Yes, moderates have no spine, no principle they will not offer up on the altar of appeasement. They twist in the wind like a weather vane, always pointed with and never against the prevailing wind.

Speaking only for myself, I will never give up the principles of innocent until proven guilty, anyone can be investigated for their public behavior, no one is above the law, incitement and threats are not free speech, all leaders must be chosen on the basis of who has the most votes, among many others.

You're such a bull [BLEEP] artist..

A [BLEEP] Picasso..

---

Yes, moderates have no spine, no principle they will not offer up on the altar of appeasement. They twist in the wind like a weather vane, always pointed with and never against the prevailing wind.

Speaking only for myself, I will never give up the principles of innocent until proven guilty, anyone can be investigated for their public behavior, no one is above the law, incitement and threats are not free speech, all leaders must be chosen on the basis of who has the most votes, among many others.

---

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

Speaking only for myself, I will never give up the principles of innocent until proven guilty, anyone can be investigated for their public behavior, no one is above the law, incitement and threats are not free speech, all leaders must be chosen on the basis of who has the most votes, among many others.

If I was called to be a juror in the Trump case I would ignore everything I know and hold him innocent until the prosecution explained the laws and how they know Trump broke them.
Since I am not a juror, I don't have to go through that exercise.

---

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

If I was called to be a juror in the Trump case I would ignore everything I know and hold him innocent until the prosecution explained the laws and how they know Trump broke them.
Since I am not a juror, I don't have to go through that exercise.

If you knew anything about anything, you would know that the prosecution's allegations are NOT evidence.

---

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

If I was called to be a juror in the Trump case I would ignore everything I know and hold him innocent until the prosecution explained the laws and how they know Trump broke them.
Since I am not a juror, I don't have to go through that exercise.

If you knew anything about anything, you would know that the prosecution's allegations are NOT evidence.

If you could read, you'd know I never said they were. The evidence is literally the video and audio we have of him committing crimes. The prosecution will explain how the audio and the video violate various statutes. The defense will attempt to undermine that explanation.

---

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

If you knew anything about anything, you would know that the prosecution's allegations are NOT evidence.

If you could read, you'd know I never said they were.  The evidence is literally the video and audio we have of him committing crimes.  The prosecution will explain how the audio and the video violate various statutes.  The defense will attempt to undermine that explanation.

You apparently have no understanding of the criminal trial process here in the U.S.  If all the prosecution has to do is "explain" violation of statutes, why is there a defense, or even a trial?

Again, NOTHING the prosecution (or defense) says is EVIDENCE.  Opening statements allow the parties to outline their respective cases and explain what they intend to prove.  Closing arguments allow them to summarize the evidence and what conclusions can be drawn from said evidence.  Furthermore, all legal instructions come from the judge.  The jury then decides if the actual EVIDENCE presented (documents, recordings, testimony, etc.) is sufficient to prove guilt.

---

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

If you could read, you'd know I never said they were.  The evidence is literally the video and audio we have of him committing crimes.  The prosecution will explain how the audio and the video violate various statutes.  The defense will attempt to undermine that explanation.

You apparently have no understanding of the criminal trial process here in the U.S.  If all the prosecution has to do is "explain" violation of statutes, why is there a defense, or even a trial?

Again, NOTHING the prosecution (or defense) says is EVIDENCE.  Opening statements allow the parties to outline their respective cases and explain what they intend to prove.  Closing arguments allow them to summarize the evidence and what conclusions can be drawn from said evidence.  Furthermore, all legal instructions come from the judge.  The jury then decides if the actual EVIDENCE presented (documents, recordings, testimony, etc.) is sufficient to prove guilt.

We could be here all day.  I intend to keep my explanations brief for once.  They are not wrong.  Yours are not wrong either.  There are volumes written about what evidence is admissible and not and how the judges decide.  The prosecution and defense can present pretty much any argument or evidence they want to the judge but after that the judge decides what the jury gets to hear.

But you and me as private citizens, not on the jury, are free to look at the evidence that is publicly available, and the statutes, and come to our own conclusion.

---

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

And this is why you keep arriving at the wrong conclusion. People have perfected the art of crafting public "evidence" in such a manner as to inform the public about something.

---

And this is why you keep arriving at the wrong conclusion. People have perfected the art of crafting public "evidence" in such a manner as to inform the public about something.

It was live TV, bud.

---

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

And this is why you keep arriving at the wrong conclusion. People have perfected the art of crafting public "evidence" in such a manner as to inform the public about something.

It was live TV, bud.

When was actual evidence of Trump's alleged criminal actions on live TV?

---

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

It was live TV, bud.

When was actual evidence of Trump's alleged criminal actions on live TV?

His January 6 speech and the first few tweets.  Even the one that said "stay peaceful" was still a call for disruption.  He knew when he tweeted it that the Capitol was breached and that the legislators had stopped proceedings and taken cover.  Disruption of a federal proceeding. 

Another example, wasn't live TV, but he says "I declassified it with my mind"... That's not valid.  The document remains classified unless there is a written, signed document explaining what was declassified. Because no one can read his mind, everyone must proceed as if the document is classified including the sitting president and all former presidents. So his retention of those documents is on its face illegal, unless he's lying and there actually is a written, signed record of declassification somewhere.

