subsidies to help with the expenses, provided I remain out of the sunlight to keep the melatonin content of my skin to a minimum. It's all about goals and the necessary sacrifices to achieve them. I just hope I have enough time to get everything ready, hahaha....

Alas, there is our disagreement regarding the left's role in this stuff, like regulating CO2 as a threat to the planet. Meh, the real danger there is that organic reserves will run out sooner rather than later and when the spacing guild runs out of the spice, unless we can figure out the tech that powers these UFOs, it's game over man. Hahaha.....

https://www.ranker.com/list/ways-idiocracy-has-come-true/mike-rothschild

 

That's always your response.

 

He does and that's important. Trump negatives appear baked in and way too high.

 

I see. Those were warranted, but this is not. What's that about hyper-partisan stripes, you say? I never said Trump's were unwarranted; what I was responding to was this descriptive hyperbole: "House and Senate hearings with self-righteous, grandstanding pols creating sound bites to propagandize their constituents." It's what they (both sides) do.

 

Whenever I'm told that an answer was given by someone, I assume that I missed it. I know it's possible that I did and feel it's my obligation to retrace the posts to confirm it. I don't waste the poster's time having to retrace their steps and do a C&P to save myself some time. Your question suggests you didn't miss it, and are using this opportunity to waste my time.

 

I don't give a rat's butt how an indictment by Bragg's office will affect the way people view subsequent indictments. IMO, there is far too much focus on that aspect of Trump's potential prosecution. I care about the enforcement of the rule of law.
Having said that, I find myself, surprisingly, in agreement with this author's perspective.

The Potential Trump Indictment Isn’t Frivolous, but It Is Unwise
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/26/opinion/trump-indictment-skeptical-case.html