Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
To the Jim Crow southern sheriff being black was enough proof of being a troublemaker. That was the context they needed to pull over a black guy. People who believe in the fallacy you just expressed tie themselves in endless loops "oh discretion is good, but not for the wrong reasons..." bla bla blaSo basically; people have used descretion to effectively outlaw being black therefore descretion itself is bad.
For example.
In general, the reason laws exist is to remove discretion from government to minimize tyranny and abuse. Laws are pointless (or worse) to the degree they allow discretion.
Using it to persecute blacks is one of an infinite number of ways it can be abused, but they are all described by the same category "unequal application of the laws". Furthermore if you familiarize yourself with the debates behind the 14th amendment you'll learn that "equal protection" does not mean "don't write laws that only effect some 'types' of people", it instead means "discretion to enforce laws is unlawful".
In other words, when the KKK hangs black people from a tree, it is a violation of the constitution to decline to enforce murder statutes.
This true meaning has been obscured and hidden by many courts since while the amendment has been twisted and mutilated to mean absurd things such as "if you have a team, it can't be gender segregated"
We have been reaping the bitter fruits of this corruption and this lawfare against a presidential candidate is the culmination of the fallacy; perhaps the final dose of poison.
Why is this so corrosive? When laws are not enforced equally, then those whom are more protected from the implication of the laws than others have no motivation to avoid or repeal unjust laws. It is the opposite of the rule of law, "discretion" is arbitrary power disguised in the skin of law.
We live now in a time where theory is accompanied by daily experiment. https://justthenews.com/government/local/ny-state-senator-calls-bill-he-voted-unconstitutional-after-hes-hit-rape-lawsuit
After voting for it, a senator says that a law is unconstitutional when it was used against him.
1.) That is how you know it was a bill of attainder
2.) This is what equal application would prevent
the very idea that applying thought towards enforcement of the law is itself the problem.
"thought", that is a strawman. The thinking that is appropriate is thinking about what the law says and whether the acts are objectively part of the category. Your burning hatred of orangeman is not "thought" no matter how much you masquerade it as something rational.
You deny that hatred like cops deny racism, there is no solution to that problem.
You can't prove the cops are racist, but you can keep them from abusing people via equal protection.
You mean like noting that all classification authority flows from POTUS and if he isn't authorized then no one is?Are you seriously about to go down the whole "Trump can declassify documents with his mind" path?
I'm all the way down that path and always have been. If your claim is that classified documents can't be in the possession of ex-presidents then by the very act of taking them home a president declassifies them in the same way that he declassifies information by making a million copies and handing them out at a public rally (which he should have done). Even further any law that tried to keep secrets from the president would be unconstitutional.
It's as deeply lawful as anything in this country can get. You may as well be accusing his right hand from stealing from the left.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
IRWA's?Oh sorry, I know Trump voters are functionally illiterate.
"adjacent character swap, can be caused by 10 ms difference in key strike, therefore functionally illiterate"
*jeopardy music*
What the definition of grasping at straws?
You are correct!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yep, you can find it by substr ( 0, 2)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
No, it's inappropriate to be proud or ashamed of that which you have not chosen or done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What kind of people would post vile sadistic things about public figures?
Oh yea, they're on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes. What I was pointing out is that there are 'rules' to predict who has to sign what.
NDAs and waivers can be contracts between two parties as well as a one sided contingent promise.
You can (and many people have) signed NDAs where the non-disclosure is contingent on the other party paying or doing something else and they insist on the other party signing because they don't want them to be able to back out.
However, with something like non disclosure it's always possible to "fail to deliver the goods", all you have to do is start talking; so there is less need for the party desiring silence to agree.
If you imagine it like ordering a custom vehicle, you might have to sign a contract (two parties) because if you take the car before you pay they need to be able to sue you; and if you pay but they don't give you the car you might have to sue them.
Contrast that with buying a continuous service, like internet, you don't need to sign (although sometimes there are things to sign for different reasons) because they don't need to be able to sue you. If you don't live up to the agreement they just cut you off. All they're doing is promising a service for money. You can't sue them if you don't give them the money.
In this case though Stormy doesn't need to be able to sue Cohen (or purportedly Trump) if she doesn't get the money. She can just start talking. It's asymmetric in that only Cohen (or purportedly Trump) need to have the option to sue.
Maybe Stormy really wants that money and thinks they won't pay, then she wants a promise they will pay so she wants a signature, but that's a judgement call on her part.
