Daily Mail
*The AI renditions are flattering seeing that the real tRump has 75 to 100 lbs. on AI tRump.

BREAKING: Potential earthquake coming in Mar-a-Lago documents case. DC Circuit sets unprecedented schedule requiring Trump counsel to submit filing by midnight TONIGHT and then DOJ to reply by 6 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Did the court see evidence of national security threats?

— Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) March 22, 2023

Never heard of a briefing schedule like that. There is an odor of treason and espionage in the air. tRump may be indicted, tried, convicted and executed by lethal injection at the United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute.

Trump promised he would be arrested on Tuesday.
Another broken promise.
Another lie.

tRump holes up in Mar a Lago preparing for arrest:

oski003 said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Please let go down peacefully… this country is a fricking powder keg ready to blow us all away

---

Our enemies use Tik Tok to divide us and useful idiots eat up the firehose of falsehoods.

---

Wow you are really drinking the kool aide

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

More to the point, it's not clear that Trump would even have known about how his subordinates booked the reimbursement of Cohen i.e., he may not even have been criminally complicit in the false accounting, much less have acted with the intention of concealing some (potential but unclear) New York crime. More believable is that Trump assuming he was involved in the bookkeeping at all was not trying to conceal a crime; he was trying to conceal an extramarital fling with a porn star (or, at least, a fling that she claims they had). That would be a cover-up of something that is personally humiliating but not criminal. That is, it would be a textbook example of why people and companies execute nondisclosure agreements all the time.

---

I'm not super read into the potential indictment but I don't understand this defense at all. Trump has incredible access to pools of dark money. He could easily have found a lawyer or someone else to pay off his mistress - it's not like this is the first time he's had to do it. There are rumors he used Eliot Broidy to pay off a playmate that he knocked up which may or may not be true but easily could have been true. He could have had one of his dirtbag kids pay off Stormy or, you know, just had Cohen do it on Trump's behalf instead of through the Trump Org. Remember, the Trump org was convicted of improperly giving untaxed benefits - no one could seriously pretend that Trump or his org was on the "up and up." We're also talking about a guy who cashed checks from Mad Magazine for less than a dollar - the dude is incredibly cheap and regularly stiffs people. He isn't the kind of guy who doesn't know or care where money is going.

There is close to zero chance that Cohen accidentally used company funds for this instead of Trump's personal funds and given how complicated Trump's personal finances are there is zero chance that paying this out of his personal funds would have increased the likelihood of this affair coming to light. Do you really think Melania is at home with her readers going through their monthly finances and asking "Donald, vat's this payment for - was it the golden toilet or did you pay off another *****?"

By the way, for someone who doesn't like Trump, you go to amazing lengths to defend him.

---

You went to law school -- you know that many crimes (including the one he's being charged for) require mens rea. To be a felony, they have to prove that Trump had specific intent as to how the accounting entry would be booked with the concurrent intention of concealing another crime. If his intention was to avoid political or personal embarrassment (which clearly seems to be the case and is not criminal by all reasonable accounts), then he had no intent to conceal a separate crime. Therefore the only possible charge is a misdemeanor (barred by SOL).

---

So you are a professed Trump hater who is bending over backwards to defend his lack of mens rea? Are you from the future where this has been adjudicated? How can you possibly know what his state of mind was? And how in the world is there any connection between his potential embarrassment and the way he reimbursed Cohen for paying someone off?

I just don't understand why you are going out of your way to make definitive claims in Trump's favor on something that you don't seem to have any personal knowledge of. I don't think you've said anything to make anyone think that it's more likely that Trump was handling it this way to save himself embarrassment and not to cheat on his taxes. Do you really think he's so virtuous that he couldn't possibly have the mens rea required here?

But please tell us how prosecuting Trump for felonies will all of the sudden cause Republicans to start prosecuting felonies - as if they weren't already weaponizing the criminal justice system against their enemies. Let me guess, after this Ron DeSantis is going to have the Florida legislature do his bidding to attack his political enemies. Disney better watch out. Ooops too late. Do we really need to pretend like the GOP is just waiting for Trump to be held accountable for crimes he's committed before they weaponize every institution they control? Is anyone that disingenuous?

