placeholder

I can think of at least one exception: Donald Trump:

From the Hunting of the Snark. "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." Most of us would recognize that that this is also a piece of nonsense. At least, unlike your nonsense, it's inspired nonsense.

No one said he was. But he is under indictment. And if he ventures into most countries in Western Europe, according to law, he should be remanded into the custody of the ICC. I'm sure you wouldn't support any signatory to the treaty authorizing the ICC refusing to remand Netanyahu and others into the ICC's custody.

President Trump's near-total pardon of Jan. 6 rioters was denounced by the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the U.S., and the International Association of Chiefs of Police on Tuesday. The big picture: The groups said they're deeply discouraged by pardons and commutations made by both the Biden and Trump administrations of individuals convicted of killing or assaulting law enforcement officers. Driving the news: The groups said in a statement they firmly believe those convicted of such crimes should serve full sentences. https://www.axios.com/2025/01/22/police-union-trump-jan-6-pardons

You know I had my doubts but since you say so....it is to laugh.

Wow! Aseannow.com is rife with mind readers. First, according to you, I seem to be really pleased etc. Then you quote me as opining that I called Hamas a "US designated terrorist group." I guess that's more mind-reading Or maybe you just don't undestand what " " signifies about what comes between them.

So, Netanyahu and others are no longer under indictment for committing war crimes?

You manage to miss not only one but 2 points. First off, does voicing an opinion is support of terrorists, make that person a terrorist, The other point you're missing is that you try to prove your argument with that which is in question. In other words, circular reasoning.

They may support the rule of law being upheld, but they could, if they so chose, have openly criticized the decision. Their silence on that score is deafening.

So supporting Palestinian statehood is supporting the rule of law? So, if Netanyahu visits a country that supports the rule of law, and that country turns him over to the ICC, that would OK, right? Also, you may have missed this but Ireland, Spain, and Sweden now recognize Palestinian statehood.

It's funny how right wingers accuse liberals of waging lawfare but yet can express opinions like this: " If the people Biden gave pardons to are innocent and have nothing to answer for they don't need to accept the pardons." Trump has his own personal history of pursuing baseless civil lawsuits in order to beggar those defendants. Now, he can use the Federal govt to do the same via baseless criminal law prosecutions. As for your comment about state law processes: That's only true if they've committed a crime in violation of state laws. Doesn't seem like Trump is accusing them of those kind of violations.. As for Trup['s pardons... "President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon virtually every person charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol was a decision made at the last minute as inauguration approached — and one that surprised some of his supporters and aides. “He is who he is,” a person who worked on Trump’s transition team told NBC News. “Expectations are sometimes set as best as can be expected, and sometimes they change quickly.”" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-expansive-jan-6-pardons-last-minute-decision-rcna188628

The War Is Shifting Europe’s Politics Away From Israel In Europe, long a vital source of support for Israel, the political center of gravity is moving away from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Spain, Ireland and Norway on Wednesday recognized Palestinian statehood, despite vehement Israeli and American opposition. And most European governments offered unequivocal support to the International Criminal Court this week, after it requested arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister and defense minister, along with leaders of Hamas. https://archive.ph/j8fjT#selection-823.0-827.341

Actually, what Hamas has gained is to make Israel enjoy considerably less favor even among nations that once strongly supported it.

Nothing so far. But what has Israel gained? So far it has no realistic plan for Gaza. It has tried in vain to recruit other countries to police the territory. It's armed forces are exhausted and will continue to be tormented by an ongoing guerilla war. Is Israel better off than it was before Oct 7?

You might surprise us and get yourself acquainted with the facts. The person who originally had the laptop was the repair shop owner. He turned it over to right wingers. They handed the computer over to the FBI but kept a copy of the hard drive. They could have released it well before the elections. But they chose to to do so until shortly before the elections were to take place. Is that clear to you now?

what's interesting to me is how you keep on committing self-revealing gaffes. First with bigoted comments about the Palestinians and now about your belief that the War is over.

False. As the Mueller report pointed out, one of the possible charges against Trump would have been that he could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice in the case of Paul Manafort, the campaign manager who was communicating with Russia intelligence.

What don't you understand about the significance of the fact that the existence of the laptop was only made public shortly before the election?

Of course, the problem is in how does one define terrorist? For example , are people voicing opinions repugnant to many in support of Hamas terrorists? Are people voicing opinions repugnant to many in support of violence committed by Israeli settlers on the West Bank terrorists? Using the label of terrorist is now new when it comes to punishing those who voice unpopular, and repugnant opinions,

Why did they make fools of themselves? The transcript of the hard drive was released to the public shortly before the election. The experienced reporter that the NY Post assigned to do the article refused because he was given no time to do any investigation of its bona fides. Rudolph Giuliani refused to release any metadata that might have confirmed its validity. Given these circumstance, it would have been foolish not to consider some sort of skullduggery. I think it's clear why the transcript of the hard drive was released so late. The people who had copies of the laptop's hard drive in their custody for months and months knew that there was nothing there to incriminate Joe Biden. So they kept it hidden until shortly before the election, That way, Joe Biden could be accused of all sorts of things and there wouldn't be time to respond to them. To this day, nothing in that laptop has been shown to be evidence of any crime or special dealing on the part of Joe Biden.

Why the past tense? Is the war over?

Once again, you fail to miss the point. You're blaming the 51 for their open letter because the FBI had reportedly confirmed the fact that the laptop was Hunter Biden's. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not any of the 51 knew about that confirmation. Clearly it was kept under tight wraps. Why should they have known about it? And you still don't seem to understand that there's a difference between raising a question, as the 51 did, and making a false assertion. And given your proclivity for making false assertions, I'm not surprised you don't don't acknowledge this.

I'm going to slightly alter something that Brazilians say about their country: Fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be.

This is unusual in cases where pardon is granted?

The 51 knew it was real? You got evidence to support that claim? Yet somehow William Barr didn't know about it? Or knew about it but said nothing? You've already claimed that they asserted it was a hoax. I've shown that to be false.