And you really believe that?
Why shouldn't I? Are you trying to suggest that Trump can't hire competent lawyers to defend him? That they won't, if necessary, appeal anything "unethical" or unfair to the Supreme Court (with its conservative majority, with a third of them being nominated by Trump)?
Exactly why should we believe that Trump's trial won't be a fair one?
They have been angling to destroy this man for the last six years---impeached him twice, constructed accusations out of thin air when they had nothing else to accuse him of, and harassed him on an unprecedented scale even after he left office. If a jury finds him clean as a whistle, the Left will still try to come up with some other way to destroy him.
It's odd that you say this but in the next paragraph do a "whataboutism" with Hillary Clinton, that the Right has been trying to destroy for 30 years.
I don't think I have ever, in my lifetime, seen such concentrated, unending, and obsessive hatred for a public figure than I have seen the Left laying on Trump. I think they were gobsmacked when he won in 2016, because they had it all carefully arranged for Hillary to win---and their plan fell through. And that, I believe, scared the living daylights out of them, because they couldn't control him. So they had to figure out a way to ruin him. Currently, they're terrified that he might run again in 2024, so this is all part of their master plan to put him out of commission before he might, heaven forbid, be re-elected for a second term. That cannot be allowed to happen.
I could say the same about Biden -- that Republicans can't stand that Biden destroyed their master plan in 2020. So on one hand they paint him as a master conspirator (how he won the election, financial dealings with China, promoting "wokeism") while at the same time trying to claim he is senile and incompetent. It's crazy when you put the two things side by side -- of course, then it is hand waved away by "handlers," without ever explaining how his "handlers" benefit from some of the financial and other claims.
The law hasn't applied to powerful political figures in this country since Bill Clinton was in office, if not before. Do you think for one instant that if you or I had been instrumental in the decisions that Hillary Clinton made when she left Americans to die in Benghazi,
You do realize there were roughly seven Congressional hearing into Benghazi and none of them pointed to wrongdoing by Clinton? I'm really not sure what you think she could have been prosecuted for. And it is interesting that for all the claims of how Trump is mistreated, I'm not aware of seven investigations by Congress into a single Trump alleged misdeed.
or when she blatantly stole votes from Bernie Sanders in the New Hampshire primary, that we'd have gotten away with it? HA!
Didn't happen. That conspiracy is based on
exit polling data. If you are going to believe that one, then you have to want Pres. Bush indicted for "stealing" the 2004 election, where exit polls claimed Sen. Kerry was going to win.
But she got away with it, didn't she?
Again, what prosecutable law is there that Hillary could be charged with. And if you are going to claim "her emails," then you also need to be prepared for Trump, Biden, Pence, etc to also be indicted for mishandling of Classified information. The actual laws don't actually have penalties for that type of mishandling -- though I will agree that there should be.
How abaout all the dirt they have on Hunter Biden? Do you think anything will ever be done to him? Not a chance. But if you or I had done such things, they'd throw us under the jail.
I'm sorry, what evidence do you have on Hunter Biden? From what I've seen, nothing on the laptop (by itself) can be prosecuted. Pictures are not evidence of wrongdoing -- if they were, we'd be locking up movie stars for "drug use" in movies. And this is a good thing, that we require Prosecutors to actually prove crimes, not just point to pictures and say that the substance has to be cocaine or some other illegal drug. The prosecutor working on the Hunter Biden case is a Republican appointed by Trump and, from everything I've seen, his investigation is not being interfered with. I think there will be charges brought, eventually, though I think most will be disappointed. I think they will be similar to the charges against Gen. Flynn (unregistered foreign lobbyist), with an additional gun charge.
We're on a death spiral already. Laws are ignored by the politicians, and scorned by the public; our traditions, history, morals, and values (the "glue" that holds any society together) are sneered at, and our children are taught to despise our system; our population is divided into hostile camps and utterly polarized from one another; our economy is so far in debt that we could never pay it back in the next ten million years,
And yet Trump is one that helped cause that debt. He increased the deficit, before Covid, over the levels that they were in the last years of Obama's presidency. In fact, the deficit was almost double after the Trump tax cuts were put into place, while he wanted to increase spending.
and the Congress thinks they best way to solve that is to borrow more money and go deeper into debt; and we are facing geopolitical rivals such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, Muslimdom, and most especially, Communist China, who present a very real and ever-increasing threat to us.
