They honestly believe that Joe Biden and the Dems AREN'T more corrupt than Donald Trump and that the country is better off with the Vegetable in the White House. I mean, you have to be absolutely blind to believe that crap, but it's clear that's what they believe for some reason.

Skimming a few millions off of some contracts is corrupt but it's small potatoes compared to ending a constitution that's been in effect for over 200 years.

If the Court finds no credible evidence to support the charges, will you accept the verdict, or will you continue to insist Trump acted in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

It is appropriate for a prosecutor to notify the President that a specific high profile investigation is about to release indictments.  It is not appropriate for a President to direct that a specific person be investigated or prosecuted.  We can't know if either Biden or Trump specifically violated this principle, but we can infer from Trump's "flawless" phone call with Zelensky that he probably had similar inappropriate calls with his own prosecutors.  We can also infer from Hunter Biden's plea deal that Joe has also had inappropriate conversations with his prosecutors.

All that said

Trump committed crimes, and "the president behaved inappropriately" is not a defense on its own.

The frustrating thing with you, NYC and Marty is the corruption by both sides is right in front of you.  Heck the dems don’t even try to hide it anymore yet all you guys see is Trump, Trump, Trump.

Preach! And throw in their righteous indignation and general smugness about their ignorance. Ole Mikey doesn't even realize how stupid it is for him to say, "yeah, they are corrupt, but they follow the Constitution." Lol, like that's how it works. 

Seriously, that's so ridiculous on its face. Mikey, what's wrong with you, man? There wouldn't even be a Trump if these dudes just followed the law like the rest of us. Your standards are [BLEEP], mate. Not mine.

---

Skimming a few millions off of some contracts is corrupt but it's small potatoes compared to ending a constitution that's been in effect for over 200 years.

If the Court finds no credible evidence to support the charges, will you accept the verdict, or will you continue to insist Trump acted in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution?

As I said in another thread, the people who wrote our various criminal laws didn't exactly foresee Trump.  You could weasel out and say his conduct isn't exactly what the statute says.  That may be how it goes.  I guess I would accept that, but, I still know what we all saw and what he did.  Impeachment was the appropriate remedy.

---

The frustrating thing with you, NYC and Marty is the corruption by both sides is right in front of you.  Heck the dems don’t even try to hide it anymore yet all you guys see is Trump, Trump, Trump.

Preach! And throw in their righteous indignation and general smugness about their ignorance. Ole Mikey doesn't even realize how stupid it is for him to say, "yeah, they are corrupt, but they follow the Constitution." Lol, like that's how it works. 

Seriously, that's so ridiculous on its face. Mikey, what's wrong with you, man? There wouldn't even be a Trump if these dudes just followed the law like the rest of us. Your standards are [BLEEP], mate. Not mine.

A constitution is, broadly speaking and at a minimum, the system of norms that says "who is in charge now?", "how much longer will they be in charge?" and "who will be in charge after that?".
The Democrats are violating technical aspects of our specific constitution.
Trump tried to violate fundamental aspects of our constitution,  aspects common to every other constitution in the world.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If the Court finds no credible evidence to support the charges, will you accept the verdict, or will you continue to insist Trump acted in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution?

As I said in another thread, the people who wrote our various criminal laws didn't exactly foresee Trump.  You could weasel out and say his conduct isn't [b]violating technical aspects of our specific constitution.[/b] exactly what the statute says.  That may be how it goes.  I guess I would accept that, but, I still know what we all saw and what he did.  Impeachment was the appropriate remedy.

---

Preach! And throw in their righteous indignation and general smugness about their ignorance. Ole Mikey doesn't even realize how stupid it is for him to say, "yeah, they are corrupt, but they follow the Constitution." Lol, like that's how it works. 

Seriously, that's so ridiculous on its face. Mikey, what's wrong with you, man? There wouldn't even be a Trump if these dudes just followed the law like the rest of us. Your standards are [BLEEP], mate. Not mine.

A constitution is, broadly speaking and at a minimum, the system of norms that says "who is in charge now?", "how much longer will they be in charge?" and "who will be in charge after that?".
The Democrats conduct isn't exactly what the statute says are violating technical aspects of our specific constitution.
Trump tried to violate fundamental aspects of our constitution,  aspects common to every other constitution in the world.

That's odd.  After I transpose your language explaining what the respective parties have done, it still reads the same.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I like Jonathan Turley. He always presents good level-headed legal analysis. 

