Chomper Higgot

Perhaps you provide evidence to back up what it is you say you know.

Does that feel better now?

I see a different outcome. The rule of law reaffirmed, and nobody above the law.

We can observe for ourselves the level of blind obedience to Trump present amongst his supporters. The DOJ have very good reason to ensure they are absolutely sure of their case before asking a Grand Jury to indict. Added to which: Having found documents to be missing, the DOJ (and national security services) are surely investigating very serious risks to national security and perhaps crimes associated with those risks.

I have zero expectation that people who are still supporting Trump will accept any indictment he might face. If Trump is sent to trial, they’ll not accept that either. And if Trump is convicted at trial, well of course that won’t be accepted either.

If it were a forced entry Trump would have plaster photos of broken locks and smashed doors all over his failing social media messaging service. There was no forced entry, there was no need for forced entry, the FEDs had a lawfully issued search warrant they had a right of entry. No evidence of ‘forced entry’ has been produced.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with that post.

Trump was impeached (twice), he just wasn’t convicted.

Four of those years he was beyond the reach of law being protected by a corrupt USAG. He’s no longer free from prosecution. Justice is coming.

They did not ‘force their way in’. They lawfully executed a lawful search under a lawfully issued search warrant.

I would expect they have itemized documents but not stated the contents of the documents. Charges take time, Trump’s request for a special master slowed things down. From my own point of view, I’d love to see Trump indicted and sent to trial - I want it to happen - but I’m chilled, I’d much rather the DOJ took the time to build a water tight case than see them rush a case through that hasn’t been thoroughly checked and double checked. Chill, Justice is coming.

Not an argument that they should release the findings of their investigation until they indict.

Perhaps the DOJ would rather not tell the target of their investigation what they have in him until they bring charges.

I didn’t ignore it, I asked the question you asked. If you don’t like the answer don’t ask the question.

I was answering the question you asked.

Trump did suggest ‘bringing light inside of peoples bodies’. There are only so many available orifices.

Can you be a bit more specific. Which treaty obligations are you referring to? Your linked article gives no clues.

We’ll discuss again when the courts intervene.

Recognize this announcement for what it is. The Government are in trouble, they need a distraction.

You do realize that the treaties on human rights are included as requirements within almost every other treaty the UK is signed up to? The UK can’t just abandon its treaty obligations without serious consequences.

Making reference to my post, identify a ‘contradiction’ and I’ll address it for you.

You’ve addressed two different members in the same post with comments that can not possibly apply to both.

I wonder if she’s checked what the International Treaties the UK is bound by have to say about this latest ‘scheme’.

You clearly do not understand that raising the zero tax allowance gives a single flat rate tax reduction to all who pay income tax, regardless of how much they earn above the revised ‘zero tax allowance’.

Putting aside your facetious humour, raising the tax free allowance would have given very direct help to those on low incomes and would have avoided handing large tax breaks to the wealthy. All earners would receive the same assistance. But of course that would not have handed large sums to the already wealthy.