mspart

1. Delete video. 2. Smash cell phones, bleach bit hard drives, have secret documents on a server where they didn't belong and do all the actions before to obscure any evidence of wrong doing. 1. Indicted. 2. No cause for concern here. No reasonable prosecutor would take this case. mspart

JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, we're waiting to see what new evidence they might have. I mean, one of the more intriguing things is the suggestion that they have a witness tampering claim. That may produce some new evidence we haven't seen. But, you know, Jack Smith has a reputation for stretching criminal statutes beyond the breaking point. You know, he went after the Virginia Governor, secured a conviction there that was unanimously overturned because he just stretched the law too far. This is an interesting thing to say. Others have said similar regarding Smith, that he goes beyond the mark. I think what Turley is saying in these two excerpts is that Smith has a history of distorting what he can to get a conviction, and that the evidence that we have in general does not support what the indictment says. Those are two large hurdles the prosecution will have to overcome. Turley's example of SCOTUS above is pretty telling about how this will probably turn out. mspart

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘no, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘but not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. … What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time. Bolded items are my edits. mspart

DJT - You try saying that in a small town. mspart

Well, I think that is a bit extreme. Hillary started the whole Russian Collusion farce that was sanctioned by Obama and DOJ as they submitted falsifed FISA requests. All of that was known to the WH and DOJ, yet they let it go on. In addition, Hillary bleached bit her server, destroying evidence, and lied about all of that until the truth came out. These examples are not the conduct of upright people. But I think execution is a bit extreme. No doubt there will be calls for that with regard to Trump. That would be the final solution. But I do think that Obama and Hillary should be held to account as well as Comey and whoever the AG was at the time. But they won't be. Just remember, clumsy old Sandy Berger was caught with sensitive materials he kyped from Archives. He pled guilty and got 100 hours of service, $50k fine, and lost his security clearance and right to practice law. At least that much to Obama and Hillary for knowingly perpetrating a lie that consumed the public and federal government for years. mspart

That's not even possible. For that to happen there would have to be no MSM. They would have to go the way of FloArena. mspart

Maui Wowie by Cascade Glacier. You can only get it at certain places that carry it. And they are not many but this is outstanding. mspart

Can Obama run even as VP if there is a chance he can be POTUS afterwards? He's done his two terms. mspart

I think you are witnessing it now. Hunter will be his downfall. But the D's don't want decrepit Biden in office again. He is an embarrassment. Like it or not, but most US citizens want a with it President, not some guy who can barely walk and talk. The D's don't either. Do you honestly think that Hunter would be getting so much attention if the Ds really wanted Biden to run? It will be like Lyndon Johnson, he'll bow out to prevent humiliation. That's my opinion. For Trump, he will continue to shoot off his mouth and turn people away from him. He will show how toxic he is and with the indictments against him, there is too much baggage. They keep piling up. Now maybe he is the nominee, but that is far from what I want. I was wrong in 2016 when I thought he was a sideshow freak. He actually won. I don't think lightning will strike twice. There are too many "anyone but Trump" voters out there. mspart

He seems to have a thing about X. Named his kid with an X. Renamed Twitter to X. I have been told he wanted to name paypal X. Seems to be a thing of his. mspart

I don't think Trump will be the nominee. I don't think Biden will be the nominee. mspart predicts - The contest will look a lot different in a year from now. mspart

Which is amazing after all. mspart

Well that would be something. Hopefully they do that. It is only logical. mspart

Yes and it is interesting that Shokin was investigating a company that had Hunter on its Board of Directors. And then Joe wanted Shokin gone. Why just Shokin? There is no answer to that. But it is not difficult to put 2 and 2 together and get Joe was protecting Hunter by getting rid of Shokin. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that one out. Plus, the manner that he did it is a bit unusual I would say. $1 billion is a negotiation, we will give you this money based on these criteria being met. It usually doesn't end up with "you have 6 hours to comply with my demand or no money." I would say very few negotiations are of that nature. Yet that is the barrel Joe Biden had Ukraine rolled over on. mspart

Can we at least have a WC for the 4 non olympic weights? It happened once but I don't remember it happening again. Perhaps I'm wrong on that and would love to find that out. mspart

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4128928-hunter-biden-associate-devon-archer-gives-closed-door-interview/ Archer is apparently testifying. Closed door so it will be interesting how the info gets leaked out. mspart

I have definitely surpassed my wrestling on the wrestling chat boards. As for swimming, I did swim team one year to stay in shape for wrestling. I did learn to swim though!! mspart

He's not looking too happy no. mspart

That's good to hear. mspart

Well there you go. mspart

Ah, that guy!! mspart

There may be a correlation. I think we need a study on Frito sublimation. mspart

Would you rather it be a closed hearing? mspart

It looks worse for the incumbent to be implicated in felony crimes. Better to sweep it under the rug. Kudos to Congress for holding the hearings. mspart

As I said in another thread, our government is just a reflection of us. Unfortunately. mspart