placeholder

How is saying it could the case that there was no fraud an accusation or stoke the fires? It's those who claim that there was fraud or could be fraud, even though even the Trump campaign hired 2 teams of forensic experts who looked for it and found nothing, who clearly are stoking the fires. And who is the number 1 stoker?

No, it's not a rounding error. Here is the info again with fuller quotes. You'll note that in the earlier paper that established levels were lower going back at least 2.1 million years it specifically notes this: "This finding means that researchers will need to look back further in time for an analog to modern day climate change." In other words no CO2 levels were found that matched modern day levels. So, no contradiction between this study and the one going back 3.6 million years. Carbon Dioxide Higher Today Than Last 2.1 Million Years The authors show that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million; but today, CO2 is at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher. This finding means that researchers will need to look back further in time for an analog to modern day climate change. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm#:~:text= * In fact, later research has extended that all the way back t0 3.6 million years ago where finally comparable CO2 levels were found. Carbon dioxide levels are now higher than at anytime in the past 3.6 million years The atmospheric burden of CO2 is now comparable to where it was during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period around 3.6 million years ago, when concentrations of carbon dioxide ranged from about 380 to 450 parts per million. During that time sea level was about 78 feet higher than today, the average temperature was 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra. https://research.noaa.gov/2021/04/07/despite-pandemic-shutdowns-carbon-dioxide-and-methane-surged-in-2020/

Really? Well there was a link in the daily news story to support the claim in the article I cited that a judge in another case of Trump's had received death threats: NYC judge presiding over Trump’s criminal case related to Stormy Daniels hush money payment receiving death threats The Manhattan judge presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money case has received dozens of death threats and other harassing calls and emails amid the historic indictment of the former president. Phone numbers and email addresses associated with State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who has been attacked by Trump on social media and in public remarks, have been flooded with hate mail in the weeks since Trump learned of his pending indictment, a source with direct knowledge told the Daily News. The content of the calls, emails and letters was described as harassing and defamatory, with most of the trolls calling from out of state, the source said. https://archive.ph/KNRqj#selection-1635.0-1661.156 https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-nyc-judge-death-threats-donald-trump-hush-money-case-20230406-eyeegfg2jbeobdinxyuckx2cyi-story.html

Is this migration the reason that Texas has steadily been electing more Democrats. Because it's turning redder?

As Weiss pointed out, they don't have to be lying. They can be mistaken. Prosecutor Rebuts I.R.S. Official’s Account of Request in Hunter Biden Case David C. Weiss, the federal prosecutor in Delaware who has led the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden, on Monday rebutted a key element of testimony to Congress by an Internal Revenue Service official who said that Mr. Weiss complained about being blocked from pursuing the case the way he wanted. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Weiss said that he had never asked Justice Department officials to give him special counsel status to pursue the case, contradicting testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee by the I.R.S. official, Gary Shapley, who said Mr. Weiss had sought that status and been turned down. Mr. Weiss suggested that Mr. Shapley might have misunderstood him during an October 2022 meeting. Mr. Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware, who was appointed to the role under President Donald J. Trump, said in the letter that he had approached a department higher-up about the possibility of requesting status as a special attorney, not as a special counsel. https://archive.ph/qmWsY https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/us/politics/david-weiss-hunter-biden-irs.html In addition, IRS investigators are not prosecutors. Investigators are not privy to the reasons why decisions are made at the prosecutorial level. In fact, the IRS doesn't even have the power to prosecute Federal prosecutors are very reluctant to bring cases to court unless they have an overwhelming case. As John Durham should have known. Tax fraud cases are particuarly difficult to prosecute. Why Hunter Biden wasn’t charged with felony tax evasion after years-long probe Former federal prosecutor Maureen Ruane told The Post she also wasn’t surprised by prosecutors offering the misdemeanor plea deal. In general, she said, tax evasion charges “are very infrequently sought” because of the difficulty of showing intent. She said that a plea deal “avoids the risks” of going to trial and the “resources and time and energy” required to follow a case through appeals. https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/why-hunter-biden-wasnt-charged-with-felony-tax-evasion/ And you still haven't offered any evidence that the FBI denied IRS investigators access to the laptop, or why that even matters, considering its contents have are in the public domain.

Even if admissible, was there any clear evidence of criminality on the laptop?

The first link goes to a report on MSNBC written by the editor of the Daily Signal. Hardly an impartial source. And when it comes to testimony that supports his beliefs, he's completely unskeptical. As for the second it's document released by the Republican majority on the Committee. It reports the claims of the witnesses as though they were uncontested. Again, entirely skeptical. Finally, I saw no reference in either source to anything about the agents being denied access to the laptop. And why would it matter? Aren't the contents out in the public domain already?

It's about the judge taking the rare step of keeping jurors anonymous in the E. Jean Carroll case.

Sure. People who make it their business to win elections are wrong and you're right. And, per usual, you provide 0 confirmable evidence.