---

I know its hard for you to fathom actual principles since your only principle is defending your tribe. But it is not just me who has criticized (in your words "bending over backwards") the rumored indictment. Lots of never trumpers like David French and David Frum have criticized it. Liberal law professors have criticized it (https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/new-york-indict-trump-soon-case-riskier-appears-rcna75324)
The NY times has questioned it https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/nyregion/trump-potential-indictment-criminal-charges.html. Andrew McCarthy is anti-trump for the most part.

In fact, the "mainstream" opinion is that the indictment is a pretty significant legal overreach and very likely will backfire on a political level (unless you want Trump to be the 2024 candidate). And there is no doubt that these charges on such a strained theory would only be pursued against Trump and no one else.

And I've made no "definitive" claims in Trump's favor other than the widely held belief that the charges are very thin. Again, all of the links above, posted from a variety of political persuasions, support that. The person bending over backwards here is you - claiming to not understand mens rea which is literally the first thing we learned in first year Criminal law classes at law school.

---

You've claimed Trump didn't have the necessary mens rea for the supposed charges despite you not knowing what his mental state is and you've claimed that no one would ever be charged with the crime he hasn't yet been charged with (and that is related to the charge which Michael Cohen was convicted of and served prison time for).

If that's not bending over backwards to defend him, I don't know what is.

Rather than make all of these conclusions about a charge that hasn't been made and for which we don't have any inkling of the prosecution's case or evidence, why don't we let the criminal justice system play out and see whether you still think that it's abusive.

What I think is silly is pretending that the GOP will respond in kind to any "abuse" by democrats, as if the GOP has ever needed an excuse to act in bad faith. We heard this week that the Texas Lt Gov interfered in the Iran hostage crisis to damage Ford's election chances and help Reagan. Numerous GOPers interfered in the 2020 election to support Trump and thwart the free and fair election. I get that you want to pretend like if the democrats do anything wrong they will have to suffer the disproportionate response coming from the GOP but the GOP has never needed to wait for democrat wrongdoing to take anti-democratic actions. I've seen enough Charlie Brown to know that Lucy isn't going to let him kick the football and hardly find your slippery slope arguments persuasive. The bad actors in the GOP don't need any excuses to do the bad things they've been doing for decades and if this is a bad prosecution of Trump it won't cause the GOP to do any more bad stuff than they've already done.

And let's be honest, this isn't going to impact Trump's electability. Pitchbot said it best.

As for me, I will enjoy seeing Trump defenders like you continue to bend over backwards to defend him no matter how bad his actions are.

---

I and many, many, many other people (including liberals) have claimed the prosecution can't prove he has the necessary mens rea and that the case is horribly flawed. Not just me. Weird that so many confirmed liberals and never trumpers are "bending over backwards" to criticize the NY prosecution and legal theory. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe it is because I'm right and you're TDS infected thinking is wrong.

I noticed you dodged my question. Since you apparently condemn DeSantis' treatment of Disney, do you similarly condemn California's treatment of Walgreens, Uber/gig companies, and other states' that don't conform to CA's "right thinking" LGBTQ policies? Are you principled or just a partisan?

---

How do you (and the many, many, many other people) have a reasonable basis to conclude that Trump didn't have the necessary mens rea? Have you spoken to him? Have you seen the evidence?

Or are you and all of these people arguing that the prosecution just can't prove it? I can't speak to everyone's argument, but I know yours is bad because you have provided no reasonable justification for it.

I don't know whether Trump will be charged, what the charge will be, what evidence the prosecution has of his wrongdoing or what his defenses will be. I find the breathless defenses of his criminality and the attacks on the prosecution to be incredibly partisan.

I understand that conservatives believe Trump should be above the law and that some liberals may think that given his numerous crimes, the first one he's prosecuted on should be higher level, but I don't prescribe to that view. People need to have faith in our criminal justice system. It has been said that the only reason the feds didn't prosecute Trump for the hush money payment fraud was because Bill Barr wouldn't let them do it. But now disingenuous people are using that corrupt action by Barr to pretend like this isn't a real crime or that he should be immune from prosecution.

