mspart

Yeah, she threw him down. mspart

Nothing to do with Pete other than Walz was running for a position that is constitutionally higher up the ladder than what Pete has been nominated for. So you have a problem with Pete but not clod Walz who are both accused of the same thing. Now there is great look at D is good, R is bad. mspart

Then Hamas could stop fighting if it is suicide to do so. And it is as is being demonstrated. But you don't suggest that they should stop fighting. They killed more than some dozens. They brutally killed 1200 (100 dozen for you) on that wonderful October day when they were not in danger nor was Israel threatening them. Who said war has to be proportional? Whoever said that never won a war. Hamas said that this was only the beginning and said they would continue this course of action. So Israel is supposed to kill 1200, call it a day, and wait for more of their people to be killed? You live in an alternate universe. I have to say if Hamas does this again, they would be bringing on themselves total destruction. For themselves and those Gazans that they say are the UN's problem. You might have a complaint then. mspart

You must have had a real problem with Ted Kennedy then. Bill Clinton is ok though. Senator Mullin put the beat down on the Ds asking these questions stating that each one has seen or been drunk in an evening session and never demanded that any of them resign. This was an exercise in feigned self righteousness and actual hypocrisy on the part of the Ds. mspart

If the country is paying attention, they must be getting a confirmation of the wake up call they got for the election. mspart

There is no genocide happening so please stop with that. Try using language you can reasonably support. Greatest atrocity? The Hamas October surprise or the the response to it? mspart

Please RV, give it a try. mspart

So why is only Gaza controlled by Hamas but the west bank is not? To your second point, there was no occupation before Hamas mercilessly attacked Israeli civilians. Maybe if Gazans quit attacking Israel, things will go better for them. To the point, do you have any reliable news articles(rather than X videos) hat supports your claim that Hamas has recruited more? this article does not say that. https://acleddata.com/2024/10/06/after-a-year-of-war-hamas-is-militarily-weakened-but-far-from-eliminated/ It says Israel may not have killed as many Hamas fighters as they say. Can you refute this? mspart

It would be interesting if UB could let everyone know how Hamas could be removed politically in the current situation. mspart

He was calm and collected as opposed to the D senators that tried to ruffle his feathers. Truly a horrific showing by some US Senators. mspart

DOJ never adjudicated an Insurrection case as a result of Jan 6. It hasn't happened. But Jack Smith repeatedly calls Jan 6 an insurrection. He even says he will not prosecute on insurrection, yet refers to that throughout the report. Right there you have a person that is on a witch hunt. This guy is supposed to represent the DOJ. The DOJ did not prosecute anyone for insurrection. He wasn't going to do so. But he repeatedly called it an insurrection. How in the world do you portray this as an insurrection yet don't prosecute that. As opposed to my use of a link to show problems with the report, this is something I noticed. mspart

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. They could wait 4 years when he is not a sitting president. But they chose not to. You can take from that anything you like. mspart

At the risk of using a commentator on this I will just post a snippet of what he said. Jonathan Turley is his name. Here is the snippet. https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/14/smiths-supreme-obstruction-special-counsel-explains-how-he-was-planning-to-circumvent-the-supreme-court-decision-in-fischer/ Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Trump said “fight” ten times in his January 6th speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority. The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence. However, Smith tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law. As I wrote previously after the decision, “It is doubtful that [Smith] will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision.” In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the Trump indictment. However, I wrote that it “is not Smith’s style” to yield to precedent and that he would likely “take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence.” Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records. Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence. However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense: “That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.” Once again, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence. Right on cue, Smith revealed that he was going to do precisely what I feared in taking a position supported by a single justice. In his report, Smith wrote: “Mr. Trump’s and his co-conspirators’ obstruction involved replacing valid elector certificates from the contested states with false ones they had manufactured-the Office anticipated the possibility of such a result in Fischer and confirmed that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even under a narrow interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).” Just saying that a proceeding involves “certain records” is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state. Interesting that Turley predicted what Smith would do and by what is written and put in bold and underlined, it seems he was correct. These are arguments beyond my ability to reasonably know about. So I must gain education from others as has been explained. I don't post this for any other reason that to show that Smith was overreaching as he has done in the past. And in the past, he has gotten convictions but they were reversed upon appeal. The lesson here is that he was a dog that couldn't learn a new trick. Or the lesson here is that he is a one trick pony. Either way, his prosecution was full of holes and this is just one of them. mspart

Still waiting. What would need to happen so that you can be proud of this country? mspart

We won't know that until a jury trial happens with associated appeals. You can't tell that from this report, you only have his opinion and he has been reversed a number of times so his opinion is not that reliable. But this case is over. That is why the report can be released. I don't think they would have done that if this was a slam dunk as some think. They could wait 4 years and go get him then. But then there is no political point to that. But DOJ dropped the cases against Trump. That might tell a person something if they were open to it. mspart