mspart

But haven't we said taking those actions is wrong, no matter the race? Now it is ok? mspart

Hi Ban, it never used to take this long to get election results that I remember. At least in the 60's - 1990's, results were fairly immediate. Then we got into early voting and mail in voting and the times have been extended. The idea of voting at the precinct has been shown to be vastly superior in terms of accuracy and speediness of results. When we tried to centralize it as is necessary in mail in voting, the speediness at least has suffered greatly. mspart

Yep following and advising about a state that needs help. We need help. mspart

I think in WA, they gather the ballots and count on the day, because it takes 2-3 weeks to get results. mspart

Flo should know better than to do that. That's just wrong. But it's probably in the small print when you sign up. But if they were sued and have to pay maybe not. Digital is not privacy friendly. Says I while on a chat board. mspart

Snyder wouldn't have any of it. Snyder is the absolute #2 at 97 kg. If Sad is out, Snyder wins, he has been very consistent. mspart

WKN, you are missing the point of what Turley said. Turley said it was legal to lie. If Trump is convicted and it stands, then it is no longer legal to lie. It changes everything. That's Turley's point and what I am saying here. I am not for lying, I am for equal protection under the law. Wonderful. Again, how does this make any difference to what is being said. I don't have time to read legal documents in my spare time. I will go to trusted sources, whether you trust them or not, and try to make sense of the headlines. But what you are here saying is that because I haven't actually read the indictment but am depending on Turley, a noted Constitutional authority, helping me understand the legalese, that somehow my reporting of that is of no worth. So it changes my perspective when listening to you. I have not said Trump was right in what he did. I have not said Trump was wrong in what he did. All I have done is shown what is obvious to everyone, even you, that there is a legal standard for Trump and there is a legal standard for others. Heck, Trump was impeached for a phone call that nobody heard. If that is not a standard that does not apply to others, I don't know what is. FYI - I am no legal scholar, I have no background in law, I have never been to court except as a juror. So obviously that means I cannot lean on someone who does and look at their argument and agree or disagree with it. That is out of bounds. So yes, it changes my perspective when listening to you. mspart

I have not read the whole indictment. Does that change anything I reported Turley to have said?? mspart

Then look at what Turley said and explain why he is wrong. mspart

If you read the quotes I posted, Turley says he was one of those that told Trump not to try to discount authorized electoral votes. But Trump did anyway. Turley still finds problems with the indictment such as what I provided, based on what he provided. 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, (Jack) 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. As I said and as Turley asserts, this is chilling for Free Speech as you can be thrown in the pokey for saying something not acceptable to someone in the federal government. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley warned the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump has "chilling" implications for free speech in America Is Biden going to be held to the same standard. It is all but fully admitted that he lied about not having anything to do with Hunter's businesses. Now the line is he was not in business with Hunter. That is very different. Will Jack Smith hold him accountable? No. Should he? No, as Turley points out. mspart

Maybe - The point was to show that there is a two tier justice system. Hillary did all kinds of crooked stuff that is documented. But no reasonable prosecutor would take the case said the guy with the responsibility to gather evidence, not prosecute. Trump has 3 indictments already so questioning details is silly in my mind. They indicted him for speaking his mind. That is unconstitutional. Period. Who cares what else he was indicted for? As I showed with posts from Jonathan Turley, this is huge. Your words can send you to jail if this carries the day. But if you are of the right persuasion you can bleach bit evidence and smash evidence and no reasonable prosecutor would take your case. mspart

BB - I see you here. Cool. mspart

That is the height of self restraint. Good on you BigBrog. mspart

They'd figure out how to funnel the charity money back to them. 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