placeholder

First off, Durham's report about the FBI differs in no significant way from the Inspector General's report which went into considerable detail about the flaws in the Justiice Dept investigation. The thing is, before that report was released, Durham actually asked the IG not to release it. And when it was released, he issued a public statement that he disagreed with its finding. So did Barr. And then he and Barr embarked on a long journety to try and prove that there was a conspiracy within the Justice Dept to get Trump. They even traveled to Italy together to put pressure on the Italian govt to supply them with intelligence to back up their belief. They got nothing. Well, not quite. Italian intelligence did offer them a bit of information that Trump might possibly be involved in a corrupt dealings. Naturally, Durham assigned this info to a separate team since investigating Trump wasn't in his remit. Just kidding. He investigated it himself and absolved Trump. And at the end of this, Durham gathered up information to put 2 people on trial not for colluding with the FBI but rather for lying to them. So far from being a perpetrator, his cases depended on the FBI being a victim. He lost both cases. He did win one case. But that case was developed by the Instpector General and only handed off to Durham because it was within his remit of investigating the investigation. Had there not been the investigation, the case would have been handled in the standard way. He got a conviction there for which the perpetrator, a low-level lawyer, spent not one day in prison. As for the Steele report, as Durham himself has acknowledged, it wasn't the basis for the investigation. Durham's report was about investigating the investigation. If you want to look at possible ties between Trump and the Russians, that's what the Mueller investigation was about. Mueller found 10 possible counts that Trump could have been charged with were he not President.. Some of those counts were about obstruction of Justice. As in the case of Paul Manafort who had ties to the Russians. William Barr publicly played down the significance of the Mueller report and was castigated by a Federal judge form misrepresenting its contents.

He already did. You probably don't know because he's certainly not taking paints to publicize his decision. DeSantis skipped talking about his 6-week abortion ban to an anti-abortion audience https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/14/desantis-signed-floridas-abortion-ban-but-avoids-talking-about-it-00092101 Ron DeSantis quietly signs Florida's 6-week abortion ban into law https://news.yahoo.com/ron-desantis-quietly-signs-floridas-053150233.html And that reticence of his is probably due to the great pride he takes in signing off on the 6 week ban.

Well, if you're in America you may not be allowed to go to certain military testing areas. You probably won't be allowed to stroll at will the halls of the Pentagon, or the CIA, or the NSA, and similar agencies, or pop in to nuclear power plants, but apart from that, what kind of restrictions are you referring to? Seems like nonsense to me.

Which is why I, for one, don't cite attorneys with an interest in the case to support my arguments.

Namely?

Thank you for sharing your feelings with us.

Your notion doesn't explain why the upper atmosphere is actually getting cooler.

The thing is, your opinion does not account for the fact that the upper layers of the atmosphere are getting cooler while the lowest layer is getting warmer.

You're quoting a hired hand who has an ignoramus for a client who is willing to spend whatever it takes to sustain an appeal.

You sure about that? https://abcnews.go.com/US/appeals-court-returns-jean-carroll-defamation-case-district/story?id=98754846

That's got nothing to do with procedural issues. Trump's lawyers have an almost perfect record of having their appeals turned down.

First off, you made a claim that "They thought remain would win by a landslide..". To date, you have offered no evidence to back up your assertion. Time for you to get acquainted with the rule from the landing page of the World News Forum " Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." Second, you originally claimed that I was showing election results. That was false. I was showing opinion poll results. Had you gone to the linked page you would have seen a lot more data about what the polls showed. But to spare you that effort, here's this: Days Before the Brexit Vote, Polls Show British Voters Are Sharply Divided on Staying in the EU Polls show the 'remain' and 'leave' campaigns in dead heat. With only three days left until British voters decide whether the United Kingdom will stay in or leave the European Union, polls show that the campaigns on the two sides of the issue are neck-and-neck. Although earlier polls had forecast that a majority would vote in the June 23 referendum to leave the EU -- known as “Brexit” – a series of new polls paint a different picture. https://abcnews.go.com/International/days-brexit-vote-polls-show-british-voters-sharply/story?id=39988473

As legal experts repeatedly have pointed out, judges are very reluctant to overturn a verdict based solely on a jury's verdict. Very rare. Verdicts in civil cases are usually overturned because of some invalid decisions or instructions made by the judge in the case.

These were polls taken up to through the day of election. So, no, I didn't post how the result actually turned out. If that were the case, then Remain would have won by 48% to 46%.

You offer no counter analysis, no reasoning. You've got nothing.

Where do you come up with these falsehoods? In fact, the polls showed a very close race. https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Nonsense. I was simply replying to another poster's assertion that the Secret Service security considerations would pose a significant obstacle to imprisoning the President.

Not the only piece of evidence that undermines your claim.

So it doesn't matter how many years pass, but just so long as Brexit isn't finished, then no conclusions can be drawn? Trendlines don't matter? Timelines don't matter? Predictions don't count?

It is even possible for you to acknowledge what the law says about the Trump's possession vs. Biden's? First off, to prove that someone is criminally responsible for not following NARA's rules, it has to be shown that the party has knowingly violated them. Got any evidence that Biden knew? There's a huge amount of evidence that Trump did. It's also a violation of the law to refuse to return documents when NARA asks for them. Did NARA ever ask Biden to return documents. Are you going to deny that it asked Trump to do so? And then there's the question of obstruction of justice. In this case, lying about possession of documents. Trump's lawyer signed a document claiming that all documents had been returned. That was false. Now, maybe, that lawyer decided all on her own to sign a document prepared by another of Trump's lawyers who just assumed that this was true without asking Trump.. Or just maybe, just possibly, might there be a scintilla of a chance that the lawyers in question actually based that letter on lies that Trump told them? Not that it's even relevant, but there was no actual security for the documents apart from a CCTV video camera. No human guards were posted. And are you claiming that all the guests that enter Mar a Lago are extensively vetted as regards their backgrounds?

By your criteria, no one can say that any plan is a failure since the future is infinite and we can never know final outcomes.

No you didn't mention cash. But you did mention deals. And why would the UK be able to negotiate a better deal than others? In fact, all of your arguments depend on your contention that the future is unknowable therefore there's no way to predict outcomes. Tell that to insurance companies or bookies. To your way of thinking past knowledge and past experiences are irrelevant to predicting the future. In your world, there is no such thing as probability or likelihood. To follow the logic of your thinking, it makes no sense to save and prepare for the future, for example. After all we can't know what will happen. Maybe a long-lost rich uncle will leave us a fortune. Or maybe we'll get struck by a meteorite. Now to those of us who believe that certain events and outcomes are more likely than others, that the past does have relevance in predicting the future, your class of argument is just a kind of reductive nihilism. In other words, you've quite literally got nothing to offer.

And how often does this happen? And how often have Trump's appeals been supported by judges? He doesn't have a great track record, does he?

We can rationally judge your political stance only by the arguments and independently confirmable facts you post here.

"Once in a century" in this context means that based on past experience, one can expect, on average, this kind of flooding once in a century. Of course, if past experience is no longer consistent with current circumstances, then, in the case of human caused climate change, one can expect sharp alterations in frequency of certain weather events. As far as there being fewer victims, given that weather forecasting has greatly improved over the last hundred years, it is to be expected that a higher percentage of people will be able to get out of harm's way before disaster strikes. And that governments will be able to takes steps to accommodate them in the face of an oncoming event.