In any case she took the money then talked, and according to Trump defamed, so she can be sued and ought to win by all precedent.
Created:
Posted in:
Well if there is a contract specifying a payment you need two party signature to create an obligation. Cohen could have signed, but if the NDA could just make silence contingent on payment which is enough security for many without a signature.
Like "I promise to mow your lawn if you pay me $5", that doesn't need a signature from the home owner. No $5 = no mowing.
Whether Cohen or Stormy were following best practices is besides the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you have a video of this body builder refusing to sit next to someone on a plane (demanding that the other person move) and then answering the question "is there going to be a problem" with "yes"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of those episodes make more sense than ebuc. They simply overlook simple explanations for incredible ones, ignore the lack of independent evidence, ignore any contradictions, then ignore the context of the fermi paradox.
but at least you knew what they were asserting...
ebuc uses words and phrases that do not work together to convey an assertion. It's made me think he's a bot more than once.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Some of those people are braindead, and incredibly not the one whose brain was eaten by a worm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh for sure, and not just for the TDS. This one has general DS. He might be able to make money as a replacement for Michio Kaku or Neil De Grass Tyson though. They need to keep increasing the incomprehensible pseudoscience to keep people interested in those 'documentaries'.
"Sir is there going to be a problem"
"Not if you intersect the null void dark entropy with the bisected hypercone"
Created:
Posted in:
Pseudonym... like robinware456? Wait wrong guy.
Created:
Posted in:
As an addendum to the "democrats denying election results for 12 minutes" here is Nancy doubling down.
BTW I am not endorsing pony tail guy's statement. We should only accept real election as elections. That means elections where russians are part of the downpour of misinformation but where every ballot is from one eligible citizen and that eligible citizen only cast one ballot are still elections. "Elections" where that cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt are not elections.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yea, it's a big plus for him. It should be a constitutional amendment at this point that the national currency should be a fixed growth algorithm blockchain.
PS being pro opensource blockchain is like a platinum ID card which says "I am not deepstate"
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Net equation ['You' = population abstracted as one person]:
Government steals your stuff and you have to work for them to get some (but not all) of it back
You have less stuff because you've been stolen from and you spend less time producing stuff because part of your time is spent wasting the stuff they stole from you (through government employment/contracts).
Step 2 (or step 7 in your list):
Blame poverty, reduction in standards of living, and all other deprivations on the free market and suggest you should increase government spending to solve the problem.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep I saw it. Gave me flashbacks to macroeconomics where it was painfully easy to stump the professor. I stopped doing that out of pity (and to save my grades).
To be fair, it is hard to keep track of bullshit which doesn't actually make sense. Normally though they're smart enough to hire conmen for the job.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's hard to say who they sneer at more, blacks or rural people.
It's surreal how colleges can fill their heads with minutia of specific fields without imparting an ounce of wisdom or an integrated worldview.
Also you should have known that IWRA who's pay doubled through covid (thus defeating inflation), who owns 20 houses, who has all the degrees, and who pays for misinformation would scoff at the New York Post which instead of being hidden behind a paywall has been repeatedly hidden by dogmatic censors of the deep state only to be proven to be entirely correct later on.
Personally I think the number of times your newspaper has been censored and then quietly uncensored is one of the better proxies for actual news. Very little is as important as what they don't want you to see.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also see crime bills where either they get punished too hard or not enough based on the color of skin. So much for "rule of law"
Well apparently that is fine. It's called "discretion".
That's what I'm told anyway.
Created:
As you know, most of the cheating happened in the cities where all the blacks live.
Democrats are experts at speaking for blacks who weren't consulted, see the 2/3 clause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, she signed a document saying she would not defame Trump, took the money, then defamed Trump anyway.
Yeapppp....
In TDS world though that means he raped her and denying it is defamation.
"Law and Order"
"Precedent"
The only question in my mind is whether Stormy is doing it out of spite, money, or threats. Clearly money motivates her to tell lies.
Created:
Posted in:
You're going to get indoctrinated, you're going to pay for it, and you're going to like it.
Created:
Posted in:
"They invented the electoral college to guard against stupid voters"
"our democracy" != democracy
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Apparently they care about due process, proving them more trustworthy than Hamas who has arrested no one for all the raping and murdering.apparently the west bank police do what the israeli defense minister tells them to do
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Others say that stopping promised aid is an impeachable offense, but I guess that's only when the quid pro quo demand is unpalatable to the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well she's ideal material for a kangaroo court jury, also send her 52 mail ballots please.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
no point in waiting for the authorities to you know, investigate and make arrests or anything
Obviously there is a point but that is an ideal of civilization that can't always be lived up to. You can wait around forever but the cops in Pakistan aren't going to arrest Osama Bin Laden for example.
