placeholder

Or maybe the problem is that you just don't write very well. At any rate You're still offering the same refusal to engage in specifics.

As usual, instead of engaging with the issues attempting a rational refutation of the specific points I raised, All you can do is engage in name calling.

As I pointed out to someone else who defended the 8 billion figure, if you were promised a$5000 weekly paycheck and instead got $5, would you consider that your employer had been basically truthful?

Rather than go dig into the weeks here's how a Federal Judge assessed the Trump campaign russian connection 'In an order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking access to the unredacted report, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said Barr's action caused him "to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump." Walton focused on Barr's initial statement — before the report was released in full — that Mueller's team did not find that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired with Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election. The judge said Barr left out the fact that the report identified contacts between members of the Trump campaign and people connected with the Russian government.' https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/federal-judge-blasts-barr-misleading-mueller-report-n1151076

Still waiting for the powerful evidence and arguments you apparently believed you had.

You characterized the judges as saying something. They didn't just say something. They actually made a ruling. That's called adjudication. You denied that adjudication took place. You got it wrong.

Typical attempt at making it personal. You got any threats or other evidence to show that these jurists hate Trump?

"1. Preemptive pardons arent legal (loser)" I cited to you the Supreme Court decision stating the preemptive pardons were legal. You claimed you weren't challenging pardon power. Now, apparently, you are. Again for the third time: "The Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Garland (1866) is central to understanding the scope of this power. In this case, the Court unequivocally stated: “The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” https://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/preemptive-pardons-constitutional-authority-and-real-world-implications/ What does "before legal proceedings are undertaken" mean to you? In addition, no less a personage than Abraham Lincoln granted preemptive pardons to all soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. Other preemptive pardons have been granted by Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. "2. Autopen cant be used" Also, as I noted earlier, the Justice Dept disagrees with you about autopens. It would have to be proved that Biden didn't direct the use of autopens, if, in fact, autopens were used. There's no evidence to support that claim since the original claim was based on a misunderstand of the copies produced by the National Archives. "3. Biden wasnt competent and never issued the pardon." And proving that Biden wasn't competent is going to be a long shot despite what the anonymous right wing neurologists who are members of aseannow.com claim. He did subsequently defend his pardons.

So you get nothing to offer against the fact that a committee headed by Senate Republicans concluded that Manafort worked with the Russians. To put it another way, you've got nothing.

No.

As usual, you offer no analysis, just a dismissal. A dismissal of a Supreme Court decision, no less. Put up or ... Gotta run.

No. That's not what the Supreme court decision cited by me says Here it is again: "In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.3" I have errands to run, so I'll dismember your reply later.

What exactly do you think this proves? That Russia is more successful than China? That it's as successful as China? I'm genuinely curious.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/overview-of-pardon-power The Constitution establishes the President’s authority to grant clemency, encompassing not only pardons of individuals but several other forms of relief from criminal punishment as well.1 The power, which has historical roots in early English law,2 has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad. In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.3 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/

What truly shows my mind is the fact that I promptly acknowledged my error. In fact, I thanked Rough Diamond for the correction. And, as the quote you truncated shows, the US can cripple any country's use of F-35s if it so chooses.

The Trump administration has canceled funding for an ongoing 30-year, nationwide study tracking patients with prediabetes and diabetes, researchers said, at a time when top officials have emphasized their determination to curb the incidence of such chronic conditions. Investigators working on the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program found out last week that the National Institutes of Health has halted funding for the project. While they have not yet received confirmation from the agency on why the grant has been canceled, the decision appears likely related to the Trump administration’s cancellation of federal grants to Columbia University on the grounds that it had failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus. https://archive.ph/HxwIu I guess the tens of millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes can be classified as collateral damage.

Nonsense. A pardon is not a defense .A pardon is an absolution. Any prosecutor claiming that a signed pardon officially documented to exist need somehow to be proven would be laughed out of court.

The Russians are more successful than the Chinese? Another report from Oppositeworld.

No. This says it all: "Thanks for the correction. Still, there's this: No actual evidence of a kill switch has ever materialized. But the U.S. could almost as easily degrade others' F-35s by withholding spare parts, canceling services, and blocking software updates delivered by U.S. cloud-based software systems." But since you're the type dishonorable person who truncates quotes in order to mislead, that says all we need to know about you.

It's a good thing that this doesn't exist: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/03/chrome-capture-2025-3-17.jpeg?w=601 https://nypost.com/2025/03/17/us-news/trump-says-bidens-autopen-pardons-are-now-void/ Because if it did, we would have reason to laugh at Leavitt's claim.

It's clear that this story is a nothingburger. Readers should note that those who enthusiastically backed these allegations have now descended into irrelevancies.

So, when is the excellent new AG going to release the scandalous content of those files she claims the she was told by an unidentified someone that the FBI has kept hidden from her scrutiny? No updates?

How ignorant can you be? The case went to court. The judge didn't just say something, They used their authority as judges to make a ruling in the case.

Putin agrees with you. After all, he outlawed calling what is going on in Ukraine a war.

Well unlike the loons who claim that Trump really won in 2020, I don't think Walker88 is claiming that Harris won in 2024.