What Trump's scowling mugshot means for an America full of rage | Fox News

...The fact, however, is that many on both sides relish the rage. I have previously said that the most unnerving fact of what I have called "the age of rage" is that people secretly enjoy it. Rage is addictive. It allows people to say and do things that they would ordinarily avoid in public. It is a license to hate blindly and excuse all means to achieve an end.

I think that the Georgia, New York, and the federal January 6th indictments are unwarranted and threaten free speech. Moreover, it is valid for many to object that these prosecutions could have occurred years ago, but were launched just before the presidential election so that Trump will be running from court to court through the general election.

It is also true that the Mar-a-Lago case is more serious and more substantive… and that threat is continuing to grow as a threat for Trump as witnesses change their testimony and Trump aides confirm key prosecution claims...

---

As I said in another thread, the people who wrote our various criminal laws didn't exactly foresee Trump.  You could weasel out and say his conduct isn't [b]violating technical aspects of our specific constitution.[/b] exactly what the statute says.  That may be how it goes.  I guess I would accept that, but, I still know what we all saw and what he did.  Impeachment was the appropriate remedy.

---

A constitution is, broadly speaking and at a minimum, the system of norms that says "who is in charge now?", "how much longer will they be in charge?" and "who will be in charge after that?".
The Democrats conduct isn't exactly what the statute says are violating technical aspects of our specific constitution.
Trump tried to violate fundamental aspects of our constitution,  aspects common to every other constitution in the world.

That's odd.  After I transpose your language explaining what the respective parties have done, it still reads the same.

I don't disagree. It's possible to defend both, but one set of charges is a more serious threat to our freedom and our elections and our overall peace than the other.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If the Court finds no credible evidence to support the charges, will you accept the verdict, or will you continue to insist Trump acted in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution?

As I said in another thread, the people who wrote our various criminal laws didn't exactly foresee Trump.  You could weasel out and say his conduct isn't exactly what the statute says.  That may be how it goes.  I guess I would accept that, but, I still know what we all saw and what he did.  Impeachment was the appropriate remedy.

---

Preach! And throw in their righteous indignation and general smugness about their ignorance. Ole Mikey doesn't even realize how stupid it is for him to say, "yeah, they are corrupt, but they follow the Constitution." Lol, like that's how it works. 

Seriously, that's so ridiculous on its face. Mikey, what's wrong with you, man? There wouldn't even be a Trump if these dudes just followed the law like the rest of us. Your standards are [BLEEP], mate. Not mine.

A constitution is, broadly speaking and at a minimum, the system of norms that says "who is in charge now?", "how much longer will they be in charge?" and "who will be in charge after that?".
The Democrats are violating technical aspects of our specific constitution.
Trump tried to violate fundamental aspects of our constitution,  aspects common to every other constitution in the world.

In essence you are admitting that you will accept corruption as long as it aligns to your beliefs.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

As I said in another thread, the people who wrote our various criminal laws didn't exactly foresee Trump.  You could weasel out and say his conduct isn't exactly what the statute says.  That may be how it goes.  I guess I would accept that, but, I still know what we all saw and what he did.  Impeachment was the appropriate remedy.

---

A constitution is, broadly speaking and at a minimum, the system of norms that says "who is in charge now?", "how much longer will they be in charge?" and "who will be in charge after that?".
The Democrats are violating technical aspects of our specific constitution.
Trump tried to violate fundamental aspects of our constitution,  aspects common to every other constitution in the world.

In essence you are admitting that you will accept corruption as long as it aligns to your beliefs.

That's a very petty way to put it.
My beliefs, in this case, are nothing more and nothing less than the idea that you and I should both get an equal vote over who the next leaders of government will be.  So, hopefully, they are your beliefs too.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In essence you are admitting that you will accept corruption as long as it aligns to your beliefs.

That's a very petty way to put it.
My beliefs, in this case, are nothing more and nothing less than the idea that you and I should both get an equal vote over who the next leaders of government will be.  So, hopefully, they are your beliefs too.

I believe that. I also know that the left violated that right in the last election even though you refuse to admit it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's a very petty way to put it.
My beliefs, in this case, are nothing more and nothing less than the idea that you and I should both get an equal vote over who the next leaders of government will be.  So, hopefully, they are your beliefs too.

I believe that. I also know that the left violated that right in the last election even though you refuse to admit it.

