Danderman123

Not a great legal defense for the insurrectionists - "other people committed crimes, too".

Others here claim the 2020 election was stolen. Do you agree with them?

Trump Extremists Brought Numerous Guns on January 6, Evidence Shows

Your post illustrates that you don't understand any of this. Hillary was not complaining about voter fraud in 2016. Instead, she complained about Russian interference in the election. Every election has some amount of fraud and glitches, but not enough to impact the result. But you claim that the 2020 election was stolen, although you offer no proof. I do have proof of attempted fraud in 2020 - Trump tried to convince the Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,000 votes for him.

The impacts of climate change are on the poor. Rising sea levels cause displacement of poor people. Drought most impacts the poor. Flooding mostly impacts the poor.

Your point is that CO2 levels must be contained within a narrow band to maintain our civilization.

The loss of nuclear is problematic, but no one has developed a truly safe and non-polluting nuclear system.

The climate that supported development of our civilization is changing - which means there are going to be ramifications all over the globe. Let me paraphrase you: "The river that provides water to our city has dried up!" KhunLA: "No problem, it also dried up in the days of the dinosaurs".

Trump disagrees with you: Trump lies that Jan. 6 was ‘an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi’

If wishes were horses, then beggars could ride.

Everything you say is subjectively true. But, let's say someone lied about Biden, and claimed that he was aiding insurrectionists. Would that be enough for a Republican judge to disqualify Biden? There is a clear legal standard: a jury decides facts. No jury has convicted Trump of insurrection. Yet.

She doesn't earn enough to make her car payments, buy gas and pay for a room. If she could live with a man, problem solved.

The problem comes in determining the facts required for disqualification. In the case of the Civil War insurrectionists, it was easy - they joined the rebel army. No need for further proof. But with Trump, his lawyers are simply denying everything, and without a jury conviction for sedition, there is no proof he was an insurrectionist. The Supremes will explain further.

A lady taxi driver I know in Pattaya is homeless, living in her car. From what I gather, she doesn't like men (or women), so it's difficult for her to establish permanent living quarters.

Ironic placement of these two stories. If only there were some empty place where homeless could stay....

18 year olds can go into bars in Thailand, they just can't drink.

To determine whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, a jury must convict Trump. Failing a jury verdict, legally, Trump is not an insurrectionist, regardless of appearances. It's like calling someone a murderer who hasn't been tried yet.

I would agree with you - if someone had bothered to convict Trump of sedition in the past.

The SCOTUS is currently considering the 14th amendment case. Based on the questioning, it looks like this is going to be a 6-3 verdict favoring Trump.

Are you being sarcastic? Your chart shows the impact of Biden's tax plan as well as the recovery from Covid.

Trump's plan to delay the January 6 case likely means the trial will proceed in August or September. After the Manhattan trial. So, voters in November will have his convictions fresh in their minds when they vote. I'm pretty sure that no one is going to change their votes after Trump has racked up multiple convictions, but some potential Trump voters will stay home. After the results of the second trial, even some of the Trump fluffers here will disappear. But, if you ask them today if they will cease to post Trump propaganda here after the second trial results in a conviction, their response would be "Trump won't be convicted".

Your post seems to be part of a classic troll: you throw out a link to a misleading story, simply to muddy the waters. Of course you know the linked story is bogus, but your intent is to confuse some people about the Trump theft of classified documents. If I am wrong, explain why your linked opinion is correct.

Sure I do. https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/ "The top rate fell from 39.6% to 37%, while the 33% bracket dropped to 32%, the 28% bracket to 24%, the 25% bracket to 22%, and the 15% bracket to 12%. The lowest bracket remained at 10%, and the 35% bracket was also unchanged.". However, there were other facets of the Trump tax plan: "In the spring of 2019, many taxpayers were surprised to find that they had to pay more taxes than in the previous year. Others received significantly lower refund checks from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), even though their financial circumstances hadn't changed."

The source is not the issue. The issue is that Jarrett is wrong. So wrong that no part of his lies will be used by the Trump legal team. Jarrett's lies are aimed at the rubes, not a jury.

This Jarrett guy completely lied about the laws concerning retention of presidential documents. But let me ask you: what part of his lies do you think were the most compelling defense of Trump?