Trump is a private citizen and should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. I know that Cohen went to jail for crimes related to the crime that Trump is being investigated for. I don't think the fact that people hate Trump means that he can't be prosecuted and I can't believe anyone would seriously take that position. I will go you one further, if any Biden has committed a crime and a prosecutor can prove it, that Biden should have to defend themself like any other person who has been prosecuted for a crime. If this prosecution is solely politically motivated and Trump can easily beat the rap, then you will get what you want - your favorite guy will go free and he will have evidence of wrongful prosecution. Getting out in front of the prosecution, as you've done, when you appear to have no basis for doing so, is unpersuasive, to say the least. Saying that a partisan can't prosecute someone for a crime would basically eliminate Texas and Florida from enforcing the law.

As for your other questions, I think Walgreens' behavior is disappointing but they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the pressure from sharia-law loving extremist christian theocrats threatening to sue if they dispense lawfully prescribed medication. In using California's market power to remove a contract from Walgreens, Newsom is almost stooping to the level of these radical theocrats, but not quite as bad because this is a relatively small contract and he's not preventing Walgreens from the lawful performance of their business. Newsom is just choosing to have this impact his vendor procurement process. Overall I'm not supportive of Newsom leveraging this situation but unlike you I won't make the false equivalence to DeSantis' treatment of Disney. Pretending like they are equivalent and ignoring that Newsom is acting in response to radical christian theocrats abusing the legal system to attack a lawful business is an incredibly partisan view.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with Uber/gig companies - Prop 22? I'm not a believer in Prop 22 (or the proposition system in its entirety) but I don't think there is any equivalence between the outcome of direct democracy and what extremist GOPers are doing through executive action to strip rights from their citizens. Another good example is MS instituting a new court system and police force to punish black people in Jackson.

---

I said that many, many, many people of all political persuasions think the charges are thin, if not bogus. The prosecutor literally ran for office on the promise to get Trump.

It is not just the mens rea issue. It is the fact that, according to reports the prosecutors were "bending over backwards" (your preferred formulation, it seems) to fabricate the requisite second crime (resorting to federal campaign violations that were rejected by the FEC). It is the fact that the case relies on the testimony of Cohen who is a convicted perjurer. The case, as a WHOLE, and for a variety of reasons, is weak and flawed. This is not in dispute outside of the far left circles you travel in.

The comparison I made was between DeSantis/Disney and AB 5, the union supported law that targeted UBer and other gig companies for "punishment." The sponsor of AB 5 was a union hack (now literally working for the union) that specifically targetd Desantis got the Florida legislature to adopt legislation and used executive actions to target Disney because he didn't like Disney's policies and statements. CA is doing the exact same thing in targeting disfavored companies with AB 5, targeting Walgreens because of abortion pills, and targeting

And your "false equivalence" analysis is so laughable. It literally is just you saying the policy/consequence you like is more important than the one you don't. If you want to measure equivalence, I think the better argument is that denying a special benefit to Disney (which is what DeSantis did) is far less egregious that denying Walgreens the equal right to contract with the state as a medical provider. DeSantis didn't bar Disney from doing business with the state which is the direct comparison with what CA does with Walgreens (and LGBTQ states, etc.). But at the end of the day, I oppose all of these things. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to use magical beans to rationalize the outcomes I like under a "false equivalency" argument.

oski003 said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Please let go down peacefully… this country is a fricking powder keg ready to blow us all away

---

Our enemies use Tik Tok to divide us and useful idiots eat up the firehose of falsehoods.

---

What do our enemies use people like Donald tRump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Michael Flynn for?

The Walls WERE closing in.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

More to the point, it's not clear that Trump would even have known about how his subordinates booked the reimbursement of Cohen i.e., he may not even have been criminally complicit in the false accounting, much less have acted with the intention of concealing some (potential but unclear) New York crime. More believable is that Trump assuming he was involved in the bookkeeping at all was not trying to conceal a crime; he was trying to conceal an extramarital fling with a porn star (or, at least, a fling that she claims they had). That would be a cover-up of something that is personally humiliating but not criminal. That is, it would be a textbook example of why people and companies execute nondisclosure agreements all the time.