There’s zero evidence of that in spite of what the right wing wacko websites would have us believe.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

If the Court finds no credible evidence to support the charges, will you accept the verdict, or will you continue to insist Trump acted in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitution?

As I said in another thread, the people who wrote our various criminal laws didn't exactly foresee Trump.  You could weasel out and say his conduct isn't exactly what the statute says.  That may be how it goes.  I guess I would accept that, but, I still know what we all saw and what he did.  Impeachment was the appropriate remedy.

I doubt the Founding Fathers foresaw the internet, cell phones and nuclear weapons, but I believe they reasonably anticipated the possibility of the actions you allege.  

You saw something very different than many of the rest of us did.  Unless you're privy to information not yet public, all you know for certain is that he did a lot whining and complaining, alleging voter fraud and a stolen election.  It wasn't very presidential looking, but it was free speech.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

As I said in another thread, the people who wrote our various criminal laws didn't exactly foresee Trump.  You could weasel out and say his conduct isn't exactly what the statute says.  That may be how it goes.  I guess I would accept that, but, I still know what we all saw and what he did.  Impeachment was the appropriate remedy.

I doubt the Founding Fathers foresaw the internet, cell phones and nuclear weapons, but I believe they reasonably anticipated the possibility of the actions you allege.  

You saw something very different than many of the rest of us did.  Unless you're privy to information not yet public, all you know for certain is that he did a lot whining and complaining, alleging voter fraud and a stolen election.  It wasn't very presidential looking, but it was free speech.

Free speech stops being free speech When your blatant lies incite criminal and violent actions from others

It also stops being free speech when you commit 96 counts of criminal actions, directly tied to the lies you are espousing to the public

---

That's a very petty way to put it.
My beliefs, in this case, are nothing more and nothing less than the idea that you and I should both get an equal vote over who the next leaders of government will be.  So, hopefully, they are your beliefs too.

I believe that. I also know that the left violated that right in the last election even though you refuse to admit it.

"Know" = believe lies and conspiracy theory concerning...

---

I doubt the Founding Fathers foresaw the internet, cell phones and nuclear weapons, but I believe they reasonably anticipated the possibility of the actions you allege.  

You saw something very different than many of the rest of us did.  Unless you're privy to information not yet public, all you know for certain is that he did a lot whining and complaining, alleging voter fraud and a stolen election.  It wasn't very presidential looking, but it was free speech.

Free speech stops being free speech When your blatant lies incite criminal and violent actions from others

It also stops being free speech when you commit 96 counts of criminal actions, directly tied to the lies you are espousing to the public

...you're indicted for 96 counts of criminal actions by politically motivated District Attorneys.

---

I like Jonathan Turley. He always presents good level-headed legal analysis. 

What Trump's scowling mugshot means for an America full of rage | Fox News

...The fact, however, is that many on both sides relish the rage. I have previously said that the most unnerving fact of what I have called "the age of rage" is that people secretly enjoy it. Rage is addictive. It allows people to say and do things that they would ordinarily avoid in public. It is a license to hate blindly and excuse all means to achieve an end.

I think that the Georgia, New York, and the federal January 6th indictments are unwarranted and threaten free speech. Moreover, it is valid for many to object that these prosecutions could have occurred years ago, but were launched just before the presidential election so that Trump will be running from court to court through the general election.

It is also true that the Mar-a-Lago case is more serious and more substantive… and that threat is continuing to grow as a threat for Trump as witnesses change their testimony and Trump aides confirm key prosecution claims...

Trump embraced and proliferated the rage culture addressed here.

Now it is biting him in the [BLEEP]

---

Free speech stops being free speech When your blatant lies incite criminal and violent actions from others

It also stops being free speech when you commit 96 counts of criminal actions, directly tied to the lies you are espousing to the public

...you're indicted for 96 counts of criminal actions by politically motivated District Attorneys.

They didn't write the laws they are enforcing and he took an oath to defend them 

Is what it is

---

I like Jonathan Turley. He always presents good level-headed legal analysis. 

What Trump's scowling mugshot means for an America full of rage | Fox News

...The fact, however, is that many on both sides relish the rage. I have previously said that the most unnerving fact of what I have called "the age of rage" is that people secretly enjoy it. Rage is addictive. It allows people to say and do things that they would ordinarily avoid in public. It is a license to hate blindly and excuse all means to achieve an end.

