ironstone

That is debatable. How many people at these protests are chanting ' from the river to the sea' and all that it implies?

So according to you, Hunter Biden can decide when, where, or even IF he will testify. To hell with a congressional subpoena right? Does everyone have that same right or is it just Hunter?

How do you reconcile that one in light of Trump's fraud case in New York?

Why then did Jack Smith not charge trump with insurrection? Everything in this latest court decision revolves around 'Trump the insurrectionist' yet he's not actually charged with it.

He should have had a brief press conference in front of the Capitol, refuse to take questions and then scurry off. We both know how that would have played out.

And one of the dissenting judges on the Colorado decision stated that there was no basis in the Constitution for the decision.

Thank you for proving the point of my post.

Director of a Gaza hospital says clinics were used by Hamas fighters (msn.com) Even with this admission, there are still those who refuse to admit the truth.

Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection.

You must own the most elaborate pair of rose coloured glasses on the planet.

I've already addressed this nonsensical point. Maybe Steve Bannon should have tried the Hunter strategy? Oh wait...he doesn't have the right surname.

Steve Bannon got arrested for ignoring a subpoena. Trump's family members got subpoenas too...they showed up and testified. But then none of these people have the kind of protection that Hunter clearly has.

Ummm..yes it clearly is just that.

Is the law different for Democrats? They can refuse subpoenas and dictate where and when they they testify, or not? You missed the part where Hunter scurried off without taking questions. The narrative went from 'Joe was never involved with any of Hunter's business dealings' to 'my father was never FINANCIALLY involved in my business deals'. Did you catch that...

It will probably be more successful than CNN+

The grievance industry is extremely lucrative. And we always end up caving in to those demands. It will never end either.

I was of the opinion that mail-in ballots were used much more by the Democrats than the Republicans. Democrats took a risk to push mail-in voting. It paid off | US elections 2020 | The Guardian So is it not logical to assume that most of these people admitting to and knowing about others committing fraud would be Democrats?

I'm sure Trump will be talking about this particular poll from Rasmussen. Quite interesting. Heartland/Rasmussen Poll: One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit to Committing at Least One Kind of Voter Fraud During 2020 Election (yahoo.com) A new poll by The Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports found one-in-five voters who cast mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election admit to participating in at least one kind of voter fraud. When asked, “During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?”, 21% of respondents who said they voted by mail answered “yes.” (Filling out a ballot for someone else is illegal in all states, although many states allow people to assist others with voting.)

Hunter ignores the congressional subpoena and makes a show with a brief press conference(but refuses to take questions). Will he face the same consequences as Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro? Navarro was arrested by the FBI and placed in shackles. If I had to bet, I would say Hunter won't be subjected to the same thing. But what did dad Joe have to say on the subject of someone defying a government subpoena? "I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally," President Biden said. Biden says DOJ should prosecute those who defy January 6 committee subpoenas | CNN Politics

I was going to say that the whole world has gone mad, but it's more accurate to say that is mostly due to the progressives.

No, the media is that bad. And they have failed to adapt with the times. Giving them more money is no guarantee that they will attract more readers/viewers either.

So you allegedly went there for the purpose of taking a verbal shot at Elon Musk? You do realize that he'll never hear of this groundbreaking moment do you?

Translation: You categorically reject any and all evidence that doesn't fit the established media narrative in this case. A huge issue in this case was the restraint of Floyd by Chauvin. The defense team said the technique was taught to all officers. The police chief at the time said under oath, that he knew absolutely nothing about this procedure. In the film, various former Minneapolis police officers all stated that that particular technique was indeed part of their training. Chauvin's mother pulled out her son's actual training manuals, and right there is a photo of that exact restraint technique. This alone is a pretty significant fact and a hole in the prosecutions case. Not to mention the false racism angle. Chauvin did not get a fair trial.

So did you watch the entire trial?