placeholder

Well, I'm not too lazy to have read the entire article carefully. Nowhere in the article does it say that there is a "consistent message that they won’t be able to find the offender". In fact, nowhere in the article does it claim that anyone has categorically claimed that they won't be able to find the offender.

Well, then, you shouldn't have any problem finding a quote from that article to support your assertion. Can share it here with other members of ohe forum?

First off, I noticed you're not acknowledging that your claim that fingerprints weren't taken is false? Do you have any use for facts at all apart from twisting them. Only one possible reason? Really? You gonna take that to a court of law? Is your imagination so limited that you can't possibly think of any other explanations?

They didn't ask to be convinced. Just asked for evidence. Instead you offered an evasive reply.

"That fingerprints havent been taken..." Did you even bother to read the article. Or are you just headline skimming? "The Secret Service is leading the probe, including looking at security cameras and visitor logs. The agency also is carrying out fingerprint and DNA analysis of a baggie"

Well, it seems to have been edited out of any trustworthy source. Must be a massive conspiracy at work by the aspirin industry.

I'm guessing that your reply makes sense to you. Or is this your way of identifying your word salad as such?

It's certainly a stretch to claim that it's overwhelmingly likely that it's his.

You got challenged on your characterization that America was once great and instead of forthrightly offering evidence to support it you asked Purdy to go first. The thing is, Purdey offered no such characterization. So why is it incumbent on him to offer evidence to support a characterization he never made?

Where have they claimed that the won't be able to find the offender?

Anybody gets to decide where the line is and share their opinion about that line. First amendment. Can you share with us where anyone in the article suggested that Desantis' video does not enjoy constitutional protection? And what does criticism of the video have to do with what voters decide? Does the video enjoy some special protection from criticism so voters shouldn't be exposed to it?

Your comment is not surprising given that you also wrote this: "Interesting that this news comes only one week after we discovered that Hunter has been omitted from White House visitor logs." Did you notice that nothing in the article from Rupert Murdoch's NY Post actually changes the claim that this area is where visitors to the White House store their things? Nowhere does it report on whether or not there are other storage areas. "muddying the water. Interesting..."

Desantis has decided to make it worse by defending the video Ron DeSantis defends video going after Trump on LGBTQ issues: ‘Totally fair game’ Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis defended a controversial video Wednesday that went after former President Donald Trump over LGBTQ rights and was shared by his campaign. “Identifying Donald Trump as really being a pioneer in injecting gender ideology into the mainstream, where he was having men compete against women in his beauty pageants — I think that’s totally fair game, because he’s now campaigning saying the opposite,” DeSantis told conservative commentator Tomi Lahren in an interview for her streaming show “Tomi Lahren is Fearless.” https://news.yahoo.com/ron-desantis-defends-video-going-055808051.html If that's all the video did, he'd have a fair point. But the second half is just nuts and has nothing to do with going after Trump.

Must is threatening to sue Meta. He must be scared $hitle$$. Twitter threatens to sue Facebook owner Meta over new Threads platform https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-threatens-to-sue-facebook-owner-meta-over-new-threads-platform-reports-12916429

Really? At the White House? Because cocaine was found in a place where visitors leave the stuff, this means that the White House is now tainted with cocaine use?

Unless you're claiming that there's a connection between the cocaine that was found and Hunter Biden, what's your point?

I can't find the part where it says aspirin is addictive.

Yes. It's the kind of question called a rhetorical question. "a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer." https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+a+rhetorical+question&oq=definition+of+a+rhetorical+question&aqs=chrome..69i57.9676j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Aspirin? You're a doctor of what exactly?

Here's some more information: Republicans Continue to Blame Hunter Biden for White House Cocaine Saga The discovery of cocaine in the White House on Sunday has prompted several Republicans to hone in on President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, as a potential culprit—despite little evidence to suggest he was behind the discovery. The small baggie of drugs was found in a high-traffic area of the West Wing where guests on tours of the building leave their phones and other belongings—while the president’s entire family was away on vacation for the Fourth of July weekend. On Wednesday’s broadcast of Hannity, however, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) stated multiple times that he had concerns about Hunter Biden, who has openly spoken of a prior addiction to crack cocaine but claims to have been sober for years. https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-waste-no-time-blaming-hunter-biden-for-white-house-cocaine-saga

Here. Straight from the 4 dissenting justices https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

Are you claiming that the people who are attacking Trump don't also attack Desantis? Is that because it's only possible to disapprove of one Presidential candidate at a time?

You'll be shocked to learn that there's a good chance that these questions and others like them can be answered by using google or some AI application.

Uranium One, also.

For those of you don't want the commentary, the video in question begins at 4:22