Trump is reindicted.

[We Never Know]

Yes as we have indicated numerous times, that is part of the fallout from the Trump supreme court's idiotic ruling, he could also just order someone to shoot Trump. It really is an irrelevant question, do you not understand why?

It is relevant. If Trump could do it, so could Biden.
That is the point.

 

[We Never Know]

I can't say it any more clear, so why go on? But......
Constitutionally
Legally
Ethically
NO -- but when has any of that stopped Trump?

We're good if its clear he couldn't.

Also Garland is a dem appointed by Biden so there is no way he would do what Trump wants IMO.

 

[F1fan]

It is relevant. If Trump could do it, so could Biden.
That is the point.

Just like you could get an AR15 and shoot up a school. That's your point. It's not that you wouldn't, it's that you could, yes?

Don't feel bad, I could shoot up a school or church or concert as well. Most all of us could do it. But that's not the point of wo we trsut in society, it is who has the character to be trusted. We trust Biden to not abuse his power, and he hasn't. We can't trust Trump, because he's tried to abuse his power already, and has learned what to do next time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't care what you are.

We both know you do or you wouldn't have tried to paint me as a Democrat.

Vigers don't vote for the vp. She was selected strictly because of her genitals and her pigmentation by deluded racist old man.

Not sure what "vigers" are, but I know that Kamala Harris was on the Democratic ticket last time, as VP to a rather old man.

You should read and respond to the words people actually write, rather than some thing you wished they'd said.

When she ran for president she couldn't get one delegate. Yeah they hired for her alright. You make up this level delusion.

Whelp, she's got all the delegates now.

The fact that it seems to burn the backsides of Republicans so much, is an indication to me that the Dems have done something right for a change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'll ask you again, do you see any potential problems with someone or some entity deciding for you what you can and cannot see?

Do you think you have the right to "see" whatever you like on Facebook?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The you better make sure you cheat extra good this time.

The ones who tried to cheat were all on the Trump team.
I'm not holding my breath that they won't try it again this time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is a very fine point. Kamala has roared ahead on a wave a positive energy and emotions. It's the total opposite of Trump's fear, hatred and self-pity. And it's very old and well known knowledge that misery loves company. The Dems are riding that, and all Trump supporters wanna hear from Trump is the fear, hatred and permission to have very large amounts of self pity. They need other's to hate queers and fear immigrants just like they do, they can't stand the Democratic campaign went from dead in the water to getting a sudden blast that made people happy. They need to be afraid and angry like their own bleach white demograph.

Exactly. Well said!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Im happy to address them. They are irrelevant to who should be president. Id vote for my dog before id vote for the Kamal/tampon ticket. The policies of them left can be summed up quite succinctly: "Orange man bad!" and thats precisely all your above post was about.

But I'm a reasonable guy so make your best argument right now for why I should vote for the Kamal/tampon team which doesnt include "Orange man bad".

It's more like "orange man sexually assaults women and is a convicted fraud and felon."

Then we wonder how any person on earth could support such filth. But I get it now - you do it via cognitive dissonance. And then imagine the other side is worse, even though you can't articulate why. I can't think of much worse than rapist ... but you do you, boo. You guys are really showing us your true colours.

 

[Wandering Monk]

In the Trump's election interference case he has been reindicted taking in the corrupt USSC's attempt to make him immune from prosecution:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-brings-new-indictment-against-trump-election-subversion-case-2024-08-27/

It is the same case, the same charges, but they are dropping minor parts of the case where he could have supposedly claimed he was immune from those actions. This had to be done due to the USSC court ruling and it takes that into account. And now that Judge Cannon foolishly dismissed the Mar a Lago documents case (and that action is being appealed) it vacated the case from the docket and Smith can go forward with this case. As a result evidentiary hearings are apt to be publicly held before the case goes to trial. That this is happening during the election season is Trump's own doing. If he had not continually opposed the cases they would have been over by now. He has no grounds for complaint when it comes to the timing of the resurfacing of this case.

