ozimoron

Right. Trump's first amendment rights allow him to threaten and intimidate prosecutors, witnesses and grand jurors. By that logic every person who has ever made a verbal threat against anybody should now be exonerated because their first amendment rights were violated. But wait, Trump didn't explicitly advocate violence. That Trump's words might influence some crazy cultist to do the job for him is not his fault. Right?

Elon Musk's X, formerly called Twitter, disabled a feature that let users report misinformation about elections, a research organisation said on Wednesday, throwing fresh concern about false claims spreading just before major U.S. and Australian votes. After introducing a feature in 2022 for users to report a post they considered misleading about politics, X in the past week removed the "politics" category from its drop-down menu in every jurisdiction but the European Union, said the researcher Reset.Tech Australia. https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-x-disabled-feature-reporting-electoral-misinformation-researcher-2023-09-27/

Trump claimed he didn't commit fraud because the Saudis would buy his property at any price: court docs https://www.rawstory.com/trump-saudi-property/

You like to see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

First president to ever join a picket line.

Maybe shouldn't have run for president?

If you are American, you are the victim for Trump's tax evasion.

A NY black woman has brought Trump's business down. What a delicious irony.

Alex Jones has been on TV for years, Do I need to get out more if I don't watch him either?

A main ruling on Tuesday found that Donald Trump (and family) are liable for over-valuing properties to score bigger and better loans. The judge has ruled that the Trump Org. must cease all operations as the other charges are decided. Responding to the judge saying Trump jacked up the price of properties, his son Eric Trump complained that Mar-a-Lago is worth over $1 billion. The judge valued it at more like $18 million. https://www.rawstory.com/eric-trump-mar-a-lago-value/

Don't bother trying to defend Trump. Both sides seems to the be talking point today.

About the time that recession only affects the US.

It's all coming back to bite me now. "In 2008 during the Great Recession, he blamed UAW members. He blamed our contracts for everything that was wrong with these companies. That's a complete lie." He went on to recall in 2015, when Trump was running for president, "he talked about doing a rotation — taking all these good-paying jobs in the Midwest and moving them somewhere in the South where people work for less money, and then to make people beg for their jobs back at lower wages." https://www.rawstory.com/trump-auto-workers-billionaires/

I'd be playing "The lion sleeps tonight".

The both sides-ism is strong today. Is that the talking point du jour on Newsmax today? There's no sane comparison. At worst one is a bit doddery, the other a hardened criminal with a lifetime of fraud.

Do we want a clueless president who asks questions like this in a national press conference instead of maybe just checking with the experts first and perhaps propose a remedy that works. Like the vaccine, perhaps?

Lets see that proved in a court of law. This both sides-ism is ridiculous, really.

LOL. Is that a claim of fact? Let's not impugn mr squeaky here.

Maybe could have done soem research instead of just going with the talking points?

Yes, I do. When I see people in greater need than my family, I give them money, I'm not rich.

That supports the dictionary definition, not your maga definition.

"Following a full evidentiary hearing, and having failed to meet his low burden before the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia, Appellant Mark Randall Meadows now asks this Court to apply a jurisdiction designed to insulate federal authority from state interference to a case concerning precisely the opposite: Appellant and his co-defendants engaged in activities designed to accomplish federal meddling in matters of state authority," Monday's filing stated. Willis claimed Meadows could "point to no law, no constitutional provision, and no lawful duty which authorized him to take the actions he did, and his testimony at the evidentiary hearing in this case underscored the case against his removal rather than for it." https://www.rawstory.com/fani-willis-smacks-down-mark-meadows-on-appeal-failed-to-meet-his-low-burden/

And Meadow's suit stank from burning documents according to Hutchinson.

You seem obsessed.

You apparently do.