candide

We know there are many immigrants illegally crossing the channel, and sadly it includes children. But where is your evidence that they have been "allowed" to do so. Suggesting, I guess, that the French authorities had knowingly let children making such a risky trip.

Where is it written that they were "allowed" to sail across the English channel in dinghies?

Source?

Right. Even a mummy would be better than Trump!

FYI "Even Russian-speaking Ukrainians don’t want to be evacuated to Russia or Belarus The research shows that Russian speakers across much of Ukraine identify as Ukrainian" https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/07/ukraine-russian-speakers/

Well, it seems there is at least one topic on which they are united!????

Hmmm. Not sure at all about not breaking international law (see Bluespunk's post). The U.K. government can make any decisions It wants. However, there will likely be consequences. And then it will start again, I.e. It's not UK's fault, the EU is not nice to us, etc...

As usual you are distorting reality. The EC does not hold all powers. It has been explained to you many times but it doesn't fit the Brexiters narrative. Anyway, you now have an "independent" government, mainly composed of Brexiters. So why don't you stop pointing fingers at others, and focus instead on the political accountability you allegedly voted for.

The EC represents the EU's interest (in particular the application of treaties signed by governments) The Council represents the countries (elected governments) The EP represents individual citizen. It seems to be a good balance to me.

Try to ingest an excessive amount of cannabis and then relate your experience to us! ????

There is no such restrictive definition of an insurrection. The courts and the Jan. 16 committee don't accuse them of overtaking the government, no one in this thread claimed that they were going to overtake the government. You are just posting a lame argument over and over.

So to be clear, nobody claimed they "were going to take over the United States Government".

I guess you mean "do not" govern. He's been told at least 100 times but he cannot acknowledge it as it nullifies one of the main Brexiters argument.

What are talking about? Council: composed of elected country governments Commission: selected by council members Parliament: elected

There was a big difference between these two cases. Bush was not particularly supportive of the terrorist organisation. It was only due to his incompetence. There could not be any suspicion that he did it on purpose. That's quite different from Trump who was supportive of the protesters. Actually, he called them to protest (even if he did not literally tell them to storm the Capitol). There is a credible suspicion that he failed to act on purpose. Well, I guess we'll know more about it after the next hearings.

Which Congress members had the power to order security? I could not find any reliable source about it?

Nowonder he never wanted to disclose his tax returns. That would have shown what a fail he is (among other reasons ????)

That would be a case of failure to act. It is the duty of a president to protect the U.S. Constitution and its institutions. On top of it, if it comes up to be the outcome, not only of negligence, but also of common interest with and sympathy for the rioters, it would be an aggravating circumstance.

Well unlike you, "bone spurred" Trump wasn't in Vietnam! ????

You conveniently forget to mention that Russia and its Donbass puppets did not respect the Minsk II agreement. It's a bit complicated to disentangle all the events with occurred. Ukraine may be also at fault, but it is certain that Russia did not respect the agreement.

It makes sense to restrict the amount of THC in food. Ingesting an unknown amount of THC can be very painful and even dangerous. If there is too much THC, once it's inside your body the discomfort lasts for hours. On top of it, some people may be stupid enough to drink alcoholl while eating food containing cannabis. Smoking is safer as you can dose and scale what you smoke.As long as you dont get boozed at the same time.

Well, as usual, Trump made several statements leaning one way or another. There is also the disturbing coincidence of organising a protest near the Capitol and an attempt to overturn the results of elections, using fake electors, etc... as found out by the committee. Finally, on the Capitol events themselves, even if his statements did not explicitly called for storming the Capitol, there may be other charges. The accusation may not be sedition, but failure to act. He did not ask rioters to stop from the start of the assault. Trump waited 2 hours after the assault before telling rioters to leave. There is now an accumulation of evidence (emails, phone data, testimonies) about what Trump did and said during the riot. If the testimonies, and other evidence which are going to be presented, can show that he knew what was happening and failed his presidential duty to protect the constitution, it can be a clear case of failure to act in order to stop the riot, or even of complicity.

If I dare interfere... why should he do that? Aren't you able to do it by yourself instead of having other posters lose their time for meeting your information needs? It seems to be a noticeable trend in this thread.

Right! The broader conspiration may be a bit complex to prove. The Georgia case is more obvious.

He probably had a financial interest in it! However, he forgot that Trump often doesn't pay his suppliers! ???? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/14/trump-refusing-to-pay-rudy-giuliani-legal-fees-after-falling-out On top of it, as he is under trial for defamation, he cannot even retaliate against Trump! To acknowledge Trump was lying would aggravate his case! ????