jakee

Not bad! Now if you can find one about a DNI who's a Russian stooge, AG who resigned from Congress before a report into his sex trafficking came out, health boss who thinks all vaccines are fake and DoD chief with no experience running anything then you'll really be on to something.

Ironically a horse won’t try to feed everyone horse dewormer.

You mean the sentiment of dangerous did not apply at all to Trump, "liberal" was used in that exact part of the speech, and when you said "they sound like best mates" Putin did indeed say very nice things about him. Why would they? That would also not be true. Apart from France - relative to military/economy size they've been totally useless.

What did they say about a process? All Trump has said is that he'll pardon everyone except a few people who 'got out of control'. He hasn't said anything at all about double checking who broke the law. I do notice that you're dodging explaining why you would believe the results of such a partisan controlled process (if indeed there would be one at all) as intently as you're dodging acknowledging that you were wrong about Putin's speech.

Why not ask the richest man in the world?

Cool. Now do Jan '17 to Jan '21 vs Jan '21 to present.

Blah blah whatever. Not that his appointment had anything to do with his legislative priorities beyond 'give Trump what he wants' - how hard would you have to look to find someone who supported those things who wasn't a drug addled child abuser?

Perhaps, though I would have more faith in the overall level of professionalism in federal law enforcement than across all dfferent levels and outposts of local law enforcement - even more so in politically charged cases where they know their work will be scrutinised. Now try this - if Harris had been elected and said all black prisoners in the south were victims of racism, that they were all political prisoners and that she would pardon them all - would you be standing here saying you were sure she was going to setup a commission to scrutinise every detail of every case before making a decision and you would never be able to second guess their decisions? Indeed - I made a mistake, and as soon as I realised it I said I'd made a mistake. By contrast, when provided with proof that you were misquoting Putin to support your argument you did not admit that you were doing so - you suddenly "lost interest" instead. Sure thing buddy, someone out there believes you.

It’s telling that even here there is nothing that our newfound MAGA ultra-loyalists will come out and object to. Even Republican Senators and Congressmen are publicly speaking out against Gaetz, one even saying he has as much chance of being invited for tea with the Queen than being confirmed. Now I don’t think they’ll remember where their spines are when it come time to vote, but it would be very funny if this ends up being the way the Gaetz is ejected from Congress, given that he’s already resigned in anticipation of taking up the role. For Hesgeth, he once declared that it was impossible to know if the black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had been chosen because he was the best possible candidate or because he was black. So I’d be incredibly disappointed if during the hearings no one asked the talk show host with no high level managerial experience whatsoever if he was being put up for the Sec Def job because he was definitely the best possible candidate or because he was a white racist.

So let’s get this straight - you believe the justice system, who need to have a strong enough case to convince a jury, have been unfairly prosecuting people who didn’t trespass in the Capitol on Jan 6th because that’s what everyone system inhabited by political people does. You equally believe that the President, who has unilateral pardon power, has called Jan 6th criminals political prisoners, who has promised to pardon them, who plays their music at his rallies, will ensure that a dedicated impartial team forensically reexamines every minute detail of every Jan 6th case before he makes a decision, and will only pardon those who really should not have been found guilty according to the law as it exists? Im sorry to mix metaphors but did you notice the sides of the rabbit hole coming up past your ears or was this more of a boiling a frog situation? Putin’s speech was recorded and you still won’t admit to misrepresenting that, so I’m not going to hold my breath.

Sure, but then I’ll have to take your bet that no one believes Trump is a rapist. Pay up.

Right, so when you said you’d be appalled if he pardoned anyone with airtight convictions that was bullshit - your opinion will be that anyone who is pardoned deserved to be pardoned and you won’t bother to check. And if anyone takes the time to show you proof, as with the Putin discussion earlier, that will be the exact moment you lose interest in the conversation instead of changing your mind.

At the moment you have no idea if there are any weak cases that have lead to convictions, you have simply decided that there are. So when Trump standard pardoning people, shouldn’t we assume you’ll do the same thing and simply decide that the people he’s pardoning are the ones with weak cases?

The Justice Deparment is right now considering weather to request the breaking up of Google/Alphabet as the remedy in an antitrust case, and no-one had to appoint the Insane Clown Posse to make it happen. Of course I read that in the news, so you won't believe me.

Any particular cases that have been prosecuted on poor evidence? CRT is right, then.