---

I'm not super read into the potential indictment but I don't understand this defense at all. Trump has incredible access to pools of dark money. He could easily have found a lawyer or someone else to pay off his mistress - it's not like this is the first time he's had to do it. There are rumors he used Eliot Broidy to pay off a playmate that he knocked up which may or may not be true but easily could have been true. He could have had one of his dirtbag kids pay off Stormy or, you know, just had Cohen do it on Trump's behalf instead of through the Trump Org. Remember, the Trump org was convicted of improperly giving untaxed benefits - no one could seriously pretend that Trump or his org was on the "up and up." We're also talking about a guy who cashed checks from Mad Magazine for less than a dollar - the dude is incredibly cheap and regularly stiffs people. He isn't the kind of guy who doesn't know or care where money is going.

There is close to zero chance that Cohen accidentally used company funds for this instead of Trump's personal funds and given how complicated Trump's personal finances are there is zero chance that paying this out of his personal funds would have increased the likelihood of this affair coming to light. Do you really think Melania is at home with her readers going through their monthly finances and asking "Donald, vat's this payment for - was it the golden toilet or did you pay off another *****?"

By the way, for someone who doesn't like Trump, you go to amazing lengths to defend him.

---

You went to law school -- you know that many crimes (including the one he's being charged for) require mens rea. To be a felony, they have to prove that Trump had specific intent as to how the accounting entry would be booked with the concurrent intention of concealing another crime. If his intention was to avoid political or personal embarrassment (which clearly seems to be the case and is not criminal by all reasonable accounts), then he had no intent to conceal a separate crime. Therefore the only possible charge is a misdemeanor (barred by SOL).

---

So you are a professed Trump hater who is bending over backwards to defend his lack of mens rea? Are you from the future where this has been adjudicated? How can you possibly know what his state of mind was? And how in the world is there any connection between his potential embarrassment and the way he reimbursed Cohen for paying someone off?

I just don't understand why you are going out of your way to make definitive claims in Trump's favor on something that you don't seem to have any personal knowledge of. I don't think you've said anything to make anyone think that it's more likely that Trump was handling it this way to save himself embarrassment and not to cheat on his taxes. Do you really think he's so virtuous that he couldn't possibly have the mens rea required here?

But please tell us how prosecuting Trump for felonies will all of the sudden cause Republicans to start prosecuting felonies - as if they weren't already weaponizing the criminal justice system against their enemies. Let me guess, after this Ron DeSantis is going to have the Florida legislature do his bidding to attack his political enemies. Disney better watch out. Ooops too late. Do we really need to pretend like the GOP is just waiting for Trump to be held accountable for crimes he's committed before they weaponize every institution they control? Is anyone that disingenuous?

---

I know its hard for you to fathom actual principles since your only principle is defending your tribe. But it is not just me who has criticized (in your words "bending over backwards") the rumored indictment. Lots of never trumpers like David French and David Frum have criticized it. Liberal law professors have criticized it (https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/new-york-indict-trump-soon-case-riskier-appears-rcna75324)
The NY times has questioned it https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/nyregion/trump-potential-indictment-criminal-charges.html. Andrew McCarthy is anti-trump for the most part.

In fact, the "mainstream" opinion is that the indictment is a pretty significant legal overreach and very likely will backfire on a political level (unless you want Trump to be the 2024 candidate). And there is no doubt that these charges on such a strained theory would only be pursued against Trump and no one else.

And I've made no "definitive" claims in Trump's favor other than the widely held belief that the charges are very thin. Again, all of the links above, posted from a variety of political persuasions, support that. The person bending over backwards here is you - claiming to not understand mens rea which is literally the first thing we learned in first year Criminal law classes at law school.

---

You've claimed Trump didn't have the necessary mens rea for the supposed charges despite you not knowing what his mental state is and you've claimed that no one would ever be charged with the crime he hasn't yet been charged with (and that is related to the charge which Michael Cohen was convicted of and served prison time for).

If that's not bending over backwards to defend him, I don't know what is.

Rather than make all of these conclusions about a charge that hasn't been made and for which we don't have any inkling of the prosecution's case or evidence, why don't we let the criminal justice system play out and see whether you still think that it's abusive.