If the PA could be trusted to stop these kinds of murders there wouldn't be so many of them and they wouldn't feel the need to take matters into their own hands.
When the IDF gets involved people you listen to call it "occupation". Can't have it both ways.
That is not what I said. I said that the only reason the IDF would give is that they're guilty or planning to be guilty (which is another kind of guilty)There is only one reason the IDF would give for bombing someone, that is that they are a real and present threat. Clearly they are not suffering from general paranoia.this is the most delusional statement i've read all yearthey're guilty BECAUSE they're being bombed
I am not saying I know that everyone Israel kills is guilty, I am saying you don't know that they're not anymore than I do.
All we have is broad cultural and historical records because specifics can't be confirmed through the haze of information warfare. That wide view tells me Israel has the moral high ground and also that they are more trustworthy when they say they have good reason to do what they do.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is analogous to murder convictions where a body can never, or wasn't ever found.If there are thousands of such convictions, it's entirely plausible the courts could similarly convict someone of voter fraud.
but how many murders are punished vs how many voter fraudsters?
Even if they were looking it's much easier to get away with voter fraud because there is no body to hide. Basically it's just confession, now that could be from bragging to friends or on a text app that can be used as evidence; but an intelligent careful fraudster really has nothing to fear.
Murdering someone and disposing of the body is much much more complicated so we can expect that the number of missing persons that were actually murdered but we have no proof or conviction is of limited scope.
Yes you could convict someone of voter fraud with circumstantial evidence, but there isn't much of that either.
I'm sure if you look at those convictions without a body, there was evidence of unique motivation, unique opportunity, and steps to hide the body.
With voter fraud, pretty much anyone who knows how the system works and who has a computer has the opportunity. There are millions of TDS who have the motivation. There is little to no evidence that needs to be hidden.
Therefore we can expect that even if there was honest investigation, the number of convicted cases of fraud would be a tiny proportion of the actual amount of fraud.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The incident was part of a rampage by Israeli settlers that, according to local officials, killed four Palestinians over four days.
How many Jews were killed before this?
The violence was triggered by the disappearance of 14-year-old Binyamin Ahimeir, who went missing on Friday after leaving his settler outpost to herd sheep near the Palestinian village of Mughayir, in the Ramallah area.His body was found a day later, and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said he had been killed in a "terrorist attack".
Ah, there we go. Murdering children... again.
ok, soinstead of waiting for the cops to investigate and make an arrestthey just start attacking their neighborsseems extremely reasonable and civilized
Wait till you hear about George Floyd
where are you hearing about "kill squads" in the west bank ?
There is only one reason the IDF would give for bombing someone, that is that they are a real and present threat. Clearly they are not suffering from general paranoia.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, they beg the question under the false premise that they already know fraud didn't happen because they haven't been buried under a mountain absolute proof already.
Again, it's not analogous to murder because it doesn't leave dead bodies (evidence that must be actively hidden); but if it were forced into that shape it would be like they are refusing to investigate missing persons reports because they already know the person is fine because they can't have been murdered because there is no body.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody sensible is claiming there aren't combatants in the west bank either. Israel has nothing to gain by bombing true civilians.if they're not interested in territoryit's probably just good old-fashioned racism
Isn't the simplest explanation that they're reacting to the assembly of kill squads?
You don't need to assume some form of insanity since a bunch of kill squads is exactly what attacked them on October 7th. You also don't need to explain why this supposed rampant racial hatred that doesn't manifest against arabs within firm Israeli territory (where the arabs that are content with the Israeli state live).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
They had all that territory. They controlled down to the Suez. They gave it up in the hope of peace.ok, i guess that means they can kill anybody they wish
No, it means the motivation you asserted is more or less debunked.
People looking for territory don't give it up when they've fought for it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody sensible is claiming there aren't combatants in the west bank either. Israel has nothing to gain by bombing true civilians.they obviously gain territory
They had all that territory. They controlled down to the Suez. They gave it up in the hope of peace.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats cannot find the body, so they cannot start a murder investigation.
IWRA's stubbornness on this analogy is telling, but it's really bugging me that no one is acknowledging something pretty fundamental:
Mail fraud doesn't leave bodies. You murder someone, there is a body; then you have to work to cover the body up.
