Recall last year as IRS whistleblowers testified that the younger, deadbeat Biden, had over $300000 in unpaid taxes. They claimed the DOJ felony investigation was slow-walked for four years so that it went past the statute of limitations. (Investigating it would probably implicate Joe).

At any rate, Hunter later plead guilty to a misdemeanor tax charge, netting himself a sweetheart plea deal with the DOJ that essentially absolved him from the gun charges he was just convicted of. A judge later questioned the constitutionality of the deal.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/proposed-hunter-biden-plea-agreement-00108426

Imagine if it was anyone else. But this is the politics of optics. The optics of the preferential treatment just became too much for the Justice department. With whistleblowers coming out of the woodwork, a mounting criticism of a two-tiered justice system, and the corruption of the elder Biden becoming more apparent, there wasn’t any hiding it any more. So, for electioneering purposes and to divert from Joe’s crimes, they sacrificed Hunter on the alter of politics, and Joe’s dutiful followers can pretend the justice system is no longer two-tiered.

Hunter Biden was just convicted of the stupidest crimes, felony gun charges, while his documented drug use, prostitution, tax evasion, FARA violations and money laundering go untouched. While anyone else would be in prison for any number of these, Biden privilege allowed him to skate and run amok to commit a crime spree for years. It was only after his crimes could no longer be hidden, connecting them to his father, that they sacrificed him.

One good thing that came of the trial is that they used his infamous laptop as evidence, proving once and for all that the media, the deep state, and the useful idiots that peddle the disinfo that the laptop was Russian disinformation, are proven to be stupid, malicious, or both.

Here’s a nice reminder of how they string along their cult:

In the quoted scenario, there is no wealth to redistribute or even distribute. These people narrowly escaped from a burning city, clutching their children. They're in a barren landscape, with scarce food and shelter. Alone, each of them would perish. Their options are very limited.

By “wealth” I meant goods and resources, like food. If there is nothing to distribute, then there is nothing to share.

Yes, it's enough for the ownership of intimate objects - not of land, water and other people.

I think it is enough for land. What is more intimate than the ground you’re standing on?

Imagine some world of the future where people are picking up the pieces from some cataclysm and they develop a collective. No one owns anything. Everything that's produced is pooled and shared. I'm wondering about whether this is something that dwells in the human potential or not.

Our greater potential lies in taking a fanciful idea and producing a tyranny out of it.

For instance your passive voice leaves to our imagination what group of people or institution is to redistribute the wealth. Those people or that institution are in effect the owners, and everyone else the serf, because the distributors get to decide what is to be done with everyone’s things and who gives and takes what. Once the distributors are revealed it appears the transaction is less and less sharing as it is a racket.

I think ownership is innate rather than cultural. I believe it extends from self-ownership, the sense that one’s self is one’s own. Like one’s self, the things we create and apply our productive energies towards would not be the way they are without our being. We often treat objects like tools or vehicles as extensions of the body, and I believe something of this process inheres in our instincts towards things we own. This, in combination with a sense of justice and desert, is enough to fill out a theory of ownership.

What riot happened on his inauguration? None.

“ Federal prosecutors on Friday moved to drop charges against the last 39 people accused of participating in a violent protest on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration.

The motion to dismiss charges by the U.S. attorney's office seemingly ends an 18-month saga that started with the Justice Department attempting to convict more than 190 people.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna889531

I remember this because everyone was mocking Trump for his crowd size without saying anything about the rioters blocking the entrances.

Guess who judged Bannon’s case? Juan Merchan, whose daughter takes in millions working for the Biden campaign and wet noodles like pencil-neck Adam Schiff. He also happened to judge the Trump Org. case. How is this possible? Well, we all know…

You make an effort to save the people or stop the train. Anything less than that is cowardly business.

It doesn’t follow, for me. The evidence shows that the wrongdoing was when the “intelligence community” and the media, in the US and abroad, defrauded their citizens into believing that Russia had an agent of the Kremlin, a dictator, a criminal running the country. The result of that charade is the total moral panic Trump’s detractors now find themselves trapped within. He has become a folk devil. As a result, they have become the petty despots they claimed to have feared. Every time they mention democracy, the rule of law, or some other bromide, we are only reminded of how quick they are to violate them.

Says an election denier, a climate denier, and a Trump defender. :rofl:

All the buzzwords in a row, well done. And an emoji icing on top. We’re racking up a fine record of insight here.

I'd enjoy it if the stakes weren't so high.

To answer your question, No, there is nothing wrong with what Trump or Biden did with so-called classified documents.

Up is down and black is white. Don’t try to reason— just enjoy the show.

The most abject conjecture and persistent appeal to authority is their highest degree of evidence, ladies and gentlemen.

I’ve heard the fucking tape. Which classified document is he referencing?

And? You realize the president has the highest declassification powers in the entire US government. Would it worry you if Biden stole and held classified documents for decades, even though he lacked the declassification powers to do so?

Oh dear. And before the appeals, too.

There are plenty wrongly convicted felons. Should the various appeals overturn the results and rebuke the sham trial you fell for you might have to admit the same, I’m afraid. But I’m sure you’ll be quite reticent at that time, won’t you. At least we have you on record.

