How predictable. A 16 second sound bite that accomplishes all the conformation your bias requires.
And you call me gullible. Hah !
I took an unattributed trolling quote from the Trump thread and posted it here where such a remark would be much more credible. Referencing a man who had to be publicly shamed to acknowledge his own granddaughter. You really think he cares about anyone but himself ? I laugh every time one of you responds to one of my posts with some form of you really think Trump cares about you / me. Oh please. Especially when you all pretend that Biden really cares about you as if he really does. It is you who are gullible.
It is a tell of where you get your news from that drives you to this predictable knee jerk / pearl clutching moment. You run out of the building screaming, I knew it, I knew it all along, now I have proof ! I've watched enough Trump rallies to know there is a 2 or 3 minute set up for a remark like that. The context matters. I would like to see those 2 or 3 minutes before passing any judgement. Not you, you've got all that you need to go ahead with your vote for Biden. He's not talking to you anyway. He's talking about you and all of your fellow echochambermates. You're hopelessly lost and will not change your mind about Trump, period.
We wait to see who reacts to these setups. We are not surprised. Like I said, its a tell.
Seems like you were itching for some sort of groundswell of anti-Trump remarks to your previous post.
And when you really didn't get much of anything... you manufactured it anyway.
I still believe that some non-zero portion of what the failed steak salesman says are really subtle jokes. But two things: 1) heâs no good at telling jokes and 2) if itâs not his talent, he shouldnât be doing it if he wants to be President. For instance, this might have been a joke, but it never ever shouldâve been said in public.
what are you on about today? did Biden make trump say it? Are you just proud of him for 'keeping it real'?
How predictable. A 16 second sound bite that accomplishes all the conformation your bias requires.
And you call me gullible. Hah !
I took an unattributed trolling quote from the Trump thread and posted it here where such a remark would be much more credible. Referencing a man who had to be publicly shamed to acknowledge his own granddaughter. You really think he cares about anyone but himself ? I laugh every time one of you responds to one of my posts with some form of you really think Trump cares about you / me. Oh please. Especially when you all pretend that Biden really cares about you as if he really does. It is you who are gullible.
It is a tell of where you get your news from that drives you to this predictable knee jerk / pearl clutching moment. You run out of the building screaming, I knew it, I knew it all along, now I have proof ! I've watched enough Trump rallies to know there is a 2 or 3 minute set up for a remark like that. The context matters. I would like to see those 2 or 3 minutes before passing any judgement. Not you, you've got all that you need to go ahead with your vote for Biden. He's not talking to you anyway. He's talking about you and all of your fellow echochambermates. You're hopelessly lost and will not change your mind about Trump, period.
We wait to see who reacts to these setups. We are not surprised. Like I said, its a tell.
The current beneficiaries of a two-tiered justice system (you try attacking a judge while under a gag order...) want you to believe they want to destroy the very system they abuse.
Plea deals are unacceptable when offered to the opposition.
I think Hunter should spend a few years in jail...and we should do the same for all gun violations going forward.
Where is the NRA in all of this? Must have them in a pickle. If Hunter was a REPUBLICAN politician's son they would be all over this.
The agreement on the gun charge was that Biden would enter into what is known as a diversion agreement under which he would not be prosecuted for that offense as long as he met certain requirements. If he did, the gun case would just go away (it is like serving probation without prosecution).. If there is a violation of the diversion agreement, the case is prosecuted. The problem was that the prosecution and defense plea agreement would have had the judge in an enforcement capacity if the prosecution thought the diversion agreement had been violated â she would decide whether it had been violated. The reason why she questioned this is because the decision to prosecute is a function of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
The other, bigger issue was that the defense thought the plea agreement covered all offenses that could be prosecuted at that time â beyond the tax and gun charges. The prosecution thought otherwise. The USAO is still investigating Bidenâs business practices in Ukraine and elsewhere. As with any plea agreement, the judge has to make sure the defendant understands and agrees to the plea. Here, it was obvious there was disagreement among the attorneys.
I raised all this because I think that Delaware judge, like Judge Mershan in the Trump trial, seemed to be doing her job as opposed to bending to political winds. I say that with the caveat that this opinion of mine is based on what I knew of each judgeâs decisions as reported.