Interesting that the leaders Trump admired were China, Russia, North Korea. Also, that despite the tariffs on Chinese goods that Trump installed, that the trade deficit with China increased during Trump's presidency.
If we went to war with Communist China right now, it's a toss-up as to who might win. We have the better military and better equipment, but thanks to politicians like Biden, all of the best generals have been forcibly retired or have walked away in disgust, and our defense organs are run by a pack of Woke idiots who worry about gender pronouns instead of how to counter Chinese hypersonic missiles.
I agree. But I'm not going to hold my breath. As previously noted, if they don't have evidence against him, then they'll manufacture it, just like they did with the ludicrous "Russia collusion" fable.
It is interesting but, to the best of my knowledge, there was no investigation into "Russia collusion" run by Democrats. There were Congressional investigations by the Republican controlled House and Senate, and Trump's own DoJ appointed a Republican Special Prosecutor who was overseen by a Trump appointed Assistant Attorney General (an Assistant because the AG, Sessions, recused himself due to undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador.
We also know the Special Prosecutor (or, the FBI) never investigated Trump. We know this both because of the Mueller Report and because Trump "crowed" about how he was never the target of investigation. Regardless, the Special Prosecutor (and other investigations) found several ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians -- things like Trump's campaign manager giving their polling data to the Russians, and the meeting in Trump Tower with what was alleged to be "Russian agents" (per the email Don, Jr. received). That doesn't necessarily mean there was a crime but there was clear cause to investigate.
Meanwhile, the Congressional Left could gang-rape a hundred cloistered nuns on the front lawn of the Capitol building at high noon on the 4th of July, all while shooting puppies in the head with target pistols and throwing the blood on parents of children who oppose drag queen story hours, and it would all be ignored. The media couldn't care less.
You are definitely wrong about this. What the "media" loves more than anything is scandal -- by either side. And don't forget, there is plenty of "right wing" media -- Fox, the Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Washington Times, Newsmax, etc. I'm guessing you'll bring up "but Hunter" -- but it is worth noting that it was the Wall Street Journal and Fox News that were the ones that initially refused to run the story, and their news divisions never really did report on it. Again, there is plenty that "looks bad" on the Hunter laptop but nothing that directly implicates anyone other than Hunter. Now, I'm guessing you'll respond "Bobulinsky said the 'big guy' was Joe," with the issue being that the author of that email claims Joe is not the "big guy" -- not to mention the fact, the laptop alone (without testimony and evidence providing context) does not prove any crime.
Last, even if Bobulinski was correct, the "Big guy" was Joe; there is no crime against a former Vice President making a business deal, even if it involves Chinese nationals; particularly when the deal fell through (there was no money earned). But, again, there is no real evidence that Joe Biden was involved in any of Hunter's business dealings. In fact, realizing that, the "right-wing media" has quit trying to claim Joe was involved but, instead, has changed their coverage to "Biden family" deals -- meaning Biden's children -- but using the term to try and make it appear Joe was involved.
But Trump? Ah, yes. Trump could possibly run for re-election. And if he were permitted to do that, then there is a possibility, however slim, that he might (GASP!) actually win----and as I stated before, that cannot, must not, be permitted to happen. Trump has to be taken out of the picture before he can launch another campaign, so the Left can rest easy as they shred the Constitution. That's all this indictment is about. It's the only thing it's about.
I thought Trump was running for reelection? In fact, it would seem that the main reason for announcing his candidacy so early was specifically because he knew the indictments were coming, and he wanted to be able to use his candidacy as a type of "immunity" from prosecution.
And let's be honest, neither side is particularly good at "following" the Constitution. Trump was overruled a few times by the Supreme Court. And let's not forget his scheme to have Pence count the Electoral votes from swing states that were properly certified by those states, and
instead use slates of Trump Electors, sent in from the states by agents of the Trump campaign. In essence, Trump wanted to "shred the Constitution" to make himself the President after losing an election.
www.oursundayvisitor.com