Trump hasn’t committed any crimes, nor could you name where he did. All I get is emojis.

Biden family corruption is the real problem. 10% to the big guy. But thanks for the tip.

Stop! My abs hurt.

It might be the soy shots, Xtrix.

Prosecutor Mark Pomerantz was on loan from law firm Paul, Weiss, which has huge connections to the Biden regime and his party . Biden appointed prosecutor Michael Colangelo to acting associate attorney general in his own DOJ. Colangelo then left to pursue Trump. Judge Merchan donated to Biden and a political pAC called “Stop Republicans”, in violation of state ethics. Merchan’s daughter rakes in millions from the Biden/Harris campaign.

Biden is attempting to imprison Trump.

And Trump never committed any. They literally have to conjure them out of thin air in order to maintain a delusion.

“How could you support a convicted felon?”

Meanwhile:




But it’s an interesting comparison the way they glorify the Floyd protests, which destroyed the lives and livelihoods and neighborhoods of regular people, and which they demonize J6 and the violence of Trump supporters, which affected really no one but the political elites in Washington. Violent protesters were let off easy for razing city blocks, but if you take a lectern or put your feet on Pelosi’s desk your thrown in the gulag for years. In one law enforcement were demonized, the other law enforcement was lionized. It’s quite the interesting schism.

Now they’re crying about flags. If you needed more evidence of delusion, this is it.

The history of the flag at Justice Alito’s beach house makes its presence more chilling

Don't forget that Clinton committed the actual crime Trump was just convicted of, except of course the SDNY never did anything about it. The difference between Tump and Clinton was Trump was cleared by the FEC, Clinton wasn't.

The FEC fined both organizations after a pair of now years-old complaints — one from the Campaign Legal Center and another from the conservative Coolidge Reagan Foundation — alleged that the party and campaign reported payments to the powerhouse Democratic law firm Perkins Coie as legal expenses, when in actuality some of the money was earmarked for “paying Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump,”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/dnc-clinton-campaign-fine-dossier-spending-disclosure-00021910#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Election%20Commission%20has,the%20now%2Dinfamous%20Steele%20dossier

Two Tiers!

This is a lie.

The prosecutor was the top third man in Biden’s DOJ before he left to try the case. So how is it a lie?

Trump's new campaign ads go hard, capitalizing on Biden's corruption more than Biden is.

Any lawyers?

What is the likelihood that Judge Juan Merchan, who violated state ethics rules by making political donations to the Democrat party and a PAC called “Stop Republicans”, is also the judge presiding over the Trump Org case and the Steve Bannon case? How are these judges supposed to be assigned?

Stop Republicans, an accountability campaign of Progressive Turnout Project, is a grassroots-funded effort dedicated to resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.

https://www.turnoutpac.org/stop-republicans/

I don’t really care about case text and legalism, especially from a corrupt judicial system. All of that can be bent to suit one’s political will like Bragg and the judge has done here. All this “rule of law” hokum doesn’t mean much when the law is shit.

The repetition of bromides is the game. What they lack, however, is the moral argument. The whole case was wrong to prosecute, wrong to bring to trial, and wrong to convict someone of, let alone to convict one’s political opponents in the lead up to an election. But because they cannot help themselves they did it anyways, and thanks to Trump’s resiliency, I get to sit back and watch the goons expose themselves for the world to see.

In any case, Trump’s political career will soon be over, but the stain of what his opponents have done will remain forever. All of it is now marked in history, along with a litany of other bumbling hoaxes and persecutions, and I can’t help to be happy for it.

Perhaps. Trump is a divisive figure. Most people either hate him or worship him. But if there's evidence of crimes then he still needs to be prosecuted. How would you go about finding an impartial jury, and what makes you think that this wasn't already done in this case?

Manhattan voted 85% for Joe Biden, and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans eight to one in New York. The Biden/Harris campaign and a whole host of anti-Trump Democrats pay the judge's daughter an obscene amount of money to work for them. A simple change of venue would have been an appropriate fix. How would you go about finding an impartial court and jury?

I don’t really know what this means. He was prosecuted under 175.10 - Falsifying Business Records In the First Degree, with the intent to violate 17-152 - Conspiracy to Promote or Prevent Election.

Have you heard the phrase “novel legal theory”? It suggests the unprecedented nature of any given legal theory. The fact that the FECA, the Justice department, Bragg's predecessor, and even Bragg himself refused to bring charges indicates how Bragg had to conjure out of legalese a ploy to prosecute a former president that he campaigned on getting.

I know you wrote it down, but do you think that Trump intended to violate 17-152, which is an obscure, rarely used New York state law? I suppose prosecutors would have had to prove that Trump first new about this law, and then intended to violate it. I don't see how one could believe that. But forgiving all that, what are the "unlawful means" through which Trump intended to violate this obscure misdemeanor which is well passed its statute of limitations?

