Chomper Higgot

It’s Juries that decide, not paid pundits.

Once again you misrepresent the facts of the case. Refer the indictment handed down by the Grand Jury.

You might recover some credibility. You state my post was nonsense and you respond to another member telling him “I can actually calculate the consequences”. So quit with your impression of a pigeon playing chess and deliver on these claimed actuary skills of yours.

Remind me. Who holds the majority?

Apply your actuary skills and explain why. Give it your best go.

I’ll see your ‘looking at watch’ and raise you a ‘suckers’: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna118543

You might want to have another look: “During his remarks, Biden drew a contrast between the military service of his family and Trump's inflammatory rhetoric about military members, such as Trump's calling fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers," according to a report in The Atlantic. Trump denied making those remarks.”

Or so you tell us. A more rational explanation is they recognize the conspiracy addled head of RFK as being the family nut job. I’m told all families have one.

And against RFK !

I think it’s only worth deferring your state pension if you are still working past pension age and particularly if you pay higher rate income tax, or would do if your pension is included. Of course personal circumstances vary.

It seems his family disagree: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/kennedy-family-endorse-biden

Read the indictment. Your opinion matters zilch, it’s what’s in the indictment handed down by the Grand Jury.

You need to contact the Defendant’s legal team, they seem not to have spotted what you think you’ve spotted.

Yet more misrepresentation of reality.

Because, and this ought not be too difficult for you to grasp, I have absolutely no connection to anyone within the Iranian Government or their military. So while I think the question is deserving of an answer I make no claim to have the answer.

But the attack was not conducted by the Iranian military. It’s a false equivalence. However, it was also 1992. Given your objection to earlier terrorist events/history can you please advise the cut-off date for what’s permitted for consideration and what is not?

For sure you’d start to realize why it’s a really bad idea for Defendant Trump to take the stand.

Which is a question deserving of an answer.

Link.

The attack on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina was an act of terrorism. It was not an attack by Iranian Military against an Israeli Embassy.

Any updates on this claim of illegality?

No they are not. The term ‘Iranian backed’ is a clue.

Was it an Iranian Consulate?

I doubt they both agree on what those people were doing in the Consulate I doubt very much Iran accepts they were terrorists. They were however in an Iranian Consulate. So the attack was a direct attack on Iran.

There is a significant difference between ‘Iran backed Hezbollah’ and an ‘Iranian Consulate’. One is an extra-sovereign organisation the other is part of the Iranian state.