Yes but your opinion isn't based in fact or understanding of the case so more than likely its reflexive partisanship rather than a serious take based on the facts of the matter.
Yes they can be but that doesn't mean they necessarily are, you understand that right?
And I totally disagree that we should just let Trump get away with trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power like you're advocating for and that Dems would be gravely in the wrong to do so.
What rhetoric did Merrick Garland or Jack Smith engage in that makes you think the Jan 6th indictment was political? You're not even aware of the most basic facts of this case and yet you have this level of confidence? Don't you have any humility about your own admitted lack of knowledge here? Doesn't seem like you're even slightly interested in the possiblity that you're wrong or even the facts of the matter in general.
Yeah and that's bad, somehow my saying that is wrong? You're not bothered that a guy got away with trying to steal an election?
They didn’t “let” him win.
Depends on the purpose. For licensing eligibility, background checks etc, you don't have a conviction on your record until after sentencing, it's just open charges. Conversationally, which was all this was for anyway, people can just use being found guilty as "convicted" even though it wouldn't show up as that on a background check.
That's not what I said, I asked what rhetoric did he or Jack Smith engage in that suggests to you that the decision to charge Trump was politically motivated here and so far you haven't produced a shred of evidence that there was any such political motivation. In fact you've admitted to being more or less completely ignorant about the relevant facts of the matter and yet you speak with such confidence on the case.
The details are relevant though because given how egregious his crimes were it makes complete sense that the DOJ would try to hold him accountable absent any political motivation, if anything they might have been politically motivated in the opposite direction as they might've been weary about bringing charges against a former president until it was too late.
If Yellowstone Erupts I'm glad I'm one of the first off the big rock. No post apocalypse for me.
No I didn't. Garland is a moderate if anything. He was chosen by Obama as a nominee to the SCOTUS for that reason and he was chosen by Biden to head the DOJ for that reason as well. But it doesn't matter because people like you will say whatever they do is political regardless.
So in other words, no you can't point to any rhetoric that would suggest political motivated by either Jack Smith or Merrick Garland? Also I asked you this earlier and you didn't respond directly
You understand that just because something might be politically motivated that doesn't mean it necessarily is right?
I love how flippant you are about the idea of citing evidence to support our opinions. Yeah who would ever think of doing that?
Yes you are speaking with confidence, you're taking for granted that the Jack Smith indictment was politically motivated despite being more or less completely ignorant of all the relevant facts of the matter and not only that you're acting like its weird that I won't concede to your baseless opinion.
Why in the actual fuck would you be content to accept that you live in a nation where you can evade prosecution for crimes for which you are clearly guilty just by running for office?
Thanks for the feedback and few things I didnt know. Yeah we agree on the political reasoning for it all. I'm just saying that he would in fact be a conviction and most of america didn't buy it.
It has nothing to do with "contentness". It has to do with what's actually achievable. I can't stand Trump, I'll be glad when he's gone. But he's here, my life goes on, and rehashing the shit from 2020 isn't gonna remove him from office.