They don't have to do any work to cover up mail fraud, the mail is untraceable.
The process that would be required to make remote voting democratic is a process that would cause fraud to leave "bodies", aka evidence, aka auditability.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I will answer the question though: "from the river to the sea" would not be evil if it was Israel because Israel doesn't exterminate muslims or arabs. Hamas does exterminate jews.netanyahu and other members of the government have said repeatedly they will not stop bombing until every member of hamas is deadhow do you think they know who is a "member of hamas"do they all wear uniforms ?do they carry a special id card ?can you perhaps x-ray their skulls to find little flags in their brains ?
The problem you highlight is well known. This is why uniforms existed in the first place and why the Geneva convention distinguishes between uniformed and nonuniform combatants.
This is also called guerilla warfare.
I see it as no different than using nuclear or biological weapons or strategic bombing (in quality not quantity). It gives you a strong advantage but it costs more innocent lives.
The jihadists are choosing to use that weapon, and the cost is civilians on their side. This is not Israel's fault, and all those civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't the US military's fault either.
These jihadists don't think they can win with uniforms (they probably couldn't) and they are sure they are justified so they don't care if civilians die because of it.
they're bombing the west bankand nobody is claiming "hamas" is in the west bank
Nobody sensible is claiming there aren't combatants in the west bank either. Israel has nothing to gain by bombing true civilians.
in fact, the palestinian authority and hamas are mortal enemies and have literally killed hundreds on each side
That will make for a fun time after all the jews are dead or expelled.
It was Hezbollah BTWlet's tackle hamas first
Let's not pretend Hamas is any better.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you know the difference between this clip and the one I posted? The one I posted was referencing a quote from an actual military leader.palestine does not have a military
Uh huh, just civilians with long range rocket artillery.
It was Hezbollah BTW
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know Hebrew, but I do know English; and some people are making themselves abundantly clear:how is "from the river to the sea" somehow evil when one person says it, but not when another person says it ?
That clip did not contain that phrase. Did you watch it?
I will answer the question though: "from the river to the sea" would not be evil if it was Israel because Israel doesn't exterminate muslims or arabs. Hamas does exterminate jews.
So, the whole area being under Hamas control means all the jews were killed or exiled. The inverse is not true.
Do you know the difference between this clip and the one I posted? The one I posted was referencing a quote from an actual military leader.
Created:
lol IWRA can't even convince Zed it is relevant.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@cristo71
[ADOL] and I won't believe it just because clearly delusional people say it.[3RU7AL] try watching a few israeli news broadcaststhey're bragging about it
[cristo71] I have come to the conclusion that they dream of living in a world devoid of Jews and a Jewish homeland— even if it means the destruction of their own earthly lives and the lives of their children, sadly.[3RU7AL] what are you trying to say here ?
I don't know Hebrew, but I do know English; and some people are making themselves abundantly clear:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
because you can find a 1% overlap in the Venn diagram of illegality
Illegality cannot accurately be charted on a Venn diagram.
There are statutes with definitions of crime. When you choose an interpretation you have to stick with it. If you don't, that's lawfare. That's your whim ruling, not the law.
then wonder why they're being treated differently.
Oh I know why they're treated differently, and it is intolerable. I don't ask you for an explanation for different treatment, I asked you to explain why your interpretations don't apply to others and you have consistently failed.
If I was doing 71 in a 70 zone, I'm speeding, but I probably won't get pulled over. If I'm doing 138, I'll be lucky if I don't get arrested. And if I don't, they'll dish out a ticket for every violation they can find; seat belt, window tints, failure to signal, etc...And then you'll come along claiming this is lawfare because both were speeding without a seat belt but only one got a ticket.
It's actually a good analogy, because this is a perfect example of low level lawfare.
Building codes, zoning rules, county bylaws are another.
and if Trump was fined 500 million dollars for speeding, it would still be lawfare.
You find unequal application to be acceptable to go after troublemakers (in your view). Your view is unethical, and where the examples above are a pervasive but low density injustice, when used to control the federal government it becomes civil-war-triggering.
To the Jim Crow southern sheriff being black was enough proof of being a troublemaker. That was the context they needed to pull over a black guy. People who believe in the fallacy you just expressed tie themselves in endless loops "oh discretion is good, but not for the wrong reasons..." bla bla bla, you're wrong; and it shows in the injustice your theory manifests.
the enforcement of the law will always require human discretion.
Discretion exists to the degree of imperfection in the law. The greatest discretion is absolute dictatorship.
