placeholder

You're the one who asserted that Trump was cooperating. You're the one who made the definitive statement. It's up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim. That should be obvious.

And we know that Trump was fully cooperating because he and his team say so. And why would anyone doubt that?

Have you shared your knowledge of the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" with ex-President Trump? Actually he supports a doctrine of "guilty even after being proven innocent." Donald Trump Says Central Park Five Are Guilty, Despite DNA Evidence Wading into a racially-charged case from his past, Donald Trump indicated that the "Central Park Five" were guilty, despite being officially exonerated by DNA evidence decades after a notorious 1989 rape case. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-says-central-park-five-are-guilty-despite-dna-n661941

I have never denied it. And I'm not surprised to see that since you've been caught out on your nonsensical understanding of "predicate", you're resorting to a deflection.

Nonsense. "In a legal sense, the term predicate means to base something, such as a fact, statement, or action, on another thing. For instance, a person may agree to give a crate of baseball bats to the local little league, predicated on (or based on) a parent’s withdrawal of a lawsuit." https://legaldictionary.net/predicate/#:~:text=In a legal sense%2C the,parent's withdrawal of a lawsuit. Or it could be based on a potential illlegal possession of documents, a search of the premises is warranted. All crimes alleged in a warrant are potential. Whether an actual crime has been committed is for a judge or jury to decide.

Someone's been visiting crazy websites again.

One of the looniest arguments that Trump supporters make, and that's saying a lot, is that if they can do it to the President then they can do it to you. Actually the accurate way to phrase this is, if they can do it you, why shouldn't they be able to do it to the President? Although, to be accurate, despite what so many Trump supporters still believe, Trump is actually the ex-President. If I had my way, the convention of calling ex-Presidents "President" as an honorary title, should be discontinued. That would make clear that they're just ordinary citizens now with no reason to expect special consideration.

But he absolutely had the authority to send the national guard to the Capitol.

I can remember all the way back when to the aftermath of the 2020 elections. As you may recall "Maga Patriots" were predicting that the courts would overturn the election results and that there would be mass arrests and convictions of high-ranking Democrats and government officials who had plotted against the Trump administration. How did those predictions pan out? It's very foolish to offer these kinds of predictions as arguments.

You will both be delighted to learn that at about 03:20 Thailand time, Fox News finally posted an article referring to this news., well after other major news sources. Apparently, it was another media source owned by the Murdoch's, namely, the socialistic Wall St. Journal, that got the scoop.

Well, if the unvaccinated are concentrated in a community that could be a problem for them. But if the unvaccinated are more randomly distributed, then not so much.

Another time traveler. Who's going to win the world series this year?

Despite which look at all bills that he managing to get passed. Whereas Trump even with a biggger majority in the House and Senate got so little done.

You're wrong. While it's wrong for the Federal Govt to send National Guard troops to the 50 states unless it either issues a Proclamation of Insurrection or the governors request assistance, in Washington D.C. the President is the person the National Guard reports to. So his position is analagous to a governor's. And the National Guard troops were on quick standby at the Armory, 2 miles from the Capitol.

Anyway, since according to the authorities, most residents of the UK are vaccinated, it really can't pose a threat to most. What's more, most people who do get infected with the virus don't suffer severe symptoms.

Just? Really? It's a huge lie that he constantly repeats.

How many times does it need to be explained to you that Diane Abbott is a backbencher and for good reason. Whereas Liz Truss isn't for very bad reasons.

Has any previous President lied so repeatedly and flagrantly as Trump has about the elections? Of course you wouldn't buy his lies about the 2020 Presidential election being stolen but tens of millions do

On the other hand, until Garland announced that he was going to apply to have the contents of the warrant revealed, Trump didn't offer to release it himself. Why is that? Looks like Garland called his bluff.

Well, they can claim it was by mistake. As staffers said, Trump refused to accept that he was going to have to vacate the White House until very late in the game so packing was a last minute thing. Although given how rightwingers called for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment, it does mark them as being massively hypocritical.

Actually he is calling for the release of the warrant. What makes that bizarre is that he's in possession of it and has every right to release it. Maybe he realizes he's in a tough spot and is hoping a judge denies the Justice Dept's request?

If the story is such a fake, why doesn't Trump release the text of the warrant?

If any shows how factually challenged so many right-wingers are, it's a post like this. When the statistics support your beliefs, you trust them. When not, they're fake.

What a rational person would find alarming is that Trump and Kushner wanted to secretly send nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. A great idea to have such technology in the hands of MbS. And this and other decisions favorable to the Saudis I'm sure have no relation to the fact that the Saudis invested 2 billion dollars in a fund managed by Kushner.

Another lunatic falsehood purveyed by the right wing. Russia is an exporter of uranium. Not an importer. Any export of uranium or uranium ore to Russia would have to be approved by the United States. To date, that has not happened. If you care to educate yourself on the subject, follow this link: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/