Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

• Up to 5 categories at a time
  
• As often as you'd like
  
• (Change your vote anytime)
  

Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign launch on Twitter Spaces was hyped by Elon Musk as “groundbreaking”, and extensively advertised as a new frontier for “free speech” in politics. Instead, the results were a disaster.

Trump won't make it anyway (his witch hunt lawsuits will catch up with him).

What will you say, if and when Trump is elected to the presidency in '24?

Still, the facts speak for themselves and could be pursued if wanted. Unfortunately you do not do facts at all and prosecutors do not want to pursue them for other reasons

Given the foregoing, and viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Crossfire
Hurricane investigators, it seems highly likely that, at a minimum, confirmation bias played a
significant role in the FBI's acceptance of extraordinarily serious allegations derived from
uncorroborated information that had not been subjected to the typical exacting analysis employed
by the FBI and other members of the Intelligence Community. In short, it is the Office's
assessment that the FBI discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support
the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia. Similarly, the FBI
Inspection Division Report says that the investigators "repeatedly ignore[ d] or explain[ ed] away
evidence contrary to the theory the Trump campaign ... had conspired with Russia .... It
appeared that ... there was a pattern of assuming nefarious intent." [note 1749] An objective and
honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not
only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being
manipulated for political or other purposes. Unfortunately, it did not.
[bold added]

Remember that Hillary got more popular votes than Trump! Oh, I forgot already, you do not do facts. My bad.

Durham pursued the facts.

Of what importance is the popular vote?

100% false. Everything that Durham has taken to court has failed, which is a rare achievement for such reports.

Conducting this investigation required us to consider U.S. criminal laws, the
Constitutional protections our system provides to individuals, and the high burden placed on the
government to prove every element of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, the law
does not always make a person's bad judgment, even horribly bad judgment, standing alone, a
crime. Nor does the law criminalize all unseemly or unethical conduct that political campaigns
might undertake for tactical advantage, absent a violation of a particular federal criminal statute.
Finally, in almost all cases, the government is required to prove a person's actual criminal intent
- not mere negligence or recklessness- before that person's fellow citizens can lawfully find
him or her guilty of a crime. The Office's adherence to these principles explains, in numerous
instances, why conduct deserving of censure or disciplinary action did not lead the Office to seek
criminal charges.

The establishment needs to time one of the several available options correctly to take Trump off the race. They will.

The Select Committee has referred Donald Trump and others for possible prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2383, including for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.

Quote from: p. 690 The Select Committee has referred Donald Trump and others for possible prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2383, including for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.

But there's still "Russian Collusion"! Ask Rep. Adam Schiff, late chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence: He's seen the evidence! (He's been saying so for years...)

"Stormy" Daniels has, to date, paid upwards of $5m to Trump in legal fees. (Remember: Her original lawyer is serving a prison sentence...)

You are right, ersi, that the establishment will do everything it can to prevent a Trump second term.
But to no avail, I predict.

A few honest questions:
- How is it unclear that Trump is a criminal regarding to e.g. business fraud, tax evasion, election rigging, and insurrection? What kind of proof (besides a court conviction) would convince you? You don't believe your own eyes, so what do you believe?
- Why are you so eager to have a criminal lead the country?

What business fraud do you refer to? Over-valuing his properties in loan applications, perhaps? You know, better than I, that no bank tenders a loan without doing its own estimation of value of collateral offered.

Tax evasion? You mean not paying more in taxes than required by law? At any rate, tax evasion -as you term it- is not a crime.

Election rigging? You apparently think the word "find" is a synonym for "fabricate"... In your world, that may be so! (In which case, I'd ask when Al Gore will be getting out? )

Insurrection? Ask Nancy Pelosi about that...

You seriously ask why I'm eager to have a criminal run my country? Have you heard of Joseph Robinette Biden?

Yeah, I'd kinda like to see actual evidence and a conviction following a fair trial... (These concepts may be foreign, to you. Or are they just superfluous, when you don't like someone?)

You denounce any and all Democrats simply because they are Democrats.

¹ Trump was a boy scout, in comparison! But on the bright side: Kids got the new word "Lewinski"...↵

² Including manslaughter...↵

As FBI Director Comey said: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." Ya can't, ya just can't prosecute a Clinton!

(Perhaps you'd like a similar list of Republicans from me? )

One thing comes close to a crime though:

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2023-05-30, 00:58:31

As FBI Director Comey said: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." Ya can't, ya just can't prosecute a Clinton!

Are you pretending to be outraged over this?

Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.

(source)

¹ Aha! Finally, the perfect instance to use my peculiar combination of punctuation and emoticon!↵

² How's that for "election interference," my friend? ↵

Barack and Hillary were both guilty; for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18), for obstruction of justice, and (You'll like this one the best:) Surely a "high crime and misdemeanor"!

Instead of being prosecuted [of obstruction of justice] in the appropriate venues, they were turned loose to concoct and promote The Russian Collusion Hoax™...

Am I outraged by this? You bet I am.

I'm quite sure, ersi, that you believe "Watergate" was a serious crime! But that's because you're not a serious person. Nixon's sin in that fiasco was his loyalty to hapless underlings.

You're right, I mostly think in terms of policy and perfidy, when it comes to their "crimes"... Would you have had Britain do without Churchill during WW II — had he been a kleptomaniac? (Actually, I suspect you would. Like I said before: You're not a serious person.)

Whenever we talk about American politics or American influence, I have to remind myself that you wish my nation -if not actual ill- at least a comeuppance and eventual but permanent fall from prominence on the world stage.

So here we have it. When it comes to Democrats, your standard is: Guilty if suspicious.

(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(source)

I'd like to continue this... But your ability to ignore reality and accept Democrat Party narratives as Gospel makes that a pointless endeavor!