If men could be trusted to choose justice on their own discretion, we wouldn't need laws.
That, by definition
You asserting that something has never been perfect is not a definition.
There has always been rape and murder, but human society does not by definition require it and we should do our very best to eliminate it from our society.
This is where your arguments fall completely off the intellectual cliff.
Oh, no I don't think that's whats happening here.
No regard for how one situation was different from another
Just enough regard to distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant.
no regard for what those laws were written to protect against in the first place.
You mean like noting that all classification authority flows from POTUS and if he isn't authorized then no one is?
It's not a serious point of view, it's the weaponization of every technicality you can find to advance your political agenda, which is to burn it all to the ground because it isn't working for you the way you think you're entitled to.
Confession by projection, every word.
We're talking about this only because of its political implications
The law is being twisted because of the political implications. The letter of the law is the proof of the twisting.
so to pretend that "worse" is irrelevant to this conversation is fundamentally dishonest and frankly stupid.
It's irrelevant to the law, and when you think your idea of worse justifies unequal and novel (without precedent) application of law that just so happens to pile onto one political candidate you all but admit that the law is nothing more than a conduit for your political goals.
Politics is war by other means. When law is a weapon in politics, that is a good definition of "lawfare" and mutually exclusive with "rule of law".
Worse does in fact matter In every sense because determining what's worse and treating it as if it was worse is the entire point of why we have laws and why we have a political system in the first place. It's why you are purporting to be so upset about what's going on right now.
The voting booth is where you may decide that Donald J Trump is worse than others. Trying to squeeze a bill of attainder out of laws which under the constitution may not apply to only one man is seditious abuse of the law and the constitution.
Unequal application of laws is unconstitutional, and laws that are twisted to apply to one man (and his agents) is the most unequal form of unequal application.
You and those like you taking a big smelly dump on the social contract and rule of law is worse than Donald Trump asking whether Biden is corrupt and buying big macs for another four years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think he has 3 alternate accounts for the likes because what kind of simpleton would think he made a point by responding 11 minutes after the so called "unemployed" person?Why do unemployed people care if others are as well? Misery loves company I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then they should put it in the charges... oh wait, they can't, no jurisdiction.
Not a charging document.
Excited? No I was just explaining to you why your cartoonishly ridiculous hypothetical would never happen in real life.
It's happening right now. You just like the results, at least the ones you foresee.
Cohen wasn't running for president, but you seem to think if Trump told Cohen to pay Stormy that counts.He didn't just tell him.
It doesn't matter. If hush money is a campaign expenditure then it must be recorded and transparent. You cannot escape the fact that your interpretation makes hundreds of other people guilty and is a break with all precedent.
Unequal application and lack of precedent are the hallmarks of lawfare (or the end of rule of law).
Why quote me of you're not going to respond to a word I just said?
You said nothing of relevance. The overlap was clear and obvious. Falsification is not required under your absurd legal theories.
You're conflating two different things and as usual
I'm categorizing your fallacies by common properties. Within the list of traditionally named fallacies they are red herrings. You refuse to accept the implications of your asserted legal interpretations because you think some other charge or detail (often false but that's besides the point) creates "context" that renders your interpretation moot.
Red herrings are fallacies of relevance and that is your repeated fallacy in comparing lawfare to rule of law.
The overview here is where we step back and recognize as thinking human beings that lying to the FBI in order to hold onto classified documents is worse than realizing you have them and immediately returning them.
Irrelevant to the claim that retaining once classified documents willfully after having been POTUS (or near presidential power) and having been authorized to possess the information violates the law.
Your "worse" is the red herring. What you think of as "worse" has nothing to do with the implications of your interpretation of the law in question.
"Willful retention is not accidental, negligent, or reckless. Rather, a defendant only retains NDI willfully if he or she knows he or she possesses it and knows that such possession is prohibited due to the nature of the information."
This is the opinion of one person, not precedent or citation of law. It gives the impression the quote you transmitted is from a court ruling, but that text is not found in United States v. Hitselberger, 991 F. Supp.2d 101, 106-07 (D. D.C. 2013).
Maybe you should send it to Hur, because he said Biden willfully retained documents.
So when you are lying to the FBI about the documents you possess, you are almost by definition guilty of willful retention. That describes Trump. It does not describe Biden.
It describes neither because both thought the possession was not prohibited. That doesn't change just because the FBI starts asking questions.
here. You ABSURDLY claim "legal expenses" is a false label, but that does not in any way or in the slightest degree change the fact that you are also claiming hush money (compensated NDAs) is a campaign finance violation.The $130k you paid to a porn star to keep her quiet is not a legal expense. That's a fact.