I think that the Georgia, New York, and the federal January 6th indictments are unwarranted and threaten free speech. Moreover, it is valid for many to object that these prosecutions could have occurred years ago, but were launched just before the presidential election so that Trump will be running from court to court through the general election.

It is also true that the Mar-a-Lago case is more serious and more substantive… and that threat is continuing to grow as a threat for Trump as witnesses change their testimony and Trump aides confirm key prosecution claims...

Trump embraced and proliferated the rage culture addressed here.

Now it is biting him in the [BLEEP]

Or was it mostly peaceful protests? We'll use the definition whichever suits our needs. Amiright?

---

Trump embraced and proliferated the rage culture addressed here.

Now it is biting him in the [BLEEP]

Or was it mostly peaceful protests? We'll use the definition whichever suits our needs. Amiright?

I was referencing a forest and you are focused on a tree

---

I like Jonathan Turley. He always presents good level-headed legal analysis. 

What Trump's scowling mugshot means for an America full of rage | Fox News

...The fact, however, is that many on both sides relish the rage. I have previously said that the most unnerving fact of what I have called "the age of rage" is that people secretly enjoy it. Rage is addictive. It allows people to say and do things that they would ordinarily avoid in public. It is a license to hate blindly and excuse all means to achieve an end.

I think that the Georgia, New York, and the federal January 6th indictments are unwarranted and threaten free speech. Moreover, it is valid for many to object that these prosecutions could have occurred years ago, but were launched just before the presidential election so that Trump will be running from court to court through the general election.

It is also true that the Mar-a-Lago case is more serious and more substantive… and that threat is continuing to grow as a threat for Trump as witnesses change their testimony and Trump aides confirm key prosecution claims...

Trump embraced and proliferated the rage culture addressed here.

Now it is biting him in the [BLEEP]

---

...you're indicted for 96 counts of criminal actions by politically motivated District Attorneys.

They didn't write the laws they are enforcing and he took an oath to defend them 

Is what it is

They stretched the extent of interpretation of the laws and threw as much against the wall to see what would stick because of its political expediency. It is what it is.

---

Or was it mostly peaceful protests? We'll use the definition whichever suits our needs. Amiright?

I was referencing a forest and you are focused on a tree

Look at that forest burn, would ya?

---

I doubt the Founding Fathers foresaw the internet, cell phones and nuclear weapons, but I believe they reasonably anticipated the possibility of the actions you allege.  

You saw something very different than many of the rest of us did.  Unless you're privy to information not yet public, all you know for certain is that he did a lot whining and complaining, alleging voter fraud and a stolen election.  It wasn't very presidential looking, but it was free speech.

Free speech stops being free speech When your blatant lies incite criminal and violent actions from others

It also stops being free speech when you commit 96 counts of criminal actions, directly tied to the lies you are espousing to the public

I know you despise the guy (and he's done plenty to deserve it), but don't you agree those charges are not yet proven and he deserves his day in court? 

I doubt the Founding Fathers foresaw the internet, cell phones and nuclear weapons, but I believe they reasonably anticipated the possibility of the actions you allege.  

You saw something very different than many of the rest of us did.  Unless you're privy to information not yet public, all you know for certain is that he did a lot whining and complaining, alleging voter fraud and a stolen election.  It wasn't very presidential looking, but it was free speech.

Free speech stops being free speech When your blatant lies incite criminal and violent actions from others

It also stops being free speech when you commit 96 counts of criminal actions, directly tied to the lies you are espousing to the public

---

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

In essence you are admitting that you will accept corruption as long as it aligns to your beliefs.

That's a very petty way to put it.
My beliefs, in this case, are nothing more and nothing less than the idea that you and I should both get an equal vote over who the next leaders of government will be.  So, hopefully, they are your beliefs too.

Mike, you were pounding the rails of how much you disliked Trump years before Jan 6. Stop pretending this is all about Jan 6.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

That's a very petty way to put it.
My beliefs, in this case, are nothing more and nothing less than the idea that you and I should both get an equal vote over who the next leaders of government will be.  So, hopefully, they are your beliefs too.

Mike, you were pounding the rails of how much you disliked Trump years before Jan 6. Stop pretending this is all about Jan 6.

I was vehemently against Trump from the beginning, yes.
It's because I believe character is destiny.  
I knew his character was bad.
I knew the longer he stayed in office, the sooner something like Jan 6 would happen.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.