President Trump

DELACROIX

In the Spirit of Honore' Daumier
Well, looks like Fulton County DA Willis can choose to fire Nathan Wade from the Georgia RICO case involving Trump's attempt to interfere in the 2020 election there. The case will march on.

I just wanna find... 11,780... votes (he says "votes" with disgust in his voice)

I believe she has the choice, fire her ex lover or step down…tough decision…?

If she stays on the case it will still be the same 🤡 show as before. She has the integrity of a rattlesnake from now on, still going to use her angry black woman defense when confronted.. bye, bye Wade…

:salute:
 

oldngray

nowhere special
I believe she has the choice, fire her ex lover or step down…tough decision…?

If she stays on the case it will still be the same 🤡 show as before. She has the integrity of a rattlesnake from now on, still going to use her angry black woman defense when confronted.. bye, bye Wade…

:salute:
The judge had to try to straddle the fence because he will be up for re-election and would get primaried if he completely threw the case out. Fanni staying on the case only helps Trump if he later tries to get the whole case thrown out.
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
It's not the content, but the algorithms that monitor the content. The algorithms allow the provider to view your personal consumption and target you and your information. Should the government step in and protect your personal information and safe guard our country's cyber security? They're not looking to ban it, but make it safer for US consumption. I read somewhere that up to 7 million businesses us the platform as a tool to highlight their business. Better, not bigger!!
I’m sorry I was unaware anyone was forced to use it?

Oh wait, that’s right they’re not because I don’t have an account.

Like I’ve said numerous times, I’m really more concerned with what our own government and our own US businesses are doing with our information. Have you read about the OnStar issue? I’m pretty sure China isn’t causing my car insurance rates to go through the roof, with information, gathered that I did not allow.

 
1. It was a $150 donation in 2020.

2. The donation took place during Trump’s term in 2020 while McAfee was at the DOJ… he was not a sitting judge in GA. The election hadn’t even happened yet.

3. Georgia courts have held that nominal campaign contributions are an insufficient basis for judicial recusal. There's no conflict of interest.

4. McAfee was the head of the University of Georgia chapter of The Federalist Society. He’s a right winger and if anything would be more likely to be sympathetic to defendant Trump.

Please research before posting bad information.
 
All of this is distracting from the very credible accusation that Trump and others attempted to coerce Raffensberger and others to modify the popular vote in Georgia.

“I just wanna find… 11 thousand, 780… votes. Which is one more than we have.”

“So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”


Trump is a traitor to the country and its democracy.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
All of this is distracting from the very credible accusation that Trump and others attempted to coerce Raffensberger and others to modify the popular vote in Georgia.

“I just wanna find… 11 thousand, 780… votes. Which is one more than we have.”
He never asked Raffensberger to manufacture votes. I've seen the transcript.
 
He never asked Raffensberger to manufacture votes. I've seen the transcript.
“There’s a whole thing where the ballots but the ballots are corrupt and you’re going to find that they are, which is totally illegal. It’s, it’s more illegal for you than it is for them, because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s just, you know, that’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And, you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s, that’s a big risk to you and to Ryan.”

This fat orange prick was threatening the Attorney General, dude.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
It's not the content, but the algorithms that monitor the content. The algorithms allow the provider to view your personal consumption and target you and your information. Should the government step in and protect your personal information and safe guard our country's cyber security? They're not looking to ban it, but make it safer for US consumption. I read somewhere that up to 7 million businesses us the platform as a tool to highlight their business. Better, not bigger!!
I want information coming across my feed tailored to my personal likes. A teenage girl in Los Angeles would want to see things tailored to her likes, not mine. Facebook for example wouldn't be in business if everyone was looking at the exact same thing over and over. Would get old quick. I like camping. Get ads for interesting new gear all the time. Someone who never camps probably has no desire to see it.

China may be gathering data, but it's the content that's affecting kids. Supposedly Tik Tok is pretty innocent and educational in China. They don't allow the kind of brain rot our kids are getting. So the issue should be not only what information are they gathering that could possibly be used against us but also how the content may be affecting impressionable young minds.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
“So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”
Saw the whole transcript several times. He never asked Raffensberger to manufacture votes. He was asking for a recount to make sure the vote count was accurate. Trump's biggest problem is he opens himself up to this kind of stuff by talking too much. Can easily have things taken out of context. The other day he said he would look at reducing Social Security and Medicare. But that was taken out of context. He was talking about reducing the fraud in the system. But of course Democrats pounced on part of his statement. This is exactly why lawyers tell their clients to clam up and let the lawyers handle it. Trump's ego gets in the way.
 
Saw the whole transcript several times. He never asked Raffensberger to manufacture votes. He was asking for a recount to make sure the vote count was accurate. Trump's biggest problem is he opens himself up to this kind of stuff by talking too much. Can easily have things taken out of context. The other day he said he would look at reducing Social Security and Medicare. But that was taken out of context. He was talking about reducing the fraud in the system. But of course Democrats pounced on part of his statement. This is exactly why lawyers tell their clients to clam up and let the lawyers handle it. Trump's ego gets in the way.
THEY RECOUNTED THE DAMN STATE 3 TIMES
 

Thebrownblob

Well-Known Member
“There’s a whole thing where the ballots but the ballots are corrupt and you’re going to find that they are, which is totally illegal. It’s, it’s more illegal for you than it is for them, because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s just, you know, that’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And, you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s, that’s a big risk to you and to Ryan.”

This fat orange prick was threatening the Attorney General, dude.
Dude, you went from Trump ask him to manufacture votes, to Trump threatened him? I’ve read that thing three times over now and I don’t see either.. what could Trump possibly have done if nothing was wrong anyway?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
So Raffensberger had nothing to worry about? I don’t see the problem, never once did he say “manufacturer votes for me” if they recounted and Trump lost too bad for Trump right?
It's BS charges coordinated with the White House in an attempt to keep Trump from being reelected. All these trials are BS. Waited until the year before the election to file charges, stretching statutes in ways never used before. "Saving democracy" by burning down democracy.
 
Top