What I think is silly is pretending that the GOP will respond in kind to any "abuse" by democrats, as if the GOP has ever needed an excuse to act in bad faith. We heard this week that the Texas Lt Gov interfered in the Iran hostage crisis to damage Ford's election chances and help Reagan. Numerous GOPers interfered in the 2020 election to support Trump and thwart the free and fair election. I get that you want to pretend like if the democrats do anything wrong they will have to suffer the disproportionate response coming from the GOP but the GOP has never needed to wait for democrat wrongdoing to take anti-democratic actions. I've seen enough Charlie Brown to know that Lucy isn't going to let him kick the football and hardly find your slippery slope arguments persuasive. The bad actors in the GOP don't need any excuses to do the bad things they've been doing for decades and if this is a bad prosecution of Trump it won't cause the GOP to do any more bad stuff than they've already done.

And let's be honest, this isn't going to impact Trump's electability. Pitchbot said it best.

I have never been a supporter of Donald Trump, but if he is indicted this week, I will have no choice but to vote for him for the third time.

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) March 19, 2023

As for me, I will enjoy seeing Trump defenders like you continue to bend over backwards to defend him no matter how bad his actions are.

---

I and many, many, many other people (including liberals) have claimed the prosecution can't prove he has the necessary mens rea and that the case is horribly flawed. Not just me. Weird that so many confirmed liberals and never trumpers are "bending over backwards" to criticize the NY prosecution and legal theory. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe it is because I'm right and you're TDS infected thinking is wrong.

I noticed you dodged my question. Since you apparently condemn DeSantis' treatment of Disney, do you similarly condemn California's treatment of Walgreens, Uber/gig companies, and other states' that don't conform to CA's "right thinking" LGBTQ policies? Are you principled or just a partisan?

---

How do you (and the many, many, many other people) have a reasonable basis to conclude that Trump didn't have the necessary mens rea? Have you spoken to him? Have you seen the evidence?

Or are you and all of these people arguing that the prosecution just can't prove it? I can't speak to everyone's argument, but I know yours is bad because you have provided no reasonable justification for it.

I don't know whether Trump will be charged, what the charge will be, what evidence the prosecution has of his wrongdoing or what his defenses will be. I find the breathless defenses of his criminality and the attacks on the prosecution to be incredibly partisan.

I understand that conservatives believe Trump should be above the law and that some liberals may think that given his numerous crimes, the first one he's prosecuted on should be higher level, but I don't prescribe to that view. People need to have faith in our criminal justice system. It has been said that the only reason the feds didn't prosecute Trump for the hush money payment fraud was because Bill Barr wouldn't let them do it. But now disingenuous people are using that corrupt action by Barr to pretend like this isn't a real crime or that he should be immune from prosecution.

Trump is a private citizen and should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. I know that Cohen went to jail for crimes related to the crime that Trump is being investigated for. I don't think the fact that people hate Trump means that he can't be prosecuted and I can't believe anyone would seriously take that position. I will go you one further, if any Biden has committed a crime and a prosecutor can prove it, that Biden should have to defend themself like any other person who has been prosecuted for a crime. If this prosecution is solely politically motivated and Trump can easily beat the rap, then you will get what you want - your favorite guy will go free and he will have evidence of wrongful prosecution. Getting out in front of the prosecution, as you've done, when you appear to have no basis for doing so, is unpersuasive, to say the least. Saying that a partisan can't prosecute someone for a crime would basically eliminate Texas and Florida from enforcing the law.

As for your other questions, I think Walgreens' behavior is disappointing but they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the pressure from sharia-law loving extremist christian theocrats threatening to sue if they dispense lawfully prescribed medication. In using California's market power to remove a contract from Walgreens, Newsom is almost stooping to the level of these radical theocrats, but not quite as bad because this is a relatively small contract and he's not preventing Walgreens from the lawful performance of their business. Newsom is just choosing to have this impact his vendor procurement process. Overall I'm not supportive of Newsom leveraging this situation but unlike you I won't make the false equivalence to DeSantis' treatment of Disney. Pretending like they are equivalent and ignoring that Newsom is acting in response to radical christian theocrats abusing the legal system to attack a lawful business is an incredibly partisan view.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with Uber/gig companies - Prop 22? I'm not a believer in Prop 22 (or the proposition system in its entirety) but I don't think there is any equivalence between the outcome of direct democracy and what extremist GOPers are doing through executive action to strip rights from their citizens. Another good example is MS instituting a new court system and police force to punish black people in Jackson.

