placeholder

It would have taken just a bit mental effort for most folks to construe what the those sentences meant at first. For most folks. But since you can't figure what the revised version meant, therefore, when I reply to you in the future, I will attempt to use words of no more than 2 syllables (Sorry about that last word. Is there someone nearby who can help you with it?). As for keeping on topic. It was you who declared that you weren't going to abide by rules that the people who run this country impose. ADD much?

Actually not, It goes to intent. The National Archives negotiated with Trump's people for months before a return was arranged. It turned out that his representative falsely asserted that all documents had been returned. Clearly, Trump knew that he was holding documents that violated the rules and had his people deny it. It was only after further negotiations had failed that the National Archives was called in by the Justice Dept. All Trump had to do was comply with the National Archives request and this matter would never have been assigned to the Justice Dept. It's clear that there's a very strong case against him for obstruction of Justice. Whereas in the Biden case, it's not at all clear that it was Biden who took these documents.

I didn't notice that my voice recognition software decided that "cleaning" was what I meant, not "claiming". Here it is again: "I didn't know that being a guest of the government of Thailand makes one an especially entitled person. It's a good thing you're not claiming that privilege out of a sense of self-entitlement." As for the restrictions on Chinese travelers: I'd go with what epidemiologists recommend. Unlike some who believe that they know better.

I didn't know that being a guest of the government of Thailand makes one an especially entitled person. It's a good thing you're not cleaning that privilege out of a sense of self-entitlement.

Citing the words in your own post is deflecting? It is to laugh.

Because the vaccine doesn't have to be a perfect match. It may be less effective against hospitalizations and death, but it is still effective.

Maybe it's a case of karma for the huge number of baseless lawsuits that Trump has filed.

Apparently it's a weak spot for Republicans who repeatedly challenge the legitimacy of elections they lose.

Good question? You have any insights into Brazilian law that could help us whether there could be a civil and/or legal case brought against him?

Hmmm...so that's where you think the idiocy lies...

I wouldn't put it past them to impeach.......Hunter Biden.

Gee. Odd how you didn't quote this part of what you wrote " There are many other cases anywhere, however, they are not always classified so serious... " I know it's against the rules for others to misleadingly cut a member's quote. Not sure how the rules apply to a member misleadingly editing their own.

Actually, as the Senate Committe headed by Republicans contended in its report, there was plenty there.

As has been explained to you over and over, when this information was released, Giuliani refused to release the data that could have corroborated the factuality of this news. Moreover, the seasoned reporter that the NY Post assigned to write the article about it refused because it was obvious that decent journalistic standards would require that it be extensively investigated before being published. As for Hunter Biden's alleged complaints, we know that other members of the Biden family weren't reluctant to invoke Joe Biden's name to promote their business. That makes them sleazy, but not criminals. 0 evidence that Biden profited from any of their practices. In fact, one email message from Hunter Biden specifically says that his father turned him down flat when approached about taking part in the proposed business venture in China. And, of course, we have no proof that he even approached his father about that apart from Hunter Biden's sayso.

I didn't know that green screen technology was confined to the Ukraine. On the off chance that it isn't, doubts about their location could be raised against any public figure. You got any actual evidence re the prior whereabouts of Zelensky?

Amazing how low some people will stoop to defend a dangerous liar.

And the problem isn't confined to the mideast: Climate change linked to rise in kidney ailments https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/climate-change-linked-to-rise-in-kidney-ailments/articleshow/52197656.cms

Not about offense. It's about your unclear writing.

Quite a change from your previous stance: You really think it's likely that they're going to uncover massive amounts of criminality when a seasoned federal prosecutor given carte blanche came up with only one minor criminal conviction and a grand total of 3 cases?

Why do you think this case is special?

Really? This is not unusual at all. People and corporations get sued all time for wrongful death. And the standard of evidence is different in a civil suit. A preponderance of evidence is sufficient to find for the plaintiff as opposed to being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the one hand we have an anonymous poster on aseannow.com. On the other, the medical examiner. How to decide in whom we should place our trust? Truly a dilemma.

When has the Capitol been stormed and invaded before by insurrectionists? And it wasn't just about trespass, was it. They attempted to put a halt to the Constitutionally sanctioned transfer of power due to a false narrative promoted by a certain loser.

Another case of I-don't-love-Trump-but... This is from the landing page of World News: " Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." So share with us valid links to approved sources that prove that "Jeff Bezos,... he's a democrat." "Amazon gets 30% of all sales" Soros is a communist undermining so many things it's pathetic "He actually is one that sponsored taxing Social Security." "Joe voted against the civil rights act." As the saying goes, "put up or...go away".

This coming from the party who blamed Joe Biden for the state of the economy in 2020. You're not much for facts, are you? Marxists believe that the workers should control the means of production. Any evidence that the Democrats are for this?