placeholder

Yes. But given the facts of the case so far, there seems very little likelihood that anything criminal will be unearthed.

Don't you understand that there's something endearingly cozy and Dickensian about UK corruption?

And the evidence you have produced about the concerns of citizens of the EU over the consequences of the EU war, actually proves the opposite of what you think they do. Despite the fact that there have been negative consequences for them, their approval of membership in the EU has actually risen.

Really" It's "Vice Presidents" who have money in suitcases? As far as I'm aware, only one vice President has been implicated. But if you can link to some decent source that shows there is more than one currently implicated, please do share it with us. It should also be noted that there are 14 vice-Presidents in the EU, and most of them, including the one imiplicated, exercise very little power.

No, I meant "import" as used to mean "significance". Look it up. Well, if a little bit of corruption is about as acceptable to you as a little bit of racism, I think you're pretty much out of luck in finding any government to be legitimate. Those of us who take a more rational view of the way the world works would differ from you in that regard.

The improbability is clear. If I buy a lottery ticket, it remains to be seen whether or not I've won the grand prize. Since anything is possible, it may turn out that there is a basis for criminal prosecution. But the odds are clear vanishingly small.

What relevance would that have to any criminal charges unless it can be shown that Biden willfully violated the rules governing possession of government documents?

I'm going to be charitable and assume you know what is meant by "import" in the context of my comment and just chose to misuse it. And, once again, you ignore what effect this kind of corruption has on the EU economy and how tiny it is by comparison.

And I'm sure you know that the EU budget is a small fraction of European GDP. And that the corruption in question would carry very little, if any, economic import for the EU.

The notion that they were there for some discreditable purpose and then just left there undisturbed, is obviously wildly improbable.

His lawyers immediately reported the discovery of the documents. Is that what you mean by anonymous?

Because making trade even more difficult would be better for the UK economy? Making goods even more expensive would be beneficial to the citizens of the UK? Having even more economic refugees arrive in the UK would be beneficial how? What you don't seem to understand is that the EU economy is about five times the size of the UK economy. So, for simple and obvious arithmetical reasons, tit for tat works to the disadvantage of the UK.

Apart from canceling brexit or continuing in some sort of special affiliation with the EU, what could the British government have done to ease the pain of brexit?

You clearly don't understand the relevant statute in question. It is not a crime to be in possession of those documents. It has to be proven that the possessor willfully violated the statute governing possession of these documents. And as far as criminality goes in relation to the law, it's irrelevant whether or not the documents were classified. Even if they had been declassified and Biden willfully violated the law by being in possession of them without the approval of the National Archives, that would be a crime. And if he had lied about being in possession of them, that would be another crime called obstruction of justice.

What don't you understand about the fact that whereas Trump had his lawyers act to obstruct the return of documents in his possession, Biden's lawyers immediately reported their presence in Biden's office and arranged to have them returned immediately?

The media wasn't speculating whether or not Trump had possession of nuclear documents. It reported that he had possession of them.

Yes, Biden or his staff was careless and deserves to be reproached for that. But criminality is another matter. And the difference between Biden's conduct and Trump's is huge. What don't you get about the fact that it's clear Trump willfully violated the law despite the advice of legal counsel, and then lied about being in possession of documents he had no right to be in possession of?

Trump is not being investigated for having documents in unsecured locations. This would have been nothingburger if Trump hadn't defied legal counsel to take those documents and then lied about being in possession of many of them. To qualify as a crime under the relevant statutes, it is necessary to show that the person being investigated willfully violated the law. It also is a violation of that law to refuse to return documents when requested to do so. And then there is another possible charge on the grounds of obstructing justice due to the fact that Trump lied about being in continued possession of many of these documents.

I guess we can take this as a confession that you didn't read the article.

Nothing in the text of those emails constitutes any kind of proof that Joe Biden participated in any of these deals. The one time Joe Biden's response to any offer was when Hunter Biden posted that he had definitively and absolutely refused to participate in the Chinese deal. Given Biden family members penchant for trying to use their family connection to Joe Biden, it's not even clear that any of the possible allusions to Biden are even based on fact. I have no doubt that the Ukrainian company, Burisma, headed by a corrupt oligarch, was paying Hunter Biden on the strength of the fact that his father was VP. But just because it was that oligarch's hope that Hunter Biden would intercede on behalf of the company with his father, that doesn't mean it happened. In fact, as the article which you clearly didn't read points out, Hunter Biden took great precautions not to involve his father in this business. Again, in the Chinese case, it seems clear that Biden was approached at first because of his connection to his father. And once again, no evidence at all that Hunter Biden used his connection to influence his father to do anything on behalf the Chinese. In fact, the evidence shows once again that he was careful not to do that. And just to remind you, probably in vain, once again, Hunter Biden specifically wrote that his father gave an emphatic NO to any involvement with this deal. And it wasn't at all unreasonable to assume that the story was Russian disinfo. And it certainly wasn't reasonable for the story to be published without careful vetting first. As has been pointed out to your multiple times already, and to which you have never replied, the experienced reporter first assigned to write up the story refused precisely because of that. People such as Giuliani who had the data which could have helped confirm the story refused to share it all. Why was that? Maybe because he didn't have great confidence in its factuality either?

Half true. While increased ocean heat is leading to more rainfall, the scientific consensus is that global warming will actually end up decreasing wind speeds. That's due to the fact that the the far northern and southern regions are getting warmer faster than elsewhere. Less temperature differential translates to slowing wind speeds. Global ‘Stilling’: Is Climate Change Slowing Down the Wind? As carbon dioxide levels rise and the Earth’s poles warm, researchers are predicting a decline in the planet’s wind speeds. This ‘stilling’ could impact wind energy production and plant growth and might even affect the Gulf Stream, which drives much of the world’s climate. https://e360.yale.edu/features/global-stilling-is-climate-change-slowing-the-worlds-wind

It's a common refrain from Brexiters that the departure of the UK from the EU presaged the collapse of the entire EU. Instead, the UK has served as an object lesson that establishes the foolishness of leaving the EU.

Here's the story from archive.ph. No firewall https://archive.ph/ReGBw

*Deleted post edited out* For months, the National Archives and then the Justice Dept negotiated with Trump for the return of documents he illegally took from the Whitehouse. I don't recall seeing any news about that.

Why would anyone consider attending the Olympics a significant job? Does hype make it significant?