---

I said that many, many, many people of all political persuasions think the charges are thin, if not bogus. The prosecutor literally ran for office on the promise to get Trump.

It is not just the mens rea issue. It is the fact that, according to reports the prosecutors were "bending over backwards" (your preferred formulation, it seems) to fabricate the requisite second crime (resorting to federal campaign violations that were rejected by the FEC). It is the fact that the case relies on the testimony of Cohen who is a convicted perjurer. The case, as a WHOLE, and for a variety of reasons, is weak and flawed. This is not in dispute outside of the far left circles you travel in.

The comparison I made was between DeSantis/Disney and AB 5, the union supported law that targeted UBer and other gig companies for "punishment." The sponsor of AB 5 was a union hack (now literally working for the union) that specifically targetd Desantis got the Florida legislature to adopt legislation and used executive actions to target Disney because he didn't like Disney's policies and statements. CA is doing the exact same thing in targeting disfavored companies with AB 5, targeting Walgreens because of abortion pills, and targeting

And your "false equivalence" analysis is so laughable. It literally is just you saying the policy/consequence you like is more important than the one you don't. If you want to measure equivalence, I think the better argument is that denying a special benefit to Disney (which is what DeSantis did) is far less egregious that denying Walgreens the equal right to contract with the state as a medical provider. DeSantis didn't bar Disney from doing business with the state which is the direct comparison with what CA does with Walgreens (and LGBTQ states, etc.). But at the end of the day, I oppose all of these things. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to use magical beans to rationalize the outcomes I like under a "false equivalency" argument.

---

I'm not sure what happened but your post was garbled and unintelligible in parts.

AB5 codified Dynamex. Worker classification is a mess in California but comparing that to Desantis' treatment of Disney because Disney commented on anti LGBTQ legislation is a false equivalence. It's not even close.

And pretending that Walgreens can no longer do business in California is just bizarre. Newsom took a relatively small contract (compared to Walgreens scale of business in CA) and moved it elsewhere. You can argue it's petty but it's small potatoes compared to what Desantis tried to do to Disney. I conceded I wasn't a fan of Newsom's action but you still are disingenuously making your claim.

As for all of your claims about the prosecution of Trump in NYC which still hasn't happened, I think it's clear that you are making some pretty big assumptions and using bad faith evidence. Bill Barr corruptly prevented Trump from being investigated and prosecuted. Pretending like any prosecution at the state level is invalid due to that corrupt non-prosecution is ridiculous.

As far as my being "far left", you simply don't have a leg to stand on. I have a pretty simple view here - Trump should be treated under the law like everyone else. Cohen, his closest business associate for over a decade, went to jail over this. Calling out that he's a crook doesn't make Trump look innocent - their criminality isn't independent.

And most of the far left criticizing this prosecution are really just saying that this prosecution opens the door to disingenuous bad faith criticism like we are seeing from you. Hardly a valid reason for a declension unless you think Trump or other powerful people are above the law.

NY has prosecuted similar crimes before as have other states. If the facts don't support the charges, the state will lose the case and Trump will benefit from it. You should be happy as a Trump supporter if that happens. This is really a self-correcting situation. Whatever the outcome will be it will be and people will have to deal with it. I'm not going to sit here and criticize a prosecution that hasn't happened because people who don't have the evidence in front of them have been convinced by politically motivated people that t's a bad case.

If anything, law enforcement in our country is too scared to prosecute powerful people because they want to keep an unblemished record. That means they go after every poor person of color they can while letting rich and powerful people hire fancy lawyers to remain above the law. You seem to support that system whereas I do not.

going4roses said:

---

Do you want a whole country doing a Jan 6 cross burning ?

---

I'll allow the honorable bearister to answer as to what should be the punishment for any violent trump supporters who may cross that line.