You got evidence to back that up. Or are you citing from the "The Journal of Because I Said So"?

You've got nothing.

Others might say that but since repeated investigations found no evidence of significant abuse, it's clear that those others are touting baseless conspiracy theories.

In fact very few rioters were charged for any thing like insurrection. But it is a very serious crime to attempt to violently interfere with the Constitutionally mandated transfer of power.

One-off threats that resulted in no record of any ensuing threats. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but their threats weren't a response to them facing investigation and prosecution for suspected criminal activity, were they?

Well, if nobody is claiming his findings are false, maybe that's because no one would waste their time challenging an investigation conducted by a loon. In addition, is it known that any conclusive evidence of criminality has been found on the laptop? Sleaziness is not a crime.

"The normal situation has the prosecution working for the state/the people in trying to show evidence of guilt, while the defence tries to get their client off." So plea-bargaining is abnormal. Wow! I thought plea-bargaining was a major feature of how the Justice Dept settles prosecutions. Apparently, not. As for Garret Ziegler: Former Trump White House aide who met with January 6 panel attacks witnesses, lawmakers in profane and sexist rant He also accused the January 6 House select committee of being “anti-White,” without any evidence. (The nine-member panel is led by Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, who is Black.) “They’re Bolsheviks,” Ziegler said in the stream, referring to the far-left communists who led the Soviet Union, “so, they probably do hate the American founders and most White people in general. This is a Bolshevistic anti-White campaign. If you can’t see that, your eyes are freaking closed." https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/garrett-ziegler-rant/index.html Ziegler then went on to complain he was seen by the committee to be a young Christian and easily scared. Clearly, he's a loon.

I can still recall how right wingers claimed that the Justice Dept. had been weaponized in the Trump campaign - Russia investigation. The Inspector General's investigation found no bias lay behind the investigation. William Barr, the AG who lied about the Mueller report, publicly disagreed with that finding and launched a separate investigation. His choice to lead the investigation, John Durham, also publicly disagreed with the IG's report when it was issued. William Barr gave Durham extraordinary support, even accompanying him on a trip to Europe to gather evidence. After 31/2 years what evidence did Durham find of bias? None. You can possibly cherry-pick a few comments from Stacy Abrams. But did she ever claim that the actual election count was fraudulent? I'll save you the trouble of looking that up. No, she didn't.

Right. Absolutely no precedent to support Pornchop's claim that jurors could face death threats in a Trump trial. Donald Trump's jurors on his rape trial have been granted anonymity to avoid death threats Jurors set to sit on Donald Trump's civil rape trial have been granted anonymity to avoid receiving any potential death threats from his supporters... In a very unusual move, all jurors will be totally protected to avoid any scrutiny they could face over the high-profile case... When announcing the decision, District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan said: "It bears mention that Mr Trump repeatedly has attacked courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters." https://www.express.co.uk/news/us/1750292/donald-trump-jurors-death-threats-dxus Anonymous jurors’ names to remain secret from Trump and E. Jean Carroll in civil rape case, judge cites threats to Trump’s criminal case judge Within hours of his criminal court arraignment last week, Trump singled out State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan and his relatives at a Mar-a-Lago speech, alleging their involvement in an unfounded Democratic conspiracy. Trump’s comments came after Merchan appealed to his lawyers in front of him in court, asking him to tone down recent rhetoric that could lead to civil unrest or violence. The Daily News reported Friday that those comments came amid a flood of death threats against Merchan, mirroring ones against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whom Trump has also attacked online. https://archive.ph/yWMbh https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-e-jean-carroll-donald-trump-civil-rape-case-nyc-20230410-ysk4yaprpnby3o5r6s3wwyf74y-story.html

You've moved to California?

There may be a reason for the post seeming like nonsense to you other than it allegedly being nonsense.

Talk about setting up a straw man? Did you actually read the article? Not once in the article did it refer to the color of water. (although if it did, you would have to be willfully ignorant not to get the point). Not once. . Whereas the color of the ocean is mentioned many times in the article. "The color of the ocean has changed significantly over the last 20 years" More than 56% of the world’s oceans have changed color" Tropical oceans close to the equator in particular have become greener The color of the ocean is derived from the materials whereas a green color means there are ecosystems there", The researchers monitored changes in ocean color They used data from the Aqua satellite which has been monitoring ocean color changes" And by the way, water does have a color. Water Color "... water is in fact not colorless; even pure water is not colorless, but has a slight blue tint to it, best seen when looking through a long column of water. The blueness in water is not caused by the scattering of light, which is responsible for the sky being blue. Rather, water blueness comes from the water molecules absorbing the red end of the spectrum of visible light." https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/water-color#:~:text=The water is in fact,for the sky being blue.

Thanks for making it clear that it's pointless to supply you with information.

I just hope Republicans running for office loudly offer that claim.

You would have to prove that by citing actual evidence you viewed. You know, independent proof.

If a doctor proposes a course of treatment for you, would a rational person go to an engineer for a second opinion?