According to the corrupt judge's jury instructions, the unlawful means were one or more of three "theories". Not even the judge knows the unlawful means through which 17-152 was violated, so he corruptly tells the jury that they don't even need to agree to the unlawful means through which Trump violated 17-152. No one seems to care that Trump has not been convicted of any of the "unlawful means" theories, and therefor there is no way to determine whether the "unlawful means" were indeed unlawful, and this in a country with the presumption of innocence. One of these "theories" is federal campaign laws. No one seems to care that Bragg and that court have no jurisdiction over federal campaign laws, nor that the FEC or DOJ found any but violation of it, and the judge doesn't mind leaving this out of his jury instructions.

So Trump has been found guilty of writing "legal expenses" in a ledger, in order to commit a crime that no one has heard of, and doing so by using "unlawful means" that have not been determined to be unlawful by any court of law.

So all of this (and much more) is why I call this a made up crime.

I don't really know what this means either. Are you suggesting that the jury were paid to find him guilty?

It's an English idiom, "like bought and paid for". It means "corrupt".

You think the jury was planted?

I think the judge and jury were partial, the crime was made up, the conviction was bought and sold, and it was all a classic show trial serving the ruling regime and their acolytes.

Perhaps you ought to tell someone who cares.

I suspect rather than respect your opinions, so any personal insults only make me feel better.

Biden’s Banana Republic prevails. Trump is now a Mandela, and they destroyed the justice system to rig another election.

Well if its the law that gets into the way of good moral conduct, then at least it prevents as its primary goal, the reduction of corruption. I think that having the law prevent dictatorships or autocracies from forming is a good thing. Take for example with what happened fairly recently in Poland with the Law and Justice party, perverting the law towards their own favor, and the Civic Coalition resuming power after a long eight years of some nepotism. I believe Viktor Orban is next, in Hungary.

During the covid fiasco I can’t think of any law that prevented tyranny and despotism. Rather, through the dictate of those who thought they knew better, it was used to prevent people from the most innocent of social activities, like going to church and visiting loved ones. Such an event proves that even in the most liberal societies the law will be turned against the people should it suit the authorities.

At any rate, good faith (and manners in general) is a kind of law in itself. But it can only be self-imposed. As such, to implement it one must be somewhat independent, self-reliant, his own authority, and this is a difficult spirit to foster in such a paternalistic system as the republican one.

It is funny to hear the self-identified champion for Trump complain about the nefarious consequences of excessive litigation.

That your good faith is so quick to disappear in a thread on good faith is disappointing, but kind of proves the point.

Always take note of wild predictions regarding the future in Trumpistan. If Trump’s last term was any indication, the froth which with these prophecies are given indicate the mix of over-confidence and abject stupidity common among these kinds of prophets.

Observe Robert DeNiro, the new poster boy for the Biden campaign:

Is he a prophet? Or is he trapped in a moral panic?

A simple test; remember his predictions:

- This kind of government will perish.
- If Trump returns to the Whitehouse, kiss your freedoms goodbye.
- no more elections.
- Trump will never leave office should he win; "You know that".

Should Trump win, compare De Niro's predictions to the results and you'll have your answer regarding the amount of delusion we're dealing with.

I think there is a fundamental law of human interaction whereby man tends to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion. Good faith, I'd say, once proved easier than knavery when it came to dealing with one another. Rather than risk life and limb, or face some course of violent retaliation, people could often rely on the good faith of their neighbors to get along.

But Good Faith nowadays proves to be more difficult than knavery. I don't have any developed theory, but I would propose that the reason for this is an increase in the domain of law, it's scope as a pseudo morality, and the thousand-and-one ways with which it allows an authority to intervene our interactions. These positive, third-party interventions into our regular dealings has fostered a reliance on their presence as the moral arbiter. Less and less do we require a conscience because our disputes can be settled for us.

In short, we aren't free enough for Good Faith.

I walk up to a junction, what is determined about my choice-making here? That if I choose left it was determined before? That if I choose right it was determined before? And the same with back and front? There's no substance to this claim, it's pure mysticism. Choice making at junctions can't be determined rationally, they are break points in determinism.

A vexing question in regards to determinism is: what else besides you determined your actions at the junction? A simple objective glance at you performing this act ought to lead one to believe it was you that determined or willed it, and for the simple reason that nothing else did.

Since you say that life is at least partially determined, I pose you the same question, what else besides you determined your actions?

The truth. Biden’s SS Stasi at work. Everything his enemies cry foul about is what they themselves are doing. You can set a clock to their corruption.

“Look what the propaganda told me! Look at it!!”

We’ve come to expect not a single original thought is possible. Listen for the propaganda, repeat it like a mantra until it’s true by sheer repetition. Rinse and repeat.

It was a bad week for the prosecution.

Here Anderson Cooper describes the collapse of their star witness Michael Cohen.



The ex-advisor to Michael Cohen, Bob Costello, describes the lies of Michael Cohen, but worse, also describes how the SDNY didn’t want any exculpatory evidence to reach the eyes of the grand jury. So much for justice.

Then you’re telling me the value is in yourself and what you do with water, or at least the some total of water you interact with. But water is a component to all life, not just yours. Without it there is no life. So the value is not in your relationship, but in the water itself, what it is, it’s compounds, it’s very being.

Potable water does not have inherent value, in your opinion?