That is by far one of the most disturbing articles I have read in a while. The FBI and that judge should be ashamed, but they are not.
Oh? Please quote the parts of the article that led you to that conclusion.
- Doc
Doc, I can't edit my posts here so I am just responding again.
I find the whole thing to have the moral, ethical and strategic equivalence to starting a war with a sovereignty that we pissed off and then determined that they were "willing" to possess weapons of mass destruction. They will have to carry on without my confidence, that is for damn sure.
Oh? Please quote the parts of the article that led you to that conclusion.
- Doc
Doc, I can't edit my posts here so I am just responding again.
I find the whole thing to have the moral, ethical and strategic equivalence to starting a war with a sovereignty that we pissed off and then determined that they were "willing" to possess weapons of mass destruction. They will have to carry on without my confidence, that is for damn sure.
I can’t really decipher your metaphor, so would you please quote the parts of the article that led you to that conclusion?
o I find the whole thing to have the moral, ethical and strategic equivalence to starting a war with a sovereignty that we pissed off and then determined that they were "willing" to possess weapons of mass destruction. They will have to carry on without my confidence, that is for damn sure.
We have no examples of that in recent days.
Who was making the improvised explosive device intended to launch shrapnel? Was that Croft?
Doc, I can't edit my posts here so I am just responding again.
I find the whole thing to have the moral, ethical and strategic equivalence to starting a war with a sovereignty that we pissed off and then determined that they were "willing" to possess weapons of mass destruction. They will have to carry on without my confidence, that is for damn sure.
I can’t really decipher your metaphor, so would you please quote the parts of the article that led you to that conclusion?
- Doc
No. Like I said and like I quoted in my response. Asking for a conviction based on one's willingness to commit a crime that the FBI set up and invited others to commit with the agents of the FBI is frightening. We do that in this country, and it is frightening, or dicey. Just like going to a war based on a premise or an assumption is scary, so is incarcerating our citizens based on what a jury may feel the citizen may by willing to do rather than what they did do.
It's like Trump is Vito Corleone and Lindsey is his consiglieri. The message is, "You'se better let my client go or else. Wouldn't want any accidents happening to your country from our band of MAGA thugs".
Once we abandon the law to placate the criminals... Every outlaw in the world will be hightailing it to MAGAcity for a piece of the action. Scammers from India, Nigerian Princes, Proud Boys, the Sinaloa Cartel, and the Bank of England.
If you want to go to the section in which Graham tells lies on Fox by denying what he previously said on Fox about "there will be rioting in the streets" if Trump is prosecuted, it all starts about 6:50.
Ajax? Hawkeye? can you find any way round that? Graham just lies, and Fox (who own the video of him making the statements he denies on air) does nothing to correct his lie.
Is that the kind of news channel you think Americans deserve?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Ajax? Hawkeye? can you find any way around that? Graham just lies, and Fox (who owns the video of him making the statements he denies on air) does nothing to correct his lie.
Perhaps Fox did not want to step on monologue material for the late-night comedy programs. I'm sure many Fox employees realize what a blotch on journalism the Murdoch media empire represents and would love to see it taken to task.
I can’t really decipher your metaphor, so would you please quote the parts of the article that led you to that conclusion?
- Doc
No. Like I said and like I quoted in my response. Asking for a conviction based on one's willingness to commit a crime that the FBI set up and invited others to commit with the agents of the FBI is frightening. We do that in this country, and it is frightening, or dicey. Just like going to a war based on a premise or an assumption is scary, so is incarcerating our citizens based on what a jury may feel the citizen may by willing to do rather than what they did do.
So, once again we see Bing Bong not reading, but rather pretending to have read and then posting. There it is in all its glory.
No. Like I said and like I quoted in my response. Asking for a conviction based on one's willingness to commit a crime that the FBI set up and invited others to commit with the agents of the FBI is frightening. We do that in this country, and it is frightening, or dicey. Just like going to a war based on a premise or an assumption is scary, so is incarcerating our citizens based on what a jury may feel the citizen may by willing to do rather than what they did do.
So, once again we see Bing Bong not reading, but rather pretending to have read and then posting. There it is in all its glory.
- Doc
And, as usual, Doc does not like the answer so Doc says dumb stuff and that is not true.
