Chomper Higgot

Wedging your Sadiq Khan fixation into the topic Jonny. He’s the thrice elected, with increasing popularity, mayor of London, nothing to do with Malmo whatsoever. However, I do accept he does follow you around topics you post on, regardless of what the topic might be.

It’s not the topic of discussion. Just an example of how some folks just can’t stay off their hate mongering.

Once again we are seeing expressions of hatred in this thread from the usual sources.

Josh Levs gives us a perfect example of how this works. Israel wages war in Gaza killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Flood the media with talk of antisemitism. Just count the articles.

Arguably the most glaring false equivalence I’ve read on here in a long time.

I’d go easy on religious heritage of hate and terror if I were you., it might give rise to examination of who holds the trophy on that. But thank you, you have said the quiet bit out loud. There is a clear link between those supporting the ongoing carnage in Gaza and their own post history on Muslims and Islam. You’ve given us an example.

I said at the very start of this war that we are soon to learn how many eyes for an eye and teeth for a tooth.

What like racially abusing and sexually harassing people?

There’s a lot of anxiety driven anger coming from the Defendant ’s supporters in this thread. Chill guys, if you really believe the Defendant will be acquitted you’ve no need for all the histrionics .

Stormy Daniels isn’t the defendant, the real defendant’s legal team have been given the opportunity to question her testimony. Does Hope Hicks hate the Defendant? She certainly stuck the knife right in.

I doubt very much Daniels is the first witness in a criminal trial who hates the defendant. I’d go as far as to say it’s probable not at all unusual.

That aged well: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/08/marjorie-taylor-greene-speaker-mike-johnson-motion-to-vacate

Frontal lobe?

Stormy Daniels has provided evidence of motive. Had she not testified Trump’s defense team would argue the alleged cover-up is a fabrication on the grounds that nothing has been shown that needed covering up.

I’m absolutely certain you won’t accept the verdict if he is.

Feel free to point out examples of me using offensive language. I don’t need to denigrate any of the witnesses or the defendant.

That’s not entirely true. Defense lawyers exposing a Prosecution witness lying under oath is a very effective means of destroying the case against their client.

It’s a possibility. If possible I’ll watch the verdict announced on FOX. I think it’s a fair balance between the risk of disappointment and the reward of an exquisitely enjoyable FOX reaction.

I don’t mind waiting at all and feel absolutely no urge to prejudge his testimony before he’s even sworn in.

She’s awful keen for Jack Smith to file for her recusal.

Is Hilary receiving free accommodation in your head a permissible campaign contribution I wonder?

This lady’s and gentlemen is the alternate universe Trump supporters inhabit.

There are only twelve opinions that matter.

I see you’ve gone full blown whataboutary.

But of course once the witness is sworn in, on the stand and speaking any attempt to prevent her giving a ‘truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’, might wander into the realms of witness interference. Daniels is reported to have been speaking at pace, and perhaps has a different idea of what constitutes ‘too much detail’ than do others.