(probably more than you â or anyone, â want or need to know. I get carried away sometimes . . .)
I meant to thank you earlier for this but my browser had a stroke or something.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 4, 2024 - 11:15am
islander wrote:
Noted. I haven't followed this very closely, so appreciate the correction. Too many politicians under indictment to keep up with these days...
So was the issue that he was paying a tax fine, but getting relief from the gun charge?
The agreement on the gun charge was that Biden would enter into what is known as a diversion agreement under which he would not be prosecuted for that offense as long as he met certain requirements. If he did, the gun case would just go away (it is like serving probation without prosecution).. If there is a violation of the diversion agreement, the case is prosecuted. The problem was that the prosecution and defense plea agreement would have had the judge in an enforcement capacity if the prosecution thought the diversion agreement had been violated â she would decide whether it had been violated. The reason why she questioned this is because the decision to prosecute is a function of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
The other, bigger issue was that the defense thought the plea agreement covered all offenses that could be prosecuted at that time â beyond the tax and gun charges. The prosecution thought otherwise. The USAO is still investigating Bidenâs business practices in Ukraine and elsewhere. As with any plea agreement, the judge has to make sure the defendant understands and agrees to the plea. Here, it was obvious there was disagreement among the attorneys.
I raised all this because I think that Delaware judge, like Judge Mershan in the Trump trial, seemed to be doing her job as opposed to bending to political winds. I say that with the caveat that this opinion of mine is based on what I knew of each judgeâs decisions as reported.
(probably more than you â or anyone, â want or need to know. I get carried away sometimes . . .)
Just to clarify: the judge questioned whether the prosecution and defense were in agreement on what other criminal offenses were covered by the plea agreement. Turns out that they were not. She also questioned whether she had the authority to retain jurisdiction over what really was a deferred prosecution agreement on the gun charges. She was correct in questioning both.
Noted. I haven't followed this very closely, so appreciate the correction. Too many politicians under indictment to keep up with these days...
So was the issue that he was paying a tax fine, but getting relief from the gun charge?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 4, 2024 - 10:01am
islander wrote:
He tried that, but the judge protested the agreement saying it was too lenient. Some people apparently wanted a big public trial for some reason.
Just to clarify: the judge questioned whether the prosecution and defense were in agreement on what other criminal offenses were covered by the plea agreement. Turns out that they were not. She also questioned whether she had the authority to retain jurisdiction over what really was a deferred prosecution agreement on the gun charges. She was correct in questioning both.
He tried that, but the judge protested the agreement saying it was too lenient. Some people apparently wanted a big public trial for some reason.
The current beneficiaries of a two-tiered justice system (you try attacking a judge while under a gag order...) want you to believe they want to destroy the very system they abuse.
Plea deals are unacceptable when offered to the opposition.
I think Hunter should spend a few years in jail...and we should do the same for all gun violations going forward.
HB 2 was tougher. Had the so called bipartisan Senate bill with the 5000 daily cutoff limit passed, Joe would be unable to do his 2000 or 2500 per day limit his new executive order is going to do. The 5000 would be law eliminating the option for an executive order reducing it.
Another bad law that thankfully did not get passed.
You know, you're talking about folks who now proudly wear t-shirts proclaiming "real men wear diapers". Trump can (and probably will) be utterly incoherent during any debate, and they will hail him as The Winner.
I think Trump definitely has more to lose in a debate with Biden. As I have stated here before, the refrain of Trump and his supporters is and has been that Biden is so cognitively impaired that he essentially is out of it. If that were true, it should be readily apparent to all during a debate. Trump should not only easily âwinâ the debate, Biden should look and sound pathetic. If true and exposed in a public debate, it would not just swing the election to Trump, it would raise 25th Amendment issues for Biden. Of course it is not true. Trump and his supporters already have their explanation for how and why the cognitively impaired Biden could hold his own with â or do better than â Trump in a debate: Joe is on performance-enhancing drugs! Yeah, thatâs the ticket!
You know, you're talking about folks who now proudly wear t-shirts proclaiming "real men wear diapers". Trump can (and probably will) be utterly incoherent during any debate, and they will hail him as The Winner.