---

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

When was actual evidence of Trump's alleged criminal actions on live TV?

His January 6 speech and the first few tweets.  Even the one that said "stay peaceful" was still a call for disruption.  He knew when he tweeted it that the Capitol was breached and that the legislators had stopped proceedings and taken cover.  Disruption of a federal proceeding. 

Another example, wasn't live TV, but he says "I declassified it with my mind"... That's not valid.  The document remains classified unless there is a written, signed document explaining what was declassified. Because no one can read his mind, everyone must proceed as if the document is classified including the sitting president and all former presidents.  So his retention of those documents is on its face illegal, unless he's lying and there actually is a written, signed record of declassification somewhere.

Only you could interpret "stay peaceful" as a call for disruption.  To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran, "If the quote doesn't fit, you must acquit."

---

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

His January 6 speech and the first few tweets.  Even the one that said "stay peaceful" was still a call for disruption.  He knew when he tweeted it that the Capitol was breached and that the legislators had stopped proceedings and taken cover.  Disruption of a federal proceeding. 

Another example, wasn't live TV, but he says "I declassified it with my mind"... That's not valid.  The document remains classified unless there is a written, signed document explaining what was declassified. Because no one can read his mind, everyone must proceed as if the document is classified including the sitting president and all former presidents.  So his retention of those documents is on its face illegal, unless he's lying and there actually is a written, signed record of declassification somewhere.

Only you could interpret "stay peaceful" as a call for disruption.  To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran, "If the quote doesn't fit, you must acquit."

He's a special dude..

I heard he's so special he even wears a football helmet to bed every night.

---

His January 6 speech and the first few tweets.  Even the one that said "stay peaceful" was still a call for disruption.  He knew when he tweeted it that the Capitol was breached and that the legislators had stopped proceedings and taken cover.  Disruption of a federal proceeding. 

Another example, wasn't live TV, but he says "I declassified it with my mind"... That's not valid.  The document remains classified unless there is a written, signed document explaining what was declassified. Because no one can read his mind, everyone must proceed as if the document is classified including the sitting president and all former presidents.  So his retention of those documents is on its face illegal, unless he's lying and there actually is a written, signed record of declassification somewhere.

Only you could interpret "stay peaceful" as a call for disruption.  To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran, "If the quote doesn't fit, you must acquit."

The building was already breached.  They did not go through the metal detectors.  The proceeding was not going to resume until the people who may or may not have had weapons left, or the members reconvened elsewhere.  So instructions to "stay" clearly mean "continue disrupting".

If you think "only I" am able to connect the dots on this... Not only would that make me significantly smarter than you, it would also make me the smartest person you know. Now, that's probably not the case. You've just willfully blinded yourself to what Trump was actually trying to do on Jan 6. You could connect these dots easily, if a Democrat had behaved as Trump did.

---

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

Only you could interpret "stay peaceful" as a call for disruption.  To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran, "If the quote doesn't fit, you must acquit."

The building was already breached.  They did not go through the metal detectors.  The proceeding was not going to resume until the people who may or may not have had weapons left, or the members reconvened elsewhere.  So instructions to "stay" clearly mean "continue disrupting".

If you think "only I" am able to connect the dots on this... Not only would that make me significantly smarter than you, it would also make me the smartest person you know.  Now, that's probably not the case.  You've just willfully blinded yourself to what Trump was actually trying to do on Jan 6. You could connect these dots easily, if a Democrat has behaved as Trump did.

This is the whole reason why nobody takes you seriously except for the other mentally ill..

---

Somebody say Donald Trump.

People be like:

---

The building was already breached.  They did not go through the metal detectors.  The proceeding was not going to resume until the people who may or may not have had weapons left, or the members reconvened elsewhere.  So instructions to "stay" clearly mean "continue disrupting".

If you think "only I" am able to connect the dots on this... Not only would that make me significantly smarter than you, it would also make me the smartest person you know.  Now, that's probably not the case.  You've just willfully blinded yourself to what Trump was actually trying to do on Jan 6. You could connect these dots easily, if a Democrat has behaved as Trump did.

This is the whole reason why nobody takes you seriously except for the other mentally ill..

Which part was wrong?
Should the members of Congress have continued their proceeding and maybe let all of the "visitors" into the gallery?

---

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

This is the whole reason why nobody takes you seriously except for the other mentally ill..

Which part was wrong?
Should the members of Congress have continued their proceeding and maybe let all of the "visitors" into the gallery?

Everything you say is opinion and of the wrong variety..

Everything about you is wrong.

---

Which part was wrong?
Should the members of Congress have continued their proceeding and maybe let all of the "visitors" into the gallery?

Everything you say is opinion and of the wrong variety..

Everything about you is wrong.

So the members of Congress should have kept going with the vote certifcation procedure while these thousands of visitors who may or may not have been carrying guns and knives entered the building. 

I guess you want them dead.  OK.

---

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

There is only one person on this board who has said that they want a politician dead, Mikey. For the good of the people, of course.

---