When it's a legal agreement negotiated by a lawyer and paid through a lawyer it is. That is a fact.
Nearly every law firm pays court, filing, records, and service fees on behalf of a client. It is not falsifying business records to record only one payment to the lawfirm just because the law firm doesn't use the entire payment for salary.
Paying to keep a story out of the public for the purpose of winning election sure sounds to me like a campaign expenditure. Not a lawyer here, but I fail to see how it is not.
and suspending anyone's account for mentioning a story for the purpose of winning an election sure sounds like campaign activity to me. So I guess that makes facebook and the FBI's budget "campaign expenditures".
You have no capability of self-correction. What you should be doing is looking at absurd conclusions and saying "there is an error in one of the premises", in this case your premise that "anything that I can construe as helping a political campaign is campaign activity".
As I've said about 3 or 4 times already, I really have no interest in the legal minutiae of this case
Like 3RU7AL said, you want it both ways.
If you could stay on subject without gish galloping around with red herrings we would be talking only about the constitution and what the impeachments clause implies.
You can't, because in your mind (as it appears) you have no clearly defined chains of inference.
You (seemingly) can't help but argue "orangeman bad therefore immunity (from prosecution by anyone with a hammer) must be fake". "He did it for the money" or "entirely for personal gain"
The juicy goal of destroying Donald Trump is like a tumor in your thinking that draws all thoughts towards it. All arguments exist only in relation to getting Trump. All these pseudocases against Trump serve to prove is that the founders were wise to remove federal officers (and office holders) from the whims of easily corrupted local courts.
The fact that the founders limited jurisdiction to congress is contained solely in the text and history of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are the soundtracks for post liberal dystopias so fun?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fewer buyers mean lower prices, might actually crash the market and I'm ready and waiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
the schwarzenegger case is an example of a tabloid paying for a story in the middle of a political campaign with the intent to kill the storyAnd tabloids are free to do that all they want. Tabloids aren't running for president and therefore aren't subject to campaign finance laws.
Cohen wasn't running for president, but you seem to think if Trump told Cohen to pay Stormy that counts.
Now, why would a tabloid kill a story? Out of the goodness of their heart? They just hate the defamation that much?
When you can explain the overlap been the Schwarzenegger campaign's involvement and falsification of business records with Trump's then you might have a case of a legal double standard, assuming California's laws are the same.
It's all about the context you see. The portents were very different in California at that time.
Someone saw an eagle high in the sky. The chicken bones were laid out quite uniquely.
Always the same tired, failed, illogical, pathetic, defeated, and utterly debunked tricks with you isn't it. "False equivalence because the exact order of fake offenses isn't the same"
If you were honest you would admit it's the implications of your 'interpretations' that mattered. If they were true, there would be a crime. You can't just drag in random bits of information and change that.
"Oh did Biden lie to the FBI", doesn't matter does it. The law you claim Trump broke doesn't say "willfully retain documents while lying to the FBI"
Same thing here. You ABSURDLY claim "legal expenses" is a false label, but that does not in any way or in the slightest degree change the fact that you are also claiming hush money (compensated NDAs) is a campaign finance violation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You keep alluding to this campaign finance violation that was "never charged". You do know that is one of the central elements on trial right now... Right?
Then they should put it in the charges... oh wait, they can't, no jurisdiction.
Remember when you were all excited about jurisdiction stopping abuses? Nope, not when there is lawfare to wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also: ignore the 2 signed documents where she asserted nothing happened.
Well if you didn't ignore it then she would have defrauded the American voter by lying. Either she's lying now or she lied then.
Off to the gulag with her!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
and RFK can beat trumpthen NOBODY will vote for biden
Then RFK should have been in the republican primary. That was where he could force people to choose between him and Trump.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
but he doesn't win in a three way and you can't get Biden out of the way because the deep state wants his compliant decaying brain right where it is.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hopefully the judge will do the right thing here and put Trump and all the news agencies in jail for violating gag orders.
Yep, classic slippery slope.
First it's "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater", just took a while before they decided unsanctioned narratives was pretty much the same thing as "fire" and the population of the nation was just like a "theater".
Just a continuation of "You calling your accuser a liar? DEFAMATION!"
Psuedojudges guided by the ever perfect advise of the "intelligence community" and "trusted news sources" will now be doing the thinking for you citizen; move along.
Created: