Search results

There technically wasn’t a Democrat majority before - there were more Republicans than Democrats, but all the Independents caucus with the Dems (as they will continue to do), so the Dems effectively had the majority.

A list of business records.

That name does not ring a bell, but there’s no way Trump is doing 136 years for this. IF he gets sentenced to time, then I expect they’d be less than the max and all run concurrently; but I would not be surprised at all if he doesn’t get sentenced to any time at all. I’m not going to defend...

They may, but I would advise them to tread lightly, partly because it may blow back and partly because Hunter may have his own problems.

I think we're ignoring this nonsense from now on.

I'm not going to pretend that the hush money case was the most solid or the most damning, but it's not remotely accurate to say that anybody has gone "all in" on it; in fact, it seems to be the one in which everybody was least confident. What it is accurate is that it's the one that's gone to...

Welcome to Magadonia.

Perhaps, but at the same time, nobody had really had cause to look at him prior to that, and he hadn't yet committed the crimes for which he is currently being prosecuted. And even now, the things for which he's being prosecuted are painfully obvious. Nobody had to go digging too hard to find...

Drawing attention to yourself is always going to make people take a closer look at what you're up to. In Trump's case, not only did his entry into politics draw scrutiny, but it's what prompted his criminal behavior in the first place and it's what made some of those behaviors a felony instead...

Yeah, there's a guy known for his reasonable, sensible takes on things.

I guess weaponizing the DOJ is okay now?

This isn't a list of crimes.

If you watch and read that much, you ought to be able to find a better source to support your contentions. Perhaps you misunderstood or misremembered what you saw. You posted two articles that didn't support your claim and we're the ones who are misinterpreting things?

oh baloney. You didn't merely state your opinion; you made a positive claim about a past event (i.e. that the Biden campaign has issued statements suggesting that the Trump trial was an attempt at election interference). When asked to expound on that, you, in post 50 got a bit huffy, expecting...

No kidding.

Why didn’t he do it? Was he incompetent? Or did he not give in to the worse desires of his base? If his voters were okay with weaponizing the DOJ before, why are they so bent out of shape about it now? If that’s true, it’s only because Trump was voted out of office. Lol, I’d like to see you...

Oh, I expect that subject to get rehashed a bunch, too whether by you or others. Are you asking this because you don't know, because you don't think we know, or for some other rhetorical purpose?

They're not. They're (I'm assuming) the business records he illegally fudged.

I have faith in you.