The attorneys that seem most informed on this seem to think that there will be no public evidentiary hearing. I am referring to Michael Popok, Karen Friedman Agniffilo, and Harry Litmann.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That was never a thing. You cannot be tried twice for the same crime. And even then there are exceptions. For example you have heard of a "hung jury" I assume. When a jury cannot decide a mistrial is often declared. If that happens the prosecution is free to bring up exactly the same charges again.

A person cannot be tried, found not guilty, and then charged for the same crime again.

Double jeopardy doesn't attach until a jury is seated. It was never seated in the Florida documents case under Aileen Cannon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Double jeopardy doesn't attach until a jury is seated. It was never seated in the Florida documents case under Aileen Cannon.

Yes, Cannon messed up. She could have ended the trial if she let it get to the point of a jury being seated and then declared a mistrial for some bogus reason. Even if the reason was terrible, as it was for her present dismissal, it could not have been appealed.

 

[We Never Know]

Just like you could get an AR15 and shoot up a school. That's your point. It's not that you wouldn't, it's that you could, yes?

Don't feel bad, I could shoot up a school or church or concert as well. Most all of us could do it. But that's not the point of wo we trsut in society, it is who has the character to be trusted. We trust Biden to not abuse his power, and he hasn't. We can't trust Trump, because he's tried to abuse his power already, and has learned what to do next time.

Lol. Good to see you would rather give a silly rant rather than just admit if Trump could do it as you claim, then Biden could to.

 

[Copernicus]

It is relevant. If Trump could do it, so could Biden.
That is the point.

That may be your point, but it isn't one that anyone has disputed, is it? The point under dispute is whether Biden or Trump would be likely to commit an illegal "official" act. Most of us think that Trump would be far more likely than Biden to do that, since Trump has already been convicted of illegal behavior by unanimous juries. The Supreme Court statement on immunity was extremely muddled, because it did not set a legal standard for what an "official act" is, leaving it up to presidents to use their imaginations. Trump's imagination seems considerably more flexible than Biden's on that score, and Trump likely believes, as do most commentators, that the SCOTUS directive was constructed with him in mind. Lower courts will now have to try to figure out a way to interpret what was in the mind of the conservative SCOTUS majority, and I suspect that even that majority doesn't know. They just wanted to throw that monkey wrench into the trials of their favorite candidate for President.

 

[We Never Know]

That may be your point, but it isn't one that anyone has disputed, is it? The point under dispute is whether Biden or Trump would be likely to commit an illegal "official" act. Most of us think that Trump would be far more likely than Biden to do that, since Trump has already been convicted of illegal behavior by unanimous juries. The Supreme Court statement on immunity was extremely muddled, because it did not set a legal standard for what an "official act" is, leaving it up to presidents to use their imaginations. Trump's imagination seems considerably more flexible than Biden's on that score, and Trump likely believes, as do most commentators, that the SCOTUS directive was constructed with him in mind.

It never was whether Trump or Biden, either or, etc.

It was claimed Trump could(and in one post would).

I asked if Trump could do that then Biden could too correct.

That simple question, instead of just saying 'yes Biden could' seemed to send some into a tail spin which is pretty hilarious.

 

[Copernicus]

It never was whether Trump or Biden, either or, etc.

It was claimed Trump could(and in one post would).

I asked if Trump could do that then Biden could too correct.

That simple question, instead of just saying 'yes Biden could' seemed to send some into a tail spin which is pretty hilarious.

Well, lots of people laugh at their own jokes when they fall flat. Your question was fatuous, because nobody disagrees that Biden could do the same now.

The disagreement is over whether Trump would. That is the real question, and you seem evasive on answering that one. So you focus on your fatuous question as a distraction from the real question and declare it hilarious that everyone gets upset over your evasiveness.

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bidens ethical that's why his administration pressured Facebook and likely others to censor content on their platforms. I'm pretty sure thats a hallmark of ethical.

Ethical for left wing socialist sympathizers for sure. The Hallmark for the CPUSA.

The vaccine: Misinformation and mandates

COVID-19 cases are surging throughout the United States, particularly in the South and Northwest. Hospitals are under heavy strain from the rapid rise in cases. Staff shortages, lack of available ICU beds, and dwindling resources exacerbate the problem.

www.cpusa.org