mspart

Indeed it is. They don't have the guts to come out and say that Turley has good legal instincts or not and back that up with reasoning. It doesn't get any simpler, but these guys just can't bring themselves to do it. mspart

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel Year Dead Injured Rocket attacks Mortar attacks Total attacks Total attacks % change Total* 33 1971+ 12,338 6,500 18,928 2001 0 4 4+ 2002 0 35 35+ 775% 2003 0 155 155+ 343% 2004 4 281 281+ 81% 2005 2 401 854 1,255 346% 2006 2 371 1,722 55 1,777 42% 2007 2 578 1,276 1,531 2,807 58% 2008 8 611 2,048 1,668 3,716 32% Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza after Operation Cast Lead to stop missile fire into Israel[198] and arms import into Gaza.[199][200] 2009 0 11 569 289 858 77% 2010 1 35 150 215 365 57% 2011 2 81 419 261 680[201] 86% 2012 6[181][202] 284+ 2,256[203] 17 2,273+[204][205] 234% 2013 0 32 12 44 98% 2014 6 80 2,800 1,700 4,500 [206] 9000% 2015* 0 0 3[207] 0 0 9000% mspart

Agreed. I just want one of the leftists on this board to say what they think of his commentary. mspart

Yes, I meant Turley and still no one has commented on his commentary. Is it sound legal reasoning or maga inspired churl? mspart

A very small Sumo!! mspart

There you go DH. Now where is yours? mspart

Oh the horror. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ny-attorney-general-letitia-james-trump-opponent-indicted-grand-jury-b-rcna236737?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us Grand jury indicts N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James, a Trump opponent, on bank fraud charges James, a Democrat, has clashed with President Donald Trump after she brought civil charges against him in New York. WASHINGTON — New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who has clashed with President Donald Trump, was indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury in Virginia. James was charged with one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution after Trump publicly called for his Justice Department appointees to bring charges against her. The indictment alleges James falsely claimed that a home in Norfolk, Virginia, was her second residence, allowing her to obtain favorable loan terms, and that she rented the property to a family of three. James could face up to 30 years in prison and up to a $1 million fine on each count if she’s convicted. She vehemently denied the charges. “These charges are baseless, and the president’s own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost," James said in a statement that she also read aloud in a video on X. "The president’s actions are a grave violation of our Constitutional order and have drawn sharp criticism from members of both parties." Does this sound familiar? one count of making false statements to a financial institution Gee it sure sounds familiar to me. Not only that, but this is a concrete allegation as opposed to what I heard before. She is crying foul for the same thing she did to him. She ran her campaign on the promise she would get Trump on something if she was elected. She was elected and she cobbled together a crazy outlandish prosecution. You go after Trump for making false statements to financial institutions, you better be quite sure you are not anywhere close to such a thing. Elections have consequences and conducting a baseless witch hunt does too. I'm sure Turley will comment on this tomorrow. He will probably say this is going too far. She tried to bleed him dry and campaigned on that. Talk about a grave violation of the Constitutional order. She doesn't recognize such a thing if it isn't directly aimed at her. mspart

Lets say they are not an org, but an idea. Will you denounce the idea that seems to spread violence everywhere the idea goes. mspart

Turley has this take: https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/09/comeys-hail-mary-play-the-former-fbi-director-will-reportedly-raise-three-threshold-challenges-to-his-criminal-charges/ He says Comey will fight the trial 3 ways, one of which has a real chance. Unlawful Appointment The final claim may have more potential for Comey. He will claim that Lindsey Halligan, who signed off on the grand jury indictment, was unlawfully appointed to her position. This technicality could derail the case because the Administration does not have the luxury of going back and redoing the indictment. The Trump Administration brought down the indictment shortly before the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. If any of these claims succeed, the case is likely dead as Delinger. This issue turns on a somewhat arcane provision under Section 546(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code, which authorizes an Attorney General to appoint an interim United States Attorney for a term of 120 days. The problem is that the Trump Administration used that provision to appoint Erik Siebert, the predecessor of Halligan. The statute says that once the 120-day period has ended, “the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.” Comey will argue that this is a one-time option and that the appointment of a new acting U.S. Attorney had to be made by the district court. If so, the indictment was invalid and, again, the case is dead and cannot be revived with the expiration of the statute of limitations. In Siebert’s case, his term expired 120 days after his Jan. 21 appointment by Acting Attorney General James McHenry, on or about May 21. After that, Whelan said, Eastern District of Virginia judges appointed him to continue to serve. Comey has the advantage of being able to cite a memorandum by none other than Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito from when he served in the Office of Legal Counsel in 1986. Alito concluded that “after the expiration of the 120-day period further interim appointments are to be made by the court rather than by the Attorney General.” He added, “it would appear that Congress intended to confer on the Attorney General only the power to make one interim appointment; a subsequent interim appointment would have to be made by the district court.” The Trump Administration can argue that Trump fired Siebert, thereby vacating the office for a second time. Under this argument, the process restarts with the vacancy. Comey will argue that this could allow a president to circumvent the intent of Congress by firing acting U.S. Attorneys to daisy chain vacancies allowing endless new 120-day periods to run. While these are tough claims to make in a criminal case, the case is equally challenging for the Trump Administration. Putting aside the fact that they are in front of a Biden-appointed judge in a heavily Democratic district, the claims of false statements and obstruction often turn on highly interpretative views of a person’s intent or knowledge. If Comey succeeds on these threshold challenges, the case could also be bogged down for years in appeals. A Democratic president could then scuttle any trial or he could be given a pardon to end the matter effectively. In other words, it does not sound like Comey is going to jail any time soon. For those that insist that Comey is a Maga dude, please point out how his reasoning here is wrong. I challenged everyone on another thread and no one took the challenge. I take that that he is not wrong in his legal reasoning. It just goes against the left who are crazy. mspart

Maybe the WNBA should be grateful to her. I don't follow WNBA. I don't follow the NBA. I always liked BanBasketball just for the name. My HS asst wrestling coach had a saying. "Basketball, such a silly sport" Amen braddah!! mspart

Yeah, I still miss our dogs. We had 3 black labs. The first got run over on the highway at 4 years old. He was an incredibly smart dog. They are all buried on our property. mspart

1. Just common sense. In a fight with AOC and he needs to look almost as crazy as her. He is old and shoudl be out to pasture but he doesn't think so and wants another term. So he is doing what he has to to look better than AOC. So he is leading the charge. 2. He was absolutely not for shutting the govt down the last time, now he was the first on board, no hesitating, no second guessing. All over shutting down the govt. See item 1. mspart

GMF - I feel ya. We had to put down lab brothers a year apart. They were 12 and 13 and just couldn't do it anymore. The last day for the 13 year old (blackjack) I got him up to get him out of the kennel and he stumbled all over the place and laid down and didn't want to move. The poor guy. His brother (buddy) had to be put down a year earlier do to jaw cancer type issues. Wasn't eating anymore. In both cases, they were not being dogs anymore and there was no point to making them suffer like that. It was heart wrenching for sure. mspart

I don't think there is any frozen outdoor anything where he lives, ever. mspart

Yes, all were pardoned. Not all should have been. We ask for protesters that assault or destroy or cause arson etc be prosecuted and held accountable. This should be the criteria for everyone. mspart