LosLobo

If Goat had any Muslim friends, he would know 'sook san deuuan raawm daawn'.

What I consider important is that: 'The special counsel, Robert Hur, found evidence that President Joe Biden mishandled classified documents but didn’t pursue criminal charges, saying the evidence did not establish Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt'. This is in complete contrast to Trump where there was more than enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to pursue an indictment on 40 criminal charges. Also, Butler Trump's employee 5 was literally moving boxes of classified documents out of the back door of Mar-a-Lago to fly to New Jersey, while Trump's attorneys were meeting with the FBI, at the front. I suggest that this is more than obstruction but tantamount to larceny. PolitiFact | Biden won’t be charged in classified documents case, but special counsel report questions his memory

This is part of GOP's rebuttal of Biden's SOTU interlaced with SNL's parody...

Beside the denial of Trump's witch-hunt rhetoric, there were another two take-aways from the interview that I found interesting. One was when Butler was asked who had access to the room where the classified documents were stored, he replied "feasibly, at night anyone could'. The other was when he was privy to a conversation with Australian Billionaire Anthony Pratt and that Pratt paid a million dollars for Trump's private access where Trump gave him classified secrets about US and Russian submarines.

I suggest that this guy is not a traitor as he was completely unaware of what he was transporting to the airport. The following video gives a better insight into his character and innocence. Detailed interview ‘Trump Employee 5,’ who unknowingly helped move classified documents.

Trump to get intelligence briefings despite documents trial In a few days, Trump will clinch the GOP nomination and then he will be invited to Classified National Security Intelligence Briefings again. Trump to get intelligence briefings despite classified documents criminal trial (nbcnews.com)

Employee 5 gives interview on moving documents to New Jersey to avoid FBI discovery....

Both your post and the article are misleading and are disingenuous. Here are the facts: 'The program was a secret whose details were discovered by an outside group. (False) The program allowed unvetted aliens to enter the United States. (False) The U.S. government admitted that the program was a national-security risk. (False) Such a program could affect U.S. politics by altering voter demographics. (False)' Did Biden Secretly Fly 320K Unvetted Migrants to American Airports in 2023? | Snopes.com

I thought you were 'making it up' but I didn't want to shame you.

How is your post relevant to my question? 'Where does Mace say or infer that she doesn't believe Carroll'. Paradoxically, Mace goes on and tries to shame Carroll without any mention of believing her or not, with: "And quite frankly, E. Jean Carroll's comments when she did get the judgment," Mace continued.....makes it harder for women to come forward when they make a mockery of rape".

I suggest, the title of the link and the article is misleading and disingenuous. It is just the opinion of Mississippi Republican Michael Watson who 'says the Biden executive order creates 'numerous opportunities' for ineligible voters to vote', without any real evidence that it has actually been attempted or happened. Interestingly, in the article there is another link to another article : Nonpartisan watchdog releases report outlining top election security threats for 2024: 'A lot can go sideways'. One of the main recommendations of the watchdog is to 'investigate and prosecute election crimes'. I can only suggest Jack be nimble...... Nonpartisan watchdog releases report outlining top election security threats for 2024: 'A lot can go sideways' | Fox News

You seem to have a benevolent approach to Murdoch, MagaWorld's Chief of Media Propaganda. Interesting he will be marrying soon into the family of one a Putin's oligarchs. Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch gets engaged to Elena Zhukova - BBC News Secret $40m deal links Abramovich to Putin's 'wallets’ - BBC News

What does 'imop' mean? Doesn't seem to be a widely recognised acronym such as IMO or IMHO.

In that Oscar rant, he also attacked George Stephanopoulos, obviously in retribution for a recent interview with Nancy Mace about Trump being found liable for rape in the Carroll case.

Where does Mace say or infer that she doesn't believe Carroll. Yet, you seem to be accusing Carroll of 'making things up'. That's settled, 'judges and two separate juries have found Trump liable for rape'.

Summary of reasons for Trump's Appeal: Exclusion of Evidence: The defense argues that the court wrongly excluded evidence relevant to establishing common-law malice, which is a necessary element for defamation claims. They assert that ill will must be the speaker’s exclusive motive, and the court’s exclusion of President Trump’s testimony about his state of mind was erroneous. Jury Instructions: The memorandum claims that the jury was incorrectly instructed on the concept of common-law malice, which prejudiced the jury against Trump. Additionally, it is argued that the jury received an erroneous instruction on the burden of proof. Compensatory Damages: Trump’s legal team contends that the $7.3 million compensatory award should be remitted because it is excessive and deviates materially from reasonable compensation. Punitive Damages: The defense argues that the $65 million punitive damages award must be remitted, suggesting that a one-to-one ratio of punitive to compensatory damages should apply, and that the awarded amount is disproportionately high compared to similar case. Docket trump-ejean-carroll-new-trial-motion-sdny.pdf (courthousenews.com)

So far, this 'win win' strategy has resulted in losing half a billion dollars. Let this 'lucky streak' continue in the criminal cases!

Ex WH doctor and serial liar Ronnie 'Candyman' Jackson, who likely ran the biggest illegal drug operation in prescription drugs in DC, 'drank alcohol and took the sleeping pill Ambien while on the job'. He even crashed a government vehicle while drunk. Ronnie himself was very unlikely to be able to pass the Montreal Cognitive Test, let alone being able to reliably conduct one on Trump. Ex-White House doctor known as the ‘candyman’ dispensed pills without prescriptions (yahoo.com) Navy demoted Ronny Jackson after damning report on White House conduct | The Hill White House Medical Unit’s ‘severe and systemic’ drug problems detailed - The Washington Post (archive.md) Ronny Jackson Was Quietly Demoted After DOD Investigation: Report (rollingstone.com)

Your aspiration of being Superman as with Trump might be problematic. 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way' would seem to conflict with MagaWorld's core values.

Seems that $400 million claim was made under oath, possibly if that statement was proven to be untrue some additional legal jeopardy might be forthcoming.

I do understand from the OP that the thread is also about contrasting Biden to Trump and their attitudes to dictators. Seems the OP has mischaracterised Trump as a 'strongman' in light of his proven fawning and weak-kneed-ness with Putin et alia. Obviously by yesterday's SOTU performance of direct confrontation with dictator Putin and wannabee Trump, Biden is the real 'strongman'.

Your post again is a mixed salad of 'ad hominem', 'strawman' and 'appeal to emotion' illogical statements. Seems critical thinking is not part of MagaWorld. I would suggest what is 'forking creepy' is fawning Trump going 'weak at the knees' when he meets authoritarian dictators like Putin, Un, Xi and Orban, obviously displaying his 'father complex' from non-loving authoritarian father Fred Snr. Australian Ex PM Malcolm Turnbull said, 'Trump's behavior around Putin was "really creepy" and "struck everybody" at the time. The creepiness was palpable.' Ex-Prime Minister Issues Warning on Trump: 'Creepy' (newsweek.com)

Amazing how someone can squeeze so many logical fallacies into so little words. What an illogical fruit salad: 1) Hasty Generalization: This is when someone makes a sweeping statement without considering all of the facts. The claim that Biden “always” scowls and squints his eyes is a generalization. While it’s true that Biden often squints, which could be due to his childhood stutter or his age, it’s not accurate to say he “always” does so. His facial expressions vary depending on the context, just like anyone else. 2) Ad Hominem: This is when someone attacks the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself. The statement that it’s “painful listening to Joe talk” is a personal attack on Biden’s speech style, rather than a critique of the content of his speeches. 3) Non Sequitur: This is when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The statement implies that because Biden scowls and squints, his speeches are painful to listen to. However, one’s facial expressions do not necessarily determine the quality of their speech. Have you ever considered separating your personal feelings about a speaker from the content of their speech. It’s possible to disagree with someone’s ideas without resorting to personal attacks or generalizations.

Triathlon ironman Jack Smith is still in the race......

Well done, good post. You may have learnt something researching the Sixth Amendment and The Bill of Rights, though it seems not enough. I did not say that the “State has the right to expedite a trial to fit an election cycle” was in the Sixth Amendment. You were the one who said “Jack Smith tried to circumvent normal judicial protocol to fit the election cycle”, obviously another one of your fishy red herring logical fallacies. You are mistaken about the Bill of Rights and the Sixth Amendment. The Bill of Rights: 1) is the name given to the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which were ratified in 1791. 2) added specific guarantees of individual rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, to the Constitution. 3) limits the power of the federal government, but it also grants the power of the federal government to enforce the rights of the people. 4) does not favor one political group over another, but rather reflects the values and principles of the American people. The Sixth Amendment is one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. It says that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial”. This does not mean that the State has no right to a speedy and public trial. The State, and by extension, the people who have been affected by the accused’s actions, also have a right to a speedy trial. This right is implied by the Sixth Amendment and has been recognized by SCOTUS and other courts. The purpose of this right is to ensure that criminal proceedings move forward promptly, allowing for timely resolution of cases and preventing undue delays that could harm both the accused and the public interest. SCOTUS has affirmed this interpretation in several cases, such as [United States v. MacDonald], where it said that “the Speedy Trial Clause has a dual role: it protects the interest of the accused in a speedy resolution of the charges against him, and it serves the public interest in the prompt administration of justice”. SCOTUS has also acknowledged that the State has a strong interest in bringing the accused to trial as soon as possible, to prevent the loss of evidence, the fading of witnesses’ memories, and the erosion of public confidence in the justice system. Therefore, the right of the State to a speedy trial is derived from the Sixth Amendment and is consistent with its purpose and spirit. The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States The Bill of Rights: